it's nearly 2015 - so am I over Korg?

[karmathanever]

Hi friends

Oh NO!!!
I am almost angry with myself for bringing this up but every so often I perform an in depth serious review of my gear against current available technology. I start from this scenario "I own nothing - so what shall I get?"

This probably seems like another "PA3X vs. Tyros" topic but let's face it, there are no other arrangers in this high category.
I may seem to be "Korg blinkered" but that is so far from the truth - I love what works well for me - simple as that - this is my personal review (feedback) and not intended to start a "manufacturer war" topic.

I wandered into one of my local music retailers recently (hugely Yamaha based and biased!!) and was greeted with a personal demo of the Tyros 5.
I will be honest and say I was impressed with what I heard. Their new intelligent "ensemble" feature is also very "impressive technology" - would be great for sequencing.
The old "Tyros" components are still there though... similar OS which I have never liked as much as Korg's and no touch screen (OK so I have just become used to that over the years...). The Tyros 5 is a "clever" piece of technology - I went home, scarily excited and then watched the absolutely amazing Peter Baartmans (2-part huge demo) demonstrating the features of the Tyros 5 (45 minutes!!!). Peter is an absolutely amazing player and he certainly knows his way around Yamaha's arrangers. I ended up with some mixed feelings but gave this all some in depth thought and analysis and came up with this:-

1. The Tyros 5 is very far from "value for money" - it needs to be at best 2/3 of its current price - I could buy nearly 2 PA3X's for this!!! Even if I had loved the T5 more than anything else, I would NEVER pay this price for a keyboard. RRP here is $8,000 - you can get it (T5-76) for about $6,500 (Aus$).
2. If you play like Peter Baartmans then you could really fly with this keyboard but then, if you played like Peter Baartmans, you probably wouldn't being playing an arranger!!!! But I have to wish that Korg would produce demos like this!
3. A lot of the "impressive" T5 technology is simply just that - and not as realistically as usable as I first thought.
4. The vocal harmonizer part of the demo was its biggest let down - no wonder it was quick - the T5 VH was poor IMHO.
5. I liked the "audio" styles with the "audio" style drum tracks - Korg should consider this (I think Audya had that years ago)
6. Overall I have always thought that the Yamaha drums were better than Korg - and still are.
7. The T5 is still not for the performing professional/semi-professional IMHO - this has always been my main issue.
8. I liked the T5 audio track mixer HD recording feature.
9. Organs are nicer but still not "Hammond" (like Nord)

My conclusion is that my PA3X still stands out in front in terms of performing, recording and configurability. SOUNDs are respectfully in the ears of the beholder so there is no argument there really - I am more than happy with the SOUNDs (except organs!!).

So PA3X wins again for me - look forward to Korg's next PA....

Now onto the Kronos (think that's a no-brainer).......

Pete

[Bachus]

I came to the conclusion that you cant compare Pa3x with Tyros 5. They both aim at 2 different group of people, and both are very good at that.

pa3x aims at (semi) pro players taht want to sound great on stage. but the instrument is so diverse thats it also a lot of fun to play at home for less experienced players.

T5 aims at home players with lots of money to spend and it gives them all the tools to excell at their hobby. Thats just playing music along a style. On top of that the instrument is so versatile that its very usable on stage in OMB situations..

This is the reason that Pa3x has more options to controll your sound songs and styles in realtime.. It has also better piano, synth and pad sounds because synths and pads are the domain of Korg, and yamaha refuses to put a good piano in their T5 because that could hurt their CVP sales..

T5 is the product of Yamahas effort to make an instrument sound as real as possible, even for people with limited playing skills. Just by playing two notes it sounds like the real thing on CD... Guitars, wind brass and all those other acoustic instruments sound very realistic while played, some of the organs ( church) are out of this world. And while the ensemble feature sounds good based on automation, a pro with the right arrangement can work miracles with them. The T5 is as good as playing out of the box gets..

