Pa4X developers fatal mistake !

[AntonySharmman]

As I keep on developing my commercial resources on purchased Pa4X , I have to write my protest for the most weird
movement of Pa4X developers to destroy the best feature of PaSeries ... the individual per style/STS Preferences ,
discontinuing Style Preferences menu , and instead place it as Global style preferences ...
OK users can be compromised by some missing functions or buttons but this lacking is totally insane for a new
PaSeries flagship !
Let me explain you the importance of this existing for 15 years feature :
At least the following two Global style preferences
- Fingered Mode
- Velocity control
must be definitely placed again as individual STS preferences for well known reasons , I can refer to some of them.
Fingered mode goes accordingly to the set list/STS sound we choose , so in the same style when we play a sax we need
fingered 3 mode , but when we choose full piano we need expert/advanced mode , is this a Global preference ?
Velocity Control was another brilliant feature with options Fill 1 to 4 (that are totally vanished) that we could automate
a particular style with individual STS sound preferences referring at certain Fill 1-4 patterns per STS.
Both of those preferences can't be global so their existence there is useless and can't be used anymore the way they should !
I know that Song Book can resolve this somehow but I do not work with this as most of expert real time performing Musicians !

KorgPa team had listened users protests about fill mode , they certainly placed it back as individual style settings but ignored
that also important feature , that must urgently resolve too ...

IMO , this is not an evolution of PaSeries in performing functionality but unlike a totally misery restriction for Pro users in their
real time performing and hope KorgPa developers address it soon add back velocity to Fill 1-4 options and bring back missing
individual Style Preferences menu ...

Thanks for reading

[duby2]

IMOP , Korg should just stated with the OS of the PA3X 1.63 on the PA4X and made improvement from there , now I have a great sounding keyboard but I am back in the stone age. Korg will fix all the problem and just in time for the new release of the new PA5X and then it start all over again , It like the movie, groundhog day

[pawlikp100]

I definiatelly agree with you Antony. Those parametry should be witable with STS settings or KB settings

[paul]

I agree with Antony....

Paul

[johnnie]

I never in a million years thought the 4X could be so different and so lacking.
Come on Korg get the brains out give us what we deserve a keyboard that is better and functions better than any other PA series. This 4X flagship is an expensive mishap almost everything you touch is bugged up to the eyebrows

[grafcable]

100% agree with you Anthony!!!

[BR]

Antony agreed with you.
I have another different issue with my Pa4x regarding the SD card.
There are 2 topics in the forum about USER/DIRECT and the micro SD card, I put the links below.
I hope I am missing something and wish there is a solution to this encountered problem.
I would appreciate it if you (I mean everybody) can take a look at this post.

direct drive
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpbb2/ ... p?t=103838

Extend more User locations with micro SD Card
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpbb2/ ... p?t=103787

[siebenhirter]

.. discontinuing Style Preferences menu , and instead place it as Global style preferences ......
... this is not an evolution of PaSeries in performing functionality but unlike a totally misery restriction for Pro users in their real time performing and hope KorgPa developers address it soon add back velocity to Fill 1-4 options and bring back missing individual Style Preferences menu ...

Settings of Chord-Recognition-Mode, VelocitiyControl, ScaleMode and MemoryMode could be saved to a Performance or STS previously. Also in small Pa500 it is realized for more professional usage than Pa4x with its global settings.

Very annoying, because unfortunately several useful functions originally suffer from retrograde development

[D575]

Yes the PA3X operating system is by far much more comprehensive and Flexible (performance banks) than the pa4x, i do feel in one way the pa4x has moved forward in overall sound quality but the rest (which has been covered in multiple ways on this forum) after PA3X has me scratching my head which is a shame, I am missing my old PA3X in many ways sat here with my pa4x, I hope the PA5X is better (!) .......

[karmathanever]

Just my opinion and experience so far:-
I really like the "logical" changes to the overall PA4X OS - it is more "performance safe" and makes a lot more sense.

I 100% agree that if anyone used PERFORMANCES in the past to "setup" songs then it will be important to embrace the PA4X changes (or not buy one).
It takes a little getting used to but it does make sense (to me).

For any performances in the past (older PA models) I have always relied on SONGbook for my live set lists - mix of styles MIDIs and MP3s (mostly styles).
I still believe that the renaming of "PERFORMANCES" to "KEYBOARD-SETs" is forward step.

Ignoring the few outstanding bugs, this is a changed machine and quite honestly there is nothing "missing".
I was up and running with my entire set lists in about a couple of hours - new sounds are fantastic - we ran through the whole set lists and everything worked.

OK, Ill leave out any opinion regarding samples even though my samples and multi-samples with related SOUNDs and performances (converted nicely to KEYBOARD set by the PA4X) work perfectly.

I am NOT arguing that some may be experiencing some problems but I personally think that the changes need to be embraced or stay with PA3X/2X etc. - there's nothing wrong with doing that.
I do empathise with the frustrations the changes could cause.

Only my 5 cents

Perhaps I am the ONLY one who feels this way? (if so, help me )

Pete

[AntonySharmman]

this is a changed machine and quite honestly there is nothing "missing"

Pete with all respect but you seem pretty sure in this statement and you're wrong , you'd better ask advanced real time one-man
performers that improvise in a non stop program without songbooks and want the best functionality of their arranger or at least with that
they had as for granted ...
Do I owe to remind you that Pa4X has the same motherboard with Pa3XLe ? so don't feel so enthusiastic only because it fulfills your needs !

In conclusion if style preferences will be back as ought to be , then only the 5 missing performance (Set List) buttons and digital outputs
will be missing for me which is not so important compared to a very fast and flexible arranger as Pa4X with a really better factory library
and when all will be settled we would have no reason to complain since new order of functions in interface are just a little different but
definitely not less comprehensive or flexible.

I always wonder when we can get 2 very important functions in PaSeries that can easily added in OS and provide a vast improvement in functionality :
1) OSC AMS & Filter AMS send to sliders in order sound developers to create custom Hammond and analog synthesiser sounds with realtime
filters , adding a unique workstation feature and using the 8 existing sliders (from Pa1X age) also in a more usefull way.
2) 1-3 Switch mode between toggle & momentary in functions menu per Style STS or Sound , a magnificent DNC feature that should exist in PaSeries.

[karmathanever]

Hi Antony
Thanks for your response.

Pete with all respect but you seem pretty sure in this statement and you're wrong , you'd better ask advanced real time one-man
performers that improvise in a non stop program without songbooks and want the best functionality of their arranger or at least with that
they had as for granted ...
Do I owe to remind you that Pa4X has the same motherboard with Pa3XLe ? so don't feel so enthusiastic only because it fulfills your needs !

I am effectively like a one-man performer - using SONGBOOKS or not is a an option - previously (PA3X etc), using "performances" is an alternative way around setting up "songs" - SONGBOOK works perfectly for live non-stop programs and fully flexible and reliable.
BUT this still comes back to personal choice - I fully accept that.
No offence, but I don't really care about the motherboard or the colour of the casing - why shouldn't I be enthusiastic when clearly (for me) this is an even greater arranger than my PA3x WHICH I thought was the ultimate for a very long time - was the best keyboard I have owned.
I took a calculated risk getting the PA4X (especially when I had pre-sold my PA3X) - I was encouraged by a couple of forum members who kindly put my mind at rest somewhat before it arrived.

Antony, I fully respect the technical depth that you are experienced with and work with and also your amazing products but I will never be doing that - my needs are fully met at this point (OK there are a couple of little things I await update for) BUT I don't want to go backwards now - this OS design change is good and particularly for new owners will be far less confusing when learning such a complex workstation.

I am about reliability, flexibility and "ease" when it comes to performing - PA4X has that and I believe improved too.

I always wonder when we can get 2 very important functions in PaSeries that can easily added in OS and provide a vast improvement in functionality :
1) OSC AMS & Filter AMS send to sliders in order sound developers to create custom Hammond and analog synthesiser sounds with realtime
filters , adding a unique workstation feature and using the 8 existing sliders (from Pa1X age) also in a more usefull way.
2) 1-3 Switch mode between toggle & momentary in functions menu per Style STS or Sound , a magnificent DNC feature that should exist in PaSeries.

Cool - but it will be a long time (maybe never) before we see a Kronos-Arranger - what % of owners want that now? (Genuine question)
Maybe these functions will gradually sneak in....

Respectfully....

Pete

[siebenhirter]

.. the "logical" changes to the overall PA4X OS - .. renaming of "PERFORMANCES" to "KEYBOARD-SETs" is forward step.
.. embrace the PA4X changes (or not buy one).
.. Ignoring the few outstanding bugs, this is a changed machine and quite .. new sounds are fantastic
.. think that the changes need to be embraced or stay with PA3X/2X etc. - there's nothing wrong with doing that.

Can not see logical changes - only omissions in product development.

To rename a feature is a step backward, if associated with reducing its functions, like inability to store parameters used for StylePreferences and links to StyleChange.

That is no bug - it is reducing functionality of essential features.
In this context it is pointless to praise fantastic sounds.

It is not to accept to stay with predecessors - that would be ridiculous if a successor is delivered with proven features forgotten to be implemented.

It is nonsencial to embrace that changes, because features we already had and now lacking in successor are reasonable to be re-implemented by OS-updates.

... BUT I don't want to go backwards now - this OS design change is good and particularly for new owners will be far less confusing when learning such a complex workstation

There is no backward-to-go, simple missing features are missing - easy to be reimplemented in OS-Udate.

If one think new owners will be confusing to learn a complex system, you would have to remove a lot features and parameters still existing (soundedit, styleedit ...)

[D575]

+1 siebenhirter, I could not agree more.

[paul]

this is a changed machine and quite honestly there is nothing "missing"

Pete

From PA80 days to now..........I have owned all PA keyboards (except PA4X)
but why did KORG not allow more RAM memory

paul