Roland recently introduced the Juno Gi as a successor and latest product offering.
Any ideas how the M50 scores over it?
In general if one was to compare the Roland boards and the Korg boards which would fare better?
Thanks for valuable inputs.
Roland Juno Gi
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
A link to the features:
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2010/ ... nthesizer/
Pros:
It seems that you can record directly to wav or mp3, so you dont´need any computer.
128 voices polyphony is awsome.
1300 patches, a bit more than Korg M50
Cons:
No touch screen.
No sequencer. Only 8 audio tracks.
It seems you can´t tweak the patches as deep as the M50.
The most important. Its a keyboard for live, not as a workstation in studio.
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2010/ ... nthesizer/
Pros:
It seems that you can record directly to wav or mp3, so you dont´need any computer.
128 voices polyphony is awsome.
1300 patches, a bit more than Korg M50
Cons:
No touch screen.
No sequencer. Only 8 audio tracks.
It seems you can´t tweak the patches as deep as the M50.
The most important. Its a keyboard for live, not as a workstation in studio.
100% hardware made. All is done in a Korg M50 internal sequencer. Now updated (7/09/12) at http://www.hispasonic.com/akmon
-
Kim Lajoie
- Full Member
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:53 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Interesting. This seems to be consistent with Roland's direction. I think generally:
Roland are focussing on sampling and recording. The Juno G and Gi feature sampling and recording - even though they're mid-level workstations. The Fantom series have the biggest screens for sequencing.
Yamaha are focussing on realistic instruments. Their latest architecture allows huge amount of samples (almost 3GB on the XF) and their synth architecture includes keyswitches for multiple articulations and round robin playback. Their wave ROMs also have masses of guitar articulations and realistic strumming arps.
Korg are focussing on synth capabilities. The EDS architecture includes native unison detune, polyphonic overdrive, the most flexible modulation (by far) and the most flexible effects implementation. There's also the Radias expansion for the M3, which is pretty unique these days (Yamaha discontinued their synth plugin boards recently).
It's an interesting time, and I'm glad we're getting more differentiation between the big three.
-Kim.
Roland are focussing on sampling and recording. The Juno G and Gi feature sampling and recording - even though they're mid-level workstations. The Fantom series have the biggest screens for sequencing.
Yamaha are focussing on realistic instruments. Their latest architecture allows huge amount of samples (almost 3GB on the XF) and their synth architecture includes keyswitches for multiple articulations and round robin playback. Their wave ROMs also have masses of guitar articulations and realistic strumming arps.
Korg are focussing on synth capabilities. The EDS architecture includes native unison detune, polyphonic overdrive, the most flexible modulation (by far) and the most flexible effects implementation. There's also the Radias expansion for the M3, which is pretty unique these days (Yamaha discontinued their synth plugin boards recently).
It's an interesting time, and I'm glad we're getting more differentiation between the big three.
-Kim.
True, though we must note that Yamaha and Korg will never compete with one another feature to feature (owing to the fact that Yamaha has the largest share holding of Korg), perhaps thats why Yamaha is more on emulating realistic sounds while leaving the synth stuff to Korg.
All in all i guess KORG rules...while Roland has some really good patches and more cosmetic features like direct recording (Honestly, dont know how often one might use this) the PC is inevitable towards the end i feel.
Audio playing capability to back up your performance is also cosmetic in my opinion, which can be easily achieved with cubase or garage band.
Yes Roland has crisp sounds, but i guess the M50 gives you ample freedom with the patches to flatten them or sharpen them the way you want.
To me it looks like the Roland Juno Gi is more stage ready..meaning well sculpted sounds ready to perform.
Ease of use, M50 in my opinion is above the rest.
Just my 2 cents.
All in all i guess KORG rules...while Roland has some really good patches and more cosmetic features like direct recording (Honestly, dont know how often one might use this) the PC is inevitable towards the end i feel.
Audio playing capability to back up your performance is also cosmetic in my opinion, which can be easily achieved with cubase or garage band.
Yes Roland has crisp sounds, but i guess the M50 gives you ample freedom with the patches to flatten them or sharpen them the way you want.
To me it looks like the Roland Juno Gi is more stage ready..meaning well sculpted sounds ready to perform.
Ease of use, M50 in my opinion is above the rest.
Just my 2 cents.
Not true... this is an old internet myth. Yamaha never had a majority or controlling share of Korg. They did have an investment in the early 90's but it was never a majority nor could they control Korg decisions. That situation changed ages ago and they hold no sway or control over Korg decisions. Nor do they even know what our plans are in advance.prkravi wrote:True, though we must note that Yamaha and Korg will never compete with one another feature to feature (owing to the fact that Yamaha has the largest share holding of Korg), perhaps thats why Yamaha is more on emulating realistic sounds while leaving the synth stuff to Korg.
regards,
Jerry
-
cminor
- Senior Member
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:53 am
- Location: Romania Bucharest
- Contact:
And the most convincing fact is: Korg and Yamaha had 100% different ROM Systems: HD/EDS... AWM (can't remember the last yamaha waveform system)jerrythek wrote: Not true... this is an old internet myth. Yamaha never had a majority or controlling share of Korg. They did have an investment in the early 90's but it was never a majority nor could they control Korg decisions. That situation changed ages ago and they hold no sway or control over Korg decisions. Nor do they even know what our plans are in advance.
regards,
Jerry
Both of them have evolved in different OS for the keyboards and other gear.
As I believe...
Korg M3-61, Korg i40m, Kurzweil SP76