And the price of a T5? Cant blame Yamaha for that, people pay that much money ... Overhere in Holland, you can get a T5 (76) for €3800 and you get a free flash memmory unit and 2 expansion packs in the mix.. At the same shop the Pa3x sells for €3200


The local music shops overhere in Holland in general want to sell Yamaha,because they make more then 2 times as much money from a Yamaha sale then from a korg sale...


Now back to the Pa3x, where could it be improved?

-first off there is DNC which compares to SA1 voices of Yamaha.. The SA2 voices are more a combination of AWM2 and VL technollogy. The only thing comparable to them is Roland Supar natural sounds.. This is currently the weak point of Korg, both in Kronos as in Pa3x... Accoustic sounds like trumpets, sax , winds and many more trail behind... There is no optin in Pa3x and its the one engine missing in the Kronos...

- the sequencer of both kronos and Pa3x is somehwat oldfashioned, i would love to see something akin to a matrix like in ableton live... Both accesable for styles and songs and Karma..

- adding Vst? Is that the answer? Only if the VST sounds and effects become selectable like any other internal sound or effect.. Much like the new komplete of NI..

- the Pa3x misses knobs, for real time controll

- the sound engine of the Pa3x is allready very suited to add features akin to the T5 ensemble feature right intoo the enigine.. And accessible for every sound..



But in the end you can not have it all......

Unless you invest in
-kronos
-T5
-roland Integra (and i could add a plethora of other rack units here)
-HP Z1 G2 with Xeon porssor and 27" touchscreen
-APc40 mk2 or (Push or Maschine)
-ableton live or FL studio
- NI komplete, Alchemy, Zebra2, omisphere, pianoteq etc etc...

And even then you would be missing the best styles in the world ( audya ) and a chordsequencer...

[BillyHank]

To be sure the Tyros 5 has great sounds and some great features not yet found on the Korg Pa3X, but so far Yamaha has failed to make the adding of your own sounds and editing those with the "Voice Editing" software available on all previous Tyros keyboards work on the T5.

Yamaha has had so much trouble with trying to get this software out, I think they worked themselves into an impossible situation because they obviously did not intend to ever provide this option for the T5.

[silverdragonsound]

Interesting topic for some like me who may be in the market for an arranger. (casually looking, definitely wanting) I have limited skills playing live and have a terrible memory so i can't remember any songs I learn unless I continue to play them regularly. Due to time constraints, most of my playing is done at home these days. While the Tyros 5 sounds nice and they demo it wonderfully, I have learned what most people learn over time. Any keyboard is only as good as the player in front of it. For me, price is big factor and maybe the biggest for me. Is the Tyros worth its price tag? For some yes, for me, its not realistic. I absolutely love the features of the pa3x. Is it perfect? No, bu then again what is? It maybe be perfect fro player A's needs, but player B could have an issue something they need which player A does not. One thing I find interesting about arrangers is what people do with them in terms of creativity and creating their own styles and processes. It makes the one man band aspect very viable which is where I am at these days.

For someone looking at keyboards, sounds are the first line of defense and maybe the most important in many ways. In this day and age, one thing is clear to me. I can no longer blame the instruments and technology in them (unless they don't work correctly). Those aspects are so good that no matter what you get, pa3x, Tyros 3,4 or 5, they are all great instruments, and while different and catered to people's needs and tastes, you should be successful with any of them. In many ways its a great time to be a keyboardist since we can literally do everything ourselves now. Ok my rant is over. Honestly I am not even sure what the point was, but there it is.

[Bachus]

Interesting topic for some like me who may be in the market for an arranger. (casually looking, definitely wanting) I have limited skills playing live and have a terrible memory so i can't remember any songs I learn unless I continue to play them regularly. Due to time constraints, most of my playing is done at home these days. While the Tyros 5 sounds nice and they demo it wonderfully, I have learned what most people learn over time. Any keyboard is only as good as the player in front of it. For me, price is big factor and maybe the biggest for me. Is the Tyros worth its price tag? For some yes, for me, its not realistic. I absolutely love the features of the pa3x. Is it perfect? No, bu then again what is? It maybe be perfect fro player A's needs, but player B could have an issue something they need which player A does not. One thing I find interesting about arrangers is what people do with them in terms of creativity and creating their own styles and processes. It makes the one man band aspect very viable which is where I am at these days.

For someone looking at keyboards, sounds are the first line of defense and maybe the most important in many ways. In this day and age, one thing is clear to me. I can no longer blame the instruments and technology in them (unless they don't work correctly). Those aspects are so good that no matter what you get, pa3x, Tyros 3,4 or 5, they are all great instruments, and while different and catered to people's needs and tastes, you should be successful with any of them. In many ways its a great time to be a keyboardist since we can literally do everything ourselves now. Ok my rant is over. Honestly I am not even sure what the point was, but there it is.

There is one thing i forgot to mention, the T5 is more forgiving to little faults because of the way it is programmed, to get the same results on a Pa3x there is more controll required, and so the skillcap is slightly higher..

In Sa2 voices many articulations are preprogrammed and they just happen as you play making a natural sound, with DNC on the PA3x wverything happens when the player wants it, but that requires direct controll and so more playerskills..

Same goes for the arranger parts, the korg directly reacts to your actions, while the T5 more opperates like slow pads..

[Dikikeys]

I must admit, Yamaha's Ensemble Mode is a complete game changer... It's as revolutionary as the Mega Voices when they were first introduced (remember that far back? ) and SA voices when THEY were introduced.

Sure, yes, you can do the same things (and much more) with some of the best software instruments, but Yamaha excel at bringing close to cutting edge technology to instruments that complete 'tyros' can play (see what I did there?! ). The good news is, in all probability Korg and eventually (WAY 'eventually'! ) Roland will add the capability. But, if you ever wanted to understand why Tyros's SEEM so expensive, ask yourself how much OUR arrangers would cost is our companies worked as hard and long on bringing utterly revolutionary features to our arrangers? It's a gamble for Yamaha... can they pull it off? Can they make it simple enough for arranger players to use without a technology degree? And does it sound so different that people ARE willing to pay the price premium?

R&D isn't cheap. But it's features like this, not incremental improvements in systems we already have which push the boundaries of arranger use.

But... on the other hand, Yamaha sometimes completely miss the mark. As wonderful as Ensemble Mode is, so is the Audio Drums feature completely underwhelming. Not only is this a cop of the Ketron SD-1's system, it remains stuck like the SD-1 in being drums only, and completely inaccessible by the user, but you can't easily add your OWN drum loops and have them sync to tempo. And, without that, it's a gimmick, plain and simple.

Add to that, the Audya's have pushed audio technology so far along that Yamaha's system seems almost a joke, or afterthought. And, the bottom line is, with Mega and SA voices able to be used in styles and sequences, Yamaha's don't really NEED audio loops as much as some do. Their guitars can already sound pretty darn real! So, this beggars the question... why?

No-one knows! Without user access to the feature, with a scant 20-30% of the styles using the feature (if it's THAT good, why don't they ALL? And if it's not, why bother? ) and without it including pitched loops, it seems so half-arsed as to be not relevant. But it cost Yamaha a pretty penny to come up with it.

I think that Yamaha hit the nail on the head with Ensemble Mode. It is an amazingly good sounding idea that doesn't make the player HAVE to change their technique (if decent to start with). And that, amongst all other things, is the backbone of great arranger ideas. We obsess so much about sounds, but I believe that things like this - stuff you can DO with sounds, is the future of the arranger. Imagine an arranger that listens to YOU...

Play simply, the backing 'thins' out.

Play harder, the backing 'digs in'.

Play softer, it drops out.

Play fast, the backing gets more complicated.

Ask for the same fill twice, the arranger automatically varies it slightly.

