Hello All,
I've posted this central question elsewhere (under the PA2XPro heading), and I've received some very helpful feedback there (many thanks to Rob Sherratt), but I'm wondering if anyone else, specifically here in the M3 section, might also have some insights to share on the major differences between the M3 and the PA2X?
Things like:
1) Is the overall sound quality of the PA2X that much greater than the M3?
2) Is the lesser number of available Sounds or patches on the PA2X limiting in practical terms?
3) How would a fully equipped PA2XPro compare in versatility and function to a comparably equipped M3 including EXB-M256 and EXB-RADIAS?
4) Generally speaking, what key assets or features stand out on the PA2X that would make it worth nearly $1,000 more (average U.S. retail price) than the M3?
I know they're different OS's and different platforms (i.e., arranger vs. workstation), but I'm really struggling with this one.
Thanks All.
ANY M3 OWNERS OUT THERE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PA2X?
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
-
Extemporaneous
- Junior Member
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 12:22 am
- Location: North America
-
Extemporaneous
- Junior Member
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 12:22 am
- Location: North America
Interesting!
From what you've said here, it sounds as though the real comparison to be made (sonically speaking) is between the PA2X and the Oasys rather than the PA2X and the M3, and this is crucial information.
Mine is a strictly 'home' studio (recording) application, and consequently, overall sound quality is absolutely critical to me. My own initial (but unfortunately remote or on-line) impressions of PA2X sounds (i.e., demo, YouTube, etc.) was the very same - that they were superior to the M3. Albeit fewer in available number relative to the M3, they just seemed more natural or analog sounding; less 'digital' if you will.
Also, having a lesser number of 'factory' sounds on-board was of some concern to me initially, but you're now the 3rd or 4th person that has indicated not to sweat this particular aspect (or limitation) to the PA2X.
So, all-in-all, it sounds like the PA2X (rather than the M3) really 'is' where I need to focus my energies.
Many thanx Sina!
From what you've said here, it sounds as though the real comparison to be made (sonically speaking) is between the PA2X and the Oasys rather than the PA2X and the M3, and this is crucial information.
Mine is a strictly 'home' studio (recording) application, and consequently, overall sound quality is absolutely critical to me. My own initial (but unfortunately remote or on-line) impressions of PA2X sounds (i.e., demo, YouTube, etc.) was the very same - that they were superior to the M3. Albeit fewer in available number relative to the M3, they just seemed more natural or analog sounding; less 'digital' if you will.
Also, having a lesser number of 'factory' sounds on-board was of some concern to me initially, but you're now the 3rd or 4th person that has indicated not to sweat this particular aspect (or limitation) to the PA2X.
So, all-in-all, it sounds like the PA2X (rather than the M3) really 'is' where I need to focus my energies.
Many thanx Sina!
I don't mean to hijack or steer this off-topic, however I would like to say:
Has anyone else noticed that the PA2XPro looks a lot more like the OASYS than the M3.
And I admit the DNC system or whatever it is called in the PA series does sound very interesting and a powerful system to get much more realistic sounds. Similarly Guitar Mode sounds useful. With regards to the less sound slots and such, I imagine the PA being an arranger is aimed more at performance whilst synthesizer workstations like the M3 have always had a certain emphasis on sound design.
Has anyone else noticed that the PA2XPro looks a lot more like the OASYS than the M3.
And I admit the DNC system or whatever it is called in the PA series does sound very interesting and a powerful system to get much more realistic sounds. Similarly Guitar Mode sounds useful. With regards to the less sound slots and such, I imagine the PA being an arranger is aimed more at performance whilst synthesizer workstