Roland is Back! :)

[xmlguy]

Without trying to sound as if I am trying to indoctrinate anyone, I would point out that even the most "cliche" styles on many arrangers can often be transformed into uber coolness simply by altering tempo, the sounds for each part, and the effects. It's easy to turn almost any techno style on the PSR3000 into a NIN kinda groove, I've done it many times. This Bdog (BK-9 hehe i invented a nickname, clever me, let's pin a star on my ass) is clearly able to blow the 3000 to smithereens, so I expect it will be a very versatile exploration device for people like me

You're right, the styles are just midi that has been divided into parts that are linear (start,ending) or loops (mains, fills), that can follow chord changes. The midi content of the styles is completely user replaceable. What makes no sense to me is how and why the manufacturers decide that "arranger" users want certain features like styles and articulations, but don't want synth/workstation features like full synth editing and sampling. It would be nice to see a PA4KronosX (with a better software editor), but that would make too much sense.

[Sharp]

What makes no sense to me is how and why the manufacturers decide that "arranger" users want certain features like styles and articulations, but don't want synth/workstation features like full synth editing and sampling

KORG is the only one that doesn't do that. Their top end arrangers are full blown Arranger/Workstations and to be quite honest, they are more advanced than Workstation in some ways by a long shot.

The Pa3X uses a EDS sound engine and if my memory serves me correct, a single sound has 24 independent OSC's where anther EDS workstation like the M3 only has 2.

To try simulate that amount of flexibility on another EDS product like the M3 you would have to resort to using COMBI sounds in combination with programs design a specific way. But that's only to simulate a single Pa3X sound. On the Pa3X you have 3 uppers, so that's 3 times 24 OSC's all running independent. Then each part of the arranger can have a sound assigned just as complex.

Or you can have 16 sounds times 24 OSC's running in SEQ mode.

The Pa3X has DNC technology which can't even be found on any KORG Workstation, not even the KRONOS. Out of the box the Pa3X can put the KRONOS to shame for real world sounds. Odd but true.

Pa3X can record direct to Mp3. Has TC-Helicon Voice processor built in, phantom power, reads AKAI and KORG format samples, plus it can compress them. Works just as well as an external controller as a workstation does. Has motorised tillable screen. The Keyed is very high grade, and the keyboards build quality is that of a tank. It's way more solid than a KRONOS, by a long shot.

So when it comes to KORG, an arranger like the Pa3X, it's by no means a dumbed down product. It's a full on Workstation with an Arranger. Which also explains why they cost more.

There are something then it doesn't do that a workstation does, but it depends on what workstation your going to compare it to. KRONOS for example has 16 track HDR, where the Pa3X doesn't.

All in all, a Pa3X should be classed as a workstation because it's nothing like a Yamaha Tyros which is a machine designed for people who haven't got a clue about programming and don't want to know.

Regards
Sharp.

[cello]

Good summary Sharp - well, makes sense to me anyway! Tyros shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the PA3x. And whilst not for me, Roland must have good reasons for releasing their new arranger.

As I posted on another forum a few moments ago, it's worth noting that Musikmesse hasn't even started yet, so who knows what else is to emerge.

One thing's for sure however, it will be either very exciting or not interesting at all, such is the way of such things!

[jimknopf]

With all due respect, while arrangers may have well done natural sounds and articulations, I doubt that they are anywhere near the Kronos multi-engine concept until now.
And I also don't know any with the advanced user streaming concept of the Kronos.

On the other hand, if the best of both worlds will come together some day, I certainly won't object.

[Sharp]

With all due respect, while arrangers may have well done natural sounds and articulations, I doubt that they are anywhere near the Kronos multi-engine concept until now.

True, but there are also no workstations that compares to the KRONOS in that regard either. Well, none other than the OASYS.

And I also don't know any with the advanced user streaming concept of the Kronos

I also don't know of any other workstation that can do that either. (Excluding open solutions like OpenLabs and Lionstracs)

On the other hand, if the best of both worlds will come together some day, I certainly won't object.

Technically it's already happened. If you forget the OASYS and KRONOS exist for a moment, the Pa3X already has higher functionality and spec than most workstations on the market.

KORG are miles ahead of everyone in the Workstation and Arranger markets as far as technology goes. KRONOS is unmatched, and the Pa3X is unmatched.

Regards
Sharp.

[xmlguy]

Hi Sharp,

Yeah, I agree that the PA3X comes closest - as basically an M3 Arranger. But that's just one scenario: workstation features to arranger product. The opposite scenario, arranger features to workstation, isn't happening. Since when are articulations dependent on arranger features? They aren't. It makes no sense to bundle articulations onto arrangers and to refuse to make the best of them available on the workstation. I want the best realism on the workstation, and Kronos users aren't getting all of the best capability that Korg has to offer, and neither are PA3X users. Same goes for audio tracks, linear sequencing, Karma, styles, and arpeggiators - these are different yet complementary song and phrasing automations that are not mutually exclusive. I envision the possibility of loading a midi song, having a semi-automatic way of dividing into style parts to control it while playing live, with the ability to use Karmafied combis along with standard arpeggios with articulated voices or any of the Kronos synth engines. This integration doesn't exist in one Korg product. The features are scattered between two product lines. There could be one product to rule them all for a particular manufacturer, a grand unified keyboard.

[Jan1]

Or you can have 16 sounds times 24 OSC's running in SEQ mode.

That's a nice theoretical possibility, but with a 120-note polyphony restriction I'm afraid you won't get too far.

I never bothered to check out the PA3x, and I'm surprised how advanced it really is.
It clearly has grown beyond the idea I have of what an arranger is.
I guess its release was overshadowed by the KRONOS at the time.

I would not mind if KORG would incorporate some elements of the PA3x in a next workstation, like the tiltable screen, the Helicon voice processor, DNC.
And if they would simply port over the arranger styles of the PA3x for the sake of the arranger enthusiasts they would have a perfect hybrid appealing to a broad audience.

[Sharp]

Hi xmlguy

Yeah, I agree that the PA3X comes closest - as basically an M3 Arranger. But that's just one scenario: workstation features to arranger product.

Yes, and it's limited to just KORG. None of the other manufactures are doing this.

The opposite scenario, arranger features to workstation, isn't happening. Since when are articulations dependent on arranger features? They aren't. It makes no sense to bundle articulations onto arrangers and to refuse to make the best of them available on the workstation.

Totally agree. Having DNC inside the KRONOS would be pretty darn amazing. I can think of a few other function of the Pa3X I'd like to see inside the KRONOS too. It's Pad mode for example would put the Pattern function in the KRONOS' sequencer to shame.

Same goes for audio tracks, linear sequencing, Karma, styles, and arpeggiators - these are different yet complementary song and phrasing automations that are not mutually exclusive. I envision the possibility of loading a midi song, having a semi-automatic way of dividing into style parts to control it while playing live, with the ability to use Karmafied combis along with standard arpeggios with articulated voices or any of the Kronos synth engines. This integration doesn't exist in one Korg product. The features are scattered between two product lines. There could be one product to rule them all for a particular manufacturer, a grand unified keyboard.

Total Awesomeness..!!!!!

Regards
Sharp.

[Sharp]

Hi Jan.

Yeah sure, if you simply layered up the 24 OSC's to all play at the same time you would run out of poly with just one hand playing. Same goes for the KRONOS and a COMBI sound.

The thing is though that nobody actually makes sounds like that, so where the gains are really made here is in how DNC makes OSC's switch on and off to trigger samples based on certain conditions and not like the KRONOS which can only do it based on a Switch or a Velocity being reached.

For example, on a Pa3X by simply playing legato you can trigger different multisamples.

There's no question about it in my opinion. DNC should be inside KORG's Workstations.

Regards
Sharp.

[Jan1]

DNC sounds like behavior modeling, something like the scripting feature in Kontakt as well as other proprietary sample players, such as the one from VSL.
I agree that this is a tremendous asset in a KORG workstation.
But I am sure (at least I HOPE ) that KORG is aware of the need for a form of scripting like DNC.