There are SO many things that could be added to arrangers to emulate what REAL backing musicians do. Kudos to Yamaha for recognizing that tutti and divisi ensembles don't sound the same, and putting a system into play that emulates this. What will they do next?

Or is it time to pressure OUR arrangers' manufacturers to be as innovative? And, if we do, are we willing to pay the price premium for this degree of risk and cost? Or are we content to mostly play catchup to Yamaha?

[Bachus]

I agree with you Diki, thats what we want, more diversity in our backing based on how we play... Instead of more static audio files..

Audio drum tracks is a miss, you cant edit them...


But a backing reacting to how you play...
- Audya has some of that.. I saw Ajam explain some of it
- Karma technollogy could be used

There allready is some of that....


And the only features missing on T5 are a good chordsequencer, the abbility to import your own samples and the abbility to eddit stuff.... But those solo instruments including the ensemble feature are very very well playable..

Tyros 6 might adress the weak features of the T5, it will add the piano and the piano room feature of the CVP range, and it will add a synth world, much like organ world but then with some VST like emulations of some old analogue synths and eight parameters that can be controlled in real time...

It might be the way to go for hardware arrangers in the future, making every instrument much like the instruments in kontakts instrument rack... With some parameters to comtroll on the surface...

And then they wills start selling those instruments...

[Veren]

Hi Dikikeys'

Exactly what a lot of people have been saying.... more randomness and the desperate need for AMS in style tracks which will take care or feeling/moods/intensity or what ever else we call it.

Korgs arranger section is so fixed. The only way to access alternate CVs is through different chords?

The Arranger Kbds purpose is to arrange and emulate real musical situations and although we know the it surely cannot do everything BUT the edit ability in realtime should be given more priority. Yes we like the in depth editing Korg Pa offers but as an arranger, it surely needs to do more.

We always come across issue where some our very advanced users etc would say "that is a simple fix ... just a few lines of code" , Why Korg doesn't implement in new OS....is it a hardware limitation issue? Reason is that many here seem to come across financially sound as they await the next flagship Kbd. Some of us cannot simply change keyboards every 3-4 years and that too just for a few incremental upgrades.... Yea the Tyros is very very expensive but that does not mean that Pa3x is cheap... surely isn't and yes it packs a lot in comparison to the T5 from a price perspective.

I guess my question is "has the Pa3x reached is limit in what it can truly deliver being from both hardware and software perspective AS AN ARRANGER??"

I hardly use the factory sounds and styles as some sounds are truly disappointing...possibly due to incorrect mic placement on sampling but just not good and even the adding of DSPs do not resolve that issue as the yamahas are mostly accused of average samples with excessive dsp.

I use the editing capabilities (a good amount) and the arranger section primarily and it needs to be more controllable ...AMS in arranger section at least will be very appreciated in 3x not new 4x....

just my 2 cents

[Bachus]

This snipset of information posted on another forum shows that audiodrums are a thing of the past.... They are inflexible, and the opposite of what we want..

" The key to great sounding drums is 'round robin'.. That is there are a several samples for the same note, same velocity, that way they don't sound exactly the same (just like a drummer plays).. Obviously you also need different samples for each velocity too. When you consistently play the same note, each drum hit is slightly different. Just like a live drummer.

Drum replacement programs, "Drumagog" and Steven Slate's program "Trigger" do this.. If you record in a studio with a DAW, this is a great solution. When you substitute either of these you realize how radically different they sound from Tyros drums.. Their EQ is quite different when you A/B Drumagog and T5. Obviously you can't incorporate this drum software in your live playing.. "

He says it cant be done real time in arrangers... But it can, when the arranger has sample streaming direct froma larger SSD..

If they add Kronos or any up to date processing power, it must be archievable in Pa4x... Its much better adding this then audio drums...

[kgardner53]

9. Organs are nicer but still not "Hammond" (like Nord)

My conclusion is that my PA3X still stands out in front in terms of performing, recording and configurability. SOUNDs are respectfully in the ears of the beholder so there is no argument there really - I am more than happy with the SOUNDs (except organs!!).

So PA3X wins again for me - look forward to Korg's next PA....Pete

With all due respect, I broke my teeth selling organs (retailed Baldwin, retailed Hammond, wholesaled Farfisa) and I am still generally impressed with Korg's organ sounds and FX controls. They're hardly rank amateurs at their profession.
I like the control of Leslie Speaker simulation since I can easily adjust so many factors and assign manual speed control to my expression pedal or a slider, switch back and forth between fast and slow, on/off gives a gorgeous speed wind down from fast to stopped and back up (guess where my EC5 A and B pedals are set to!). I have Native Instrument's Kontact Komplete Ultimate 9 with Vintage Organ package but I can't see a need to cobble that into my PA3X through MIDI, not enough payoff for the trouble. The fact that KORG went overboard on the Velocity Controlled speed change for so many of the Hammond etc. Rotary Effect organs indicates that most users don't have a history or feel for Hammond B3 Lelsie technique. There's nothing stopping me from throwing out or replacing all the V organs, I know. I simply want to say that I can resonate with your frustration over the large number of them. I certainly would rather put time and effort into refitting the STYLES with my old self-controlled type of organs rather than tinker with their training wheel ones. That being said, the DIGITAL is all the knowledgeable player needs to get a wide variety of tone combinations. The non-velocity-controlled ones are superb and wisely selected presets IMHO.
I had a Hammond and Leslie Cabinet but it sure presented moving challenges, aging degradation and repair challenges that are all gone with my PA3X. As long as the amplification sound system is genuinely stereo, my spine still singles with the KORG organs... and I don't mean the velocity-controlled ones. I always cringed when I saw a STYLE with Gospel Organ in my PA1X-Pro so you can imagine my disgust when I saw the pages littered with V's!

[Dikikeys]

I think we're still a generation or two away from having the CPU horsepower to do much of what we want. If you look at the evolution of arranger features, you usually see things like DNC/SA2, detailed B3 sims and Ensemble Mode as keyboard sounds ONLY. But eventually, the CPU gets powerful enough to pull these off as part of the style Parts, and things really start to take off then!

We are also going to need to see SSD HD's and more computer like data pipes (to be honest, a whole bunch of arrangers and even WS's don't benefit much from SSD's at the moment... their data pipes to the RAM isn't fast enough to leverage the SSD's speed) before we can start to have round robin sample sets and stuff we have begun to get used to on the better VSTi libraries.

But, it's on its way...

The thing is, at the core of everything is CONTENT. It's not that great for the vast majority of arranger players (who are either hobbyists or professionals looking for a backing system that ISN'T as much work as a WS/VSTi system for gig backing) to have a great arranger with little content. And, content isn't cheap. While a better CPU by the time it comes out isn't going to be any more expensive than the previous generation, the more you let the arranger style do, the more responsive to your playing it gets, it will put MUCH greater demands on the persons CREATING the style in the first place. Up the fills so they are all unique, that's 16 fills instead of four. Have sub-patterns that are thinned out to respond to your playing density, that's another four Variations, have busier patterns, that's another... before long, you've doubled or tripled the work a style creator has to do to create a style. But I bet you aren't going to want to pay a bunch more for those styles! In fact, nowadays, it has got pretty hard for a good style creator to make a living, as there's no copy protection built into modern arrangers, and as soon as he sells ONE style, that customer's closest 10,000 'friends' will be getting it for free! Not really much of an incentive, is it?

I believe that Yamaha's Tyros arrangers are so expensive for a couple of reasons. Firstly is the hardware... Innovative stuff like Ensemble Mode and SA2 sounds are very expensive to code and sample. But also, in truth, Yamaha spend a FORTUNE on getting great style producers to produce immaculately produced and mixed styles. While I may not be a huge fan of the overall sound (I still prefer Korg and Roland's more 'live band' sound), there really can't be any argument about how well balanced all the styles and ROM sounds are. Pretty much all Korg and Roland styles I've played OOTB really need quite a bit of user tweaking, but Yamaha spend the money for the time it takes for this important job to be already DONE. TBH, I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for an arranger I didn't have to do all this work myself!

