Korg’s Professional Arranger - A Series Comparison

[Biggles]

That maybe ok for your purposes - that always depends on how you use the keyboard and on which features you use it with

Of course.

To be used primarily as a style player with the songbook, it is unsuitable.

And it's good that you've made that known, for those to whom this would be important. I wouldn't count on a fix, but it could happen. Certainly since they did fix it in the Pa4X, we at least know that they do understand the issue.

The most valuable thing about letting people know about this is probably to prevent people from buying a model that won't do what they need. In your case, since you already own it, your best path might be to sell it and look for a used PA800 or Pa4x. (Or maybe there's a Yamaha model that works the way you need it to?)

I have just about decided that the Korg PA700 is the keyboard I am going to buy but I don't understand the concern raised in this thread. Is this a fatal flaw in the operation of the keyboard? Can someone explain the problem in a way that someone who doesn’t own one of the affected key oards will understand?

Thanks.

I would not be concerned over what has been included in prior models that is not included in the 700/1000/4X.

As you are new to Korg arrangers the differences in the operating system of the 700 over prior models should not cause you any issues.

You have watched plenty of the videos and found the webinar website of Korg UK where there are plenty of video’s showing the capabilities of the various models, non of which display any issues which seem to cause the performer any problems what so ever. In fact the videos show that the Pa range as exists can meet the expectations of a new user.

It could well be a case of what you have not been used to you will not miss.

It is a case of developing a workflow that works for you.

[siebenhirter]

... - is that also the case for saving in the Songbook? ... seamless transition thing I could live without as I don't tend to run one song into the other..

Hello Reuben,

it is not the transition running from one song into another, because a song (smf, mp3) within some player can not be changed without to stop the previous song before the next song.

What I meant is the transition running from one style into another by selecting an sb-entry from a setlist prepared for performing with styles. That really is necessary in transitions for slightly more demanding performance with the styleplayer without ugly interrupting the sound of the realtime tracks while switching.

Now with styles it could be played without using the songbook and the setlists - but why would on have an arranger with songbook for style players?
You also get into the next trouble, because in Styleplay Mode without songbook, for example, the transposition is no longer saved in the KbdSets / Performances but only globally.
Therefore compared to previous models, the style player cannot be used satisfactorily in either of the two modes (with / without songbook) and is therefore unusable.

At the same time this also answers your question and your fears are unfounded : to save transpositions still can be done with songbook entries.

***

.. I would not be concerned over what has been included in prior models that is not included in the 700/1000/4X ..

You better should leave that to OldtimerBill himself, if he asks to explain the problem to him in an understandable way in thread "Korg’s Professional Arranger - A Series Comparison".
The questions implies the intention of such a comparison.

.. you are new to Korg arrangers the differences in the operating system of the 700 over prior models should not cause you any issues... ..

Whether or not the missing and non-functioning features compared to previous models would cause issues or are fatal flaws for his preferences cannot be explained by the fact that the features in question are no longer available in the new model.

This does not really help to explain a problem in an understandable way, but you ignore it. It allows to recommand any keyboard, which has been reduced to the most essential functions, because a newcomer used no previous model and would not become a function to miss!
*
Informative, you can point out on Korg's videos, but it is already clear that this are promotions in which no way to the shortcomings of the keyboards and omitted features are noted compared to the predecessor models!

[Scott]

It is an unfortunately common occurrence in the industry that a new keyboard, while introducing new benefits of its own, no longer has every feature of its predecessor, and that will disappoint some users. Whether, on balance, the new keyboard or its predecessor better does what someone wants is a determination to be made by each individual, since someone else's priorities and workflow may not be the same as your own. Without in any way diminishing siebenhirter's concerns, this forum is also full of people happily using their PA1000/PA700 boards.

[karmathanever]

It is an unfortunately common occurrence in the industry that a new keyboard, while introducing new benefits of its own, no longer has every feature of its predecessor, and that will disappoint some users. Whether, on balance, the new keyboard or its predecessor better does what someone wants is a determination to be made by each individual, since someone else's priorities and workflow may not be the same as your own.

+100
Perfectly said

[siebenhirter]

.. someone else's priorities and workflow may not be the same as your own ...

Even if some users do not use certain functions of the StylePlayer and thus like to use their midrange Pa700 / 1000, this cannot answer why Korg did not to correct the described faulty and inadequate functions of deficiendies. That was reported to Korg Germany immediately after the first delivery of the last model series, but has only been remedied for the Pa4x to this day and therefore it is already obvious that no novelty was intended, but necessary functions were omitted.
*
That these were only submitted in updates for the Pa4x, but not for the midrange Pa700 / 1000, is of course annoying. In addition in mail from June 22nd, 2021 of Support Germany is communicated, that it is suspected the development of Pa700/1000 has been completed, but development of new models includes a changed operating concept.
*
If therefore new models with including changed operating concepts again will take into account the features that have been needed and used for more than a decade for demanding use of the styleplayer, also those users who have not yet missed such features in their workflow will also benefit from this.