So... I think our arrangers COULD be much better, but are we willing to pay Yamaha-like prices for it?

In the meantime, I suggest for the biggest bang for the smallest buck, Korg owners pressure Korg into adding the 'Dynamic Arranger' feature from Roland's BK-9 (and earlier G70/E80/60/50 line), which offsets the velocity of style Parts in response to how hard you are playing. Particularly with sounds that have velocity X-switches (most of the drums, a bunch of guitars and basses, pianos and Rhodes etc.), this has a radical effect on how apparently hard the backing is playing. It's pretty easy to implement (compared to something like Yamaha's Ensemble Mode!) and has a huge impact on how your backing is responsive to YOU. And that, after all, is what we are all after, hopefully..!

[Bachus]

I think we're still a generation or two away from having the CPU horsepower to do much of what we want. If you look at the evolution of arranger features, you usually see things like DNC/SA2, detailed B3 sims and Ensemble Mode as keyboard sounds ONLY. But eventually, the CPU gets powerful enough to pull these off as part of the style Parts, and things really start to take off then!

We are also going to need to see SSD HD's and more computer like data pipes (to be honest, a whole bunch of arrangers and even WS's don't benefit much from SSD's at the moment... their data pipes to the RAM isn't fast enough to leverage the SSD's speed) before we can start to have round robin sample sets and stuff we have begun to get used to on the better VSTi libraries.

But, it's on its way...

The thing is, at the core of everything is CONTENT. It's not that great for the vast majority of arranger players (who are either hobbyists or professionals looking for a backing system that ISN'T as much work as a WS/VSTi system for gig backing) to have a great arranger with little content. And, content isn't cheap. While a better CPU by the time it comes out isn't going to be any more expensive than the previous generation, the more you let the arranger style do, the more responsive to your playing it gets, it will put MUCH greater demands on the persons CREATING the style in the first place. Up the fills so they are all unique, that's 16 fills instead of four. Have sub-patterns that are thinned out to respond to your playing density, that's another four Variations, have busier patterns, that's another... before long, you've doubled or tripled the work a style creator has to do to create a style. But I bet you aren't going to want to pay a bunch more for those styles! In fact, nowadays, it has got pretty hard for a good style creator to make a living, as there's no copy protection built into modern arrangers, and as soon as he sells ONE style, that customer's closest 10,000 'friends' will be getting it for free! Not really much of an incentive, is it?

I believe that Yamaha's Tyros arrangers are so expensive for a couple of reasons. Firstly is the hardware... Innovative stuff like Ensemble Mode and SA2 sounds are very expensive to code and sample. But also, in truth, Yamaha spend a FORTUNE on getting great style producers to produce immaculately produced and mixed styles. While I may not be a huge fan of the overall sound (I still prefer Korg and Roland's more 'live band' sound), there really can't be any argument about how well balanced all the styles and ROM sounds are. Pretty much all Korg and Roland styles I've played OOTB really need quite a bit of user tweaking, but Yamaha spend the money for the time it takes for this important job to be already DONE. TBH, I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for an arranger I didn't have to do all this work myself!

So... I think our arrangers COULD be much better, but are we willing to pay Yamaha-like prices for it?

In the meantime, I suggest for the biggest bang for the smallest buck, Korg owners pressure Korg into adding the 'Dynamic Arranger' feature from Roland's BK-9 (and earlier G70/E80/60/50 line), which offsets the velocity of style Parts in response to how hard you are playing. Particularly with sounds that have velocity X-switches (most of the drums, a bunch of guitars and basses, pianos and Rhodes etc.), this has a radical effect on how apparently hard the backing is playing. It's pretty easy to implement (compared to something like Yamaha's Ensemble Mode!) and has a huge impact on how your backing is responsive to YOU. And that, after all, is what we are all after, hopefully..!

Programming of more dynamic styles will cost to much... There is an option however... Combine Karma with an arranger... and you have soemthing to make arranger styles more dynamic..

I dont think programming styles olddfashion is the way to go for more dynamics... as you said it will be way to expensive

They could also add features like the Audya has, that allows players to make styles feel a bit more alive, by randomly making some notes a tadd harder or slightly offtimed.. or even the roundrobbing feature ... but that would cost loads of money to implement, because as you said, creating content is expensive...

I agree with you that the BK9 feature as you described is, is a good one too...


The more of these features you add, the more Dynamic the styles will feel... However, all the features should have an on/off switch

[Dikikeys]

The trouble with Karma is, it is very good for electronica, but on more traditional musics, it isn't very good at doing things REAL players do. Most of that doesn't break down into 'algorithmic' change, it's far more complex and 'humanistic' than that...

Some kind of human input to the types of changes is needed, and that takes a skilled player/stylemaker. Let's face it, if algorithmic music generation was any good, it would be writing hits for years! Karma's been around a long time, and algorithmic music generation for decades before, but it has yet to create genuinely human sounding music except on some types of classical music with ultra rigid 'rules'.

I'm afraid that I don't see any easy system to have our backing respond to us without the core changes being programmed by a human. Perhaps if a human programs the 'simple' version and the 'complex' version, some algorithm might be possible to gradually change one to the other, but we are still talking about doubling the stylemaker's work to create the 'complex' version in the first place.

It's a complex issue, but without more customer demand for more responsive styles, unlikely to be a high priority for most arranger makers...

And that has got to start with the simple stuff that already exists. Velocity offsets have been around for years. Time for Korg to add them. Doesn't even take a rewrite of the style.

[kgardner53]

Yamaha spent a FORTUNE on getting great style producers to produce immaculately produced and mixed styles. While I may not be a huge fan of the overall sound (I still prefer Korg and Roland's more 'live band' sound), there really can't be any argument about how well balanced all the styles and ROM sounds are. Pretty much all Korg and Roland styles I've played OOTB really need quite a bit of user tweaking, but Yamaha spend the money for the time it takes for this important job to be already DONE. TBH, I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for an arranger I didn't have to do all this work myself!

Well said on this point! If you have ever tinkered with STYLE or PAD creation you come away with a profound respect for the time invested and the great body of computer and music knowledge and skill the producers of KORG's styles possess. After you get familiar with the STYLEs, PADs, FILLs and BREAKs you can wish for more musical complexity or originality of each one but on the whole, as you point out, you get a lot of excellent and customizable and usable capability for the money with KORG's factory-produced STYLEs. I would very much like to know how KORG actually goes about producing styles. That must be a really interesting story!

I see some independent producers offer styles for sale but they frequently appear to suit musical genres which I wouldn't find useful because they are culturally unique and would only be a curiosity item to my audiences. They certainly could be played and warmly received and danced to with great gusto elsewhere in the world.

I would sincerely welcome performer recommendations for Lounge, Ballad, Folk!, Jazz, Semi-Classical, Easy Listening, and other such mellow styles.
Especially with the new guitar mode, I would also welcome recommendations for more prepared guitar PADs that offer a wider variety of strum, arpeggiated and finger picking options on nylon and steel string etc.

I hesitate to pay for these big collections with duplications and retooled-from-other-manufacturers styles or with large sections of ethnic styles I will never use. A good recommendation on what the content is good for, from an actual seasoned performer who does 12 performances a week as I have done, would go a long way to pry my wallet open. Thankfully, the PA3X file structure allows a large number of STYLES to reside on board.

Quite honestly, learning curve time is a real barrier to jumping ship once you get in the flow with one manufacturer. Even the difference between my PA1X and the PA3X when I first sat down in front of it was daunting although it hasn't taken long to feel at home. The new MASTER FX system still has me scrambling at times.