For me, the current mid-range models are a "lost generation", as long as their shortcomings are not corrected with an update in the same way as with the Pa4x.

With reference to the "Series Comparison", current mid-range arrangers can no longer be used as style players as versatile as the previous model series, because essential functions are missing, which have only been added with updates to the Pa4x!

[OldtimerBill]

In addition in mail from June 22nd, 2021 of Support Germany is communicated, that it is suspected the development of Pa700/1000 has been completed, but development of new models includes a changed operating concept.

It sounds like this is a dead issue for the PA700/PA100 but I am very interested in the part of your message quoted above.

Did Support Germany give you any additional information about the new models other than the changes to the operating system? Did they give any time frame on when these new models will be available?

[siebenhirter]

.. sounds like this is a dead issue for the PA700/PA100 ..

Hello OldtimerBill,
if that would have been dead issues for Pa1000, Korg would not have been corrected style players features in updates of the Pa4x.

To control if fill-mode woul be a dead issue for you, simply use last manual of Pa4x (v3.1 page 226, Choosing a Fill Mode for each Fill/Break) or manuals of Pa800/3x etc.
If it would have been a dead issue, that a style changed with an sb-entry could not be done without ugly interruption of the realtime sounds by automatical loading of KbdSet#1,
Korg would not have been tried to subsequently eliminate this inadequacy with the parameter "Lock Keyboard Set 1-4".
That is for preventing these interruption by locking locking currently selected Keyboard Sets, to get seamless transition of the realtime tracks etc.....

.. but I am very interested in the part of your message quoted above. Did Support Germany give you any additional information about the new models other than the changes to the operating system? Did they give any time frame on when these new models will be available? ...

Specific information cannot be obtained from Korg Support Germany since March 2018, when I asked for information about when the functions of the Pa1000 will be updated, so that at least the functional scope of the essential Styleplay functions of the previous models is achieved.

To this day, nothing has changed and I can provide the relevant answers in e-mails (in German). In short these contain the following information:
Support Germany have no information that KORG has planned a system update for the Pa1000 and suspect that the development of the Pa700 and Pa1000 models has been completed.
They would like to say that the development of new models includes a changed operating concept, so that it is currently it is premature to dwell on this and Support cannot answer further questions about the implementation of certain setting options for future models.
*
I don't think regional supporters get that little information from Korg.

But if related information is withheld - I am not interested in any new Korg models because I fear the same procedures as happend with previous series. This was the effective advertising publication of musically hardly usable novelties and missing information about limited or defective functions. Even this is complained about in time by the users, the necessary updates will be delayed again until the appearance of the next series, at least for the midrange models.

So I did not ask if or when new models would be available - apart from the fact that it is unlikely to provide any reliable information about that, it is not possible to make a qualitative judgment about the functionality of a new midrange series, if it again were limited compared to the previous series.

[Biggles]

I would agree with any poster who suggests that development of the current Pa models has effectively ceased.

The flagship 4X had a major update with its Next OS, at the tine it was expected that this would roll out to the 1000 and 700 but this have only had very minor bug fixes..

It is not as though Korg have not been busy, just look at the updated or new models that have been released in the past 18 months.

That said the arrangers are a product of Korg Italy so who ever knows what is happening is keeping it close to their chest.

Even if new models are released if they are typical Korg they will have bugs and it will take a year to issue updates.

Fingers crossed new models do appear, I have zero desire to buy another make.

[taichi]

For the Pa700/1000 owners who are worried about what they read here and there will be many, can we ask a simple question and stick to it without going off on a tangent please.

We decide on say six songs from SONGBOOK to play and lay out the six pieces of sheet music. To learn, practice or just enjoy with family and friends.

We select the first song, variation and intro`. We play the song. Ending. FINISHED.

A minute later we select the second song and play as above. Then we play the other songs in the same way.

Where is the problem? I have never had one. I have Pa1000 and Pa700 and not once have I had a problem. I edit styles and songs (still learning here), convert midis to styles and save into SONGBOOK. Hundreds of songs are at my finger tips. Fabulous is the only word.

[siebenhirter]

... Where is the problem? I have never had one. I have Pa1000 and Pa700 and not once have I had a problem. I edit styles and songs (still learning here), convert midis to styles and save into SONGBOOK ..

It also was not claimed that there were problems with editing styles / songs or converting / saving Midis.
But the relevant inadequacies of Pa1000 - ie functions of fill-Mode, ugly interruptions by automatical loading of KbdSet#1 etc - have already been described here in detail.
If that would have been no problems, Korg would not have been corrected style players features in updates of the Pa4x (model of same serie).

... We decide on say six songs from SONGBOOK to play ....We select the first song, variation and intro`. We play the song. Ending. FINISHED...

It is nice for you that you did not have any of the problems, when you end each of your song after you decide to choose variation, intro and song and simply play through.
Same procedure also can be done with specification and price range of most small keyboards, but does not mean that the deficiencies described do not exist in Pa1000 of Korg’s Professional Arrangers. Workflows with simple applications, unused known insufficient functions or completely unknown or missing functions - of course, do not cause problems.
Recent series of Pa-Arrangers has problems, but - as mentioned above - only have been fixed for the Pa4x.

Above all, it cannot be recognized as problematic if a function completely is missing, but is required for a little more demanding style applications, as it was possible with earlier models of the same professional category. Essential functions can not be substituted if missing, but are necessary i.e. for transitions and style changes in a running song.

As these described problems are known to Korg they fixed them for the Pa4x, but still exist in midrange models Pa700 / 1000 - and still have the described deficiencies, but obviously there will be no more updates for them.

Now it's hard to believe, that the vague promise the development of new models would include a changed operating concept at least would be as good as with previous model series, if not even the immediate model predecessors are updated to the level of functionality, that one was used to from KORG in the past and, of course, also is expected for new series of arrangers.

PS: Which deficiencies these are and how they affect has been described here several times and sufficiently and therefore I think it is probably unnecessary to describe this again in detail.

[taichi]

siebenhirter

I respect everything that you say, trust me I do. I wish that I knew just a fraction of what you do. I did write sometime ago that although I was happy with my korgs I fully support the owners of Pa700/1000 who are not. And I fully agree with you, having thought about it, that the updates (as in Pa4X), are the way forward.

Just wanted you to know that I do think of other Pa1000/ 700 owners that have issues. It looks like these arrangers are not suitable for everyone.

Regards

[siebenhirter]

.. It looks like these arrangers are not suitable for everyone...

... that they are suitable for everyone, KORG not only has to eliminate the known deficiencies with updates as already done for the Pa4x, but also correct them with an update for the midrange series (Pa1000 / 700). That would be much more important than announcing no update would be planned for the Pa1000 and the development of the the Pa700 and Pa1000 models has been completed.

If Korg without commitment says, that the development of new models includes a changed operating concept, that is unbelievable - and it remains unbelievable as long as the current models of the midrange series do not finally receive this update in order to be able to be used as a style player as variably as one was used to from all models of the earlier series (Pa3x / 800/500 ..).

... Lurking here, and not yet sure about which Professional Arranger is right for you? Korg Product Specialist Luciano Minetti explains the fundamentals of what an arranger is and highlights the key differences between the keyboards currently offered in our Pa Series lineup: Pa300, Pa600, Pa700, Pa1000, and Pa4x..... The Korg Italy Team

Why Korg Italy do not fix the shortcomings of the midrange of the current series with an update like done with the Pa4x?

Since the StylePlay functions cannot be used in any of the midrange models as it was possible with its predecessors, the Product specialist better should work to ensure that the known shortcomings are resolved finally. That would be more important than a comparison chart, with which this is not indicated.

[Scott]

.. someone else's priorities and workflow may not be the same as your own ...

Even if some users do not use certain functions of the StylePlayer and thus like to use their midrange Pa700 / 1000, this cannot answer why Korg did not to correct the described faulty and inadequate functions

Companies rarely "answer why" certain features are implemented or not implemented. And in the end, the why doesn't matter.

Maybe the why is, "implementing that feature is not possible in this model because it would break the implementaion of {some other feature}." Or "adding that feature would require more OS memory, and we have pretty much maxed out the available space." (This actually WAS the reason Nord gave for why an update removed a feature some people liked, that there simply was not enough space for both the old code and the new code. And memory in these keyboards is not always fungible... it's not like you can assume that they can steal sample memory to use as additional OS memory, sometimes there is dedicated memory for different functions which is accessed independently from each other.) Or the why might be "because of a fundamental design decision we made in this model, adding this feature would require significant rewrite of the code, with the resulting development cost moving beyond which could be justified by the sales of this model." Whatever. I can make up reasons all day. The bottom line is, whether they gave you a good reason why, a bad reason why, or no reason at all, it still is what it is. If a board doesn't do what you need, you shouldn't buy it (or if you bought it without realizing, you should return it). Never count on an update that may or may not be forthcoming. Buy something because it does what you need today, not because you hope they may fix it to let it do what you need in the future. The PA700/PA1000 as is is sufficient for a lot of people. If that's not the case for you, then it's not the board for you, that's all.

That said, I'm glad you've posted about this, so people who do need this capability can discover that it's not there.

I don't think regional supporters get that little information from Korg.

Companies rarely let people know what's coming in the future until/unless there is some benefit in telling them. And when they get to the point where they DO let local distributors know that something new is on its way, there will usually be strict non-disclosure rules so they couldn't tell you anyway.

[siebenhirter]

..Companies rarely "answer why" certain features are implemented or not implemented. And in the end, the why doesn't matter. ...

Hello Scott,
if I were to assess the behavior of companies as you suspect, as a consumer I would have to be content with accepting a product unchecked and uncritically as it is presented in the advertising.
If the properties do not meet the requirements, should we shut up afterwards and put a muzzle around ourself?
This exactly happens if, in each case, it is determined in advance, with resignation, how companies will in principle react to dissatisfied consumers.
*
I find that giving up an otherwise good product and putting it aside is not a good solution, while it is possible for the manufacturer to fix the known shortcomings. With the Pa1000 / 700 there it is possibile through OS updates - and this should be used so that the range of functions is at least as high as in the same category of the previous models!
Also you will not understand dissatisfied consumers - it does not help to change a brand or a unit, better the producer should raise a keyboard to a quality level that would be easily possible with an update. Every user should stand up for this instead of blocking such efforts - at least that would be desirable! !

..Maybe the why is, "implementing that feature is not possible in this model because ...

Your guesses as to why these features were not implemented are not correct in this case, because the update in the midrange models would have been just as easy as with the Pa4x from the same model series. A comparison with Nords is just as inaccurate as assumptions about available sample memory or other arbitrary reasons, such as rewriting a code in the same model series would be problematic.

In this case, the complaint about the update of inadequately implemented features is justified, because the same deficiencies with styleplayer have been remedied in the same model series with the Pa4x, but for the midrange models it is non-bindingly pointed out that a changed operating concept would be expected when new models were developed.

Apart from the fact that no details will be given from KORG at what time the new developed keyboard comes, in the meantime for the current midrange models it can be expected that known shortcomings are correct in the same way as with the Pa4x.

It is a shame that Korg refuses to update current models with "changed operating concept in next serie", such arguments has never happened in the long history of the Pa models - on the contrary, there were updates for previous models after the appearance of the next generation!

It is therefore unbelievable, that new models with a changed operating concept would meet requirements. It would be a shame if again users had to recognize and prove the unpublished inadequacies in new devices, but these in the midrange area are never remedied with an update, as is the case with the Pa1000 / 700 now!
*
It is not too late - and not expensive either - to catch up on the update for the midrange models as with the Pa4x, so that the comparison chart also really contains full-fledged midrange models with a range of functions, as we had with the style player of the previous generation in the same category!

[Scott]

if I were to assess the behavior of companies as you suspect, as a consumer I would have to be content with accepting a product unchecked and uncritically as it is presented in the advertising.
If the properties do not meet the requirements, should we shut up afterwards and put a muzzle around ourself?

I'm afraid you completely missed my point. I said nothing about having to be content with accepting it uncritically or that you should shut up and muzzle yourself about it. I even said I was glad that you've posted about it! Here is a fuller context of what you quoted, with the relevant part in bold:

Even if some users do not use certain functions...this cannot answer why Korg did not to correct the described faulty and inadequate functions

Companies rarely "answer why" certain features are implemented or not implemented. And in the end, the why doesn't matter.

You said you wanted to know WHY. While I would agree that the WHAT of the board's behavior is relevant, WHY it does or does not do something really isn't. Because knowing WHY wouldn't actually change anything.

..Maybe the why is, "implementing that feature is not possible in this model because ...

Your guesses as to why these features were not implemented are not correct in this case, because the update in the midrange models would have been just as easy as with the Pa4x from the same model series.

You don't know that for a fact. There are internal differences in the electronics (the internal parts differ). There are differences in the operating systems, the code is not identical (as evidenced by the very fact that you can't load the same system updates into both). You cannot assume that the patch they created for one could as easily work on the other, or that the same amount of space for operating system code exists in both, etc.

Regardless, I wasn't claiming any of my hypothetical reasons were true. As I said, "I can make up reasons all day. The bottom line is, whether they gave you a good reason why, a bad reason why, or no reason at all, it still is what it is." I was just trying to emphasize the same point, that knowing the REASON something is what it is doesn't matter.

And who knows, maybe you'll get your wish and the update will come! It's not impossible. And I'm certainly not arguing against it or defending Korg's decisions. All I was saying is, again, the why-yes or why-no doesn't really matter.

BTW, I was similarly conflicted when Korg replaced the TR with the M50. The M50 had really nice improvements... touchscreen interface, more effects, more wave memory, more polyphony... but they also took away the aftertouch, the assignable outs, and the ability to install user samples. Korg giveth, Korg taketh away.