I started a thread on tips tricks and traps because I realized that this forum's members are part of a very unique subset of the world's population of musicians. I don't know where the closest fellow-owner-performer of a PA3X is to me. I have only ever seen a PA80 being played in my travels and that can't be reflective of the number of arranger purchasers in a 100 km Radias of my home base. Sure, many are hobbyists who play at home for their own enrichment but I would dearly love to sit down with a power user in person. I have only run into one other PA1X owner at Long and McQuade in Burlington and he asked me a very elementary question and didn't speak of public performance where I could see his performance myself. I bought a second PA1X unit as a backup board for gigs from a fellow 1 km from my house but he didn't know how to play it. ;-(

You wrote, "I didn't have to do all this work myself!" I would love it if some fellow users would share some examples of how they tweaked STYLEs and what principles they accept as axiomatic when considering this to be needed! I find that a lot depends on the amplification system and where the EQ and sub-woofer levels are set. It also seems to come out of the performer's own development as a player and the audience typically played to. As an example, I run drums and bass tracks much louder now than I did years ago probably because of audience settings but I know it also comes out of my own personal evolution/development/courage/curiosity not only as a musician but also as a person. This bears on the topic of R&D time and effort. As you said, "I didn't have to do all this work myself! " Plain and simple, it's a lot of effort to even go through each STYLE and sub instruments or adjust the FX levels. Just changing the guitar used for one ACC part makes it sound quite different. My observation is that new SOUNDs were programmed into the PA3X but not all of them were put into the STYLEs. A lot of "legacy" sounds stayed.

The conclusion of the matter is that KORG knows what business they are in and it is not to invest limitless money in STYLE programming that will be liberally shared between all the arranger users on the planet.

[Dikikeys]

I tend to remix the factory styles to leave more room for ME...

There's quite a tendency (understandable, I guess) to create styles for players that can barely trot out the single note melody on top of the backing, so most of them I find too busy. I have the same simple solution as you, kgard, which is just to jack up the bass and drums, which has the effect of simply ducking ALL the ACC Parts once you lower the overall volume. This now means I can comp over it without struggling to find room.

I'm also finding a depressing inability to program good rock guitar style parts that don't drown out the style. Far too many style creators (the pro's, at that!) fail to understand that the place you adjust the volume of a guitar sound being run through a guitar amp sim is NOT the main Part fader... it's the main OUTPUT volume of the MFX insert effect! Adjusting the main fader usually adjusts the INPUT to the amp sim. You aren't adjusting the final output, you are adjusting the drive of the amp sim. Not the same thing at all!

Roland USED to have a great system that allowed you to quickly thin out a style. Of course, it was a great idea, so Roland, naturally, dropped it years ago! But essentially, each style had a 'full' version, then one button press would drop it down to rhythm section only (strings, horns, any busy stuff dropped out), and another button press dropped it down to just bass and drums. Worked like a charm, so an obvious candidate for omission! They also had a system where the drums could be dropped down from full kit to just the kick drum pattern in a couple of stages. Another great idea obviously too useful to leave in the OS!

But it strikes me that things like this could go a long way to allow better players the 'room' to actually play more than just the melody. Be even better if the user were allowed to pick and choose what was in each 'layer'...

I know it's hard for a style creator to know in advance what kind of player is going to use his styles, but the manufacturers could make it easier for us to adjust the style density on the fly.

But, bottom line is, I think unless the manufacturers come up with a system that allows copy protection for styles, we will all be seeing fewer and fewer GREAT styles by third party creators. Style sharing is rampant, and every style 'shared' is one less sale for the guy making them. Hardly an incentive, is it? The manufacturers can make them, because the sale of the arranger is the payment for the styles, but the guy making great styles in his bedroom studio? The manufacturers have basically gone 'You're on your own, mate! Too bad!'

I guarantee, were Korg to find a way to protect styles from being shared, we would see a huge explosion in great third party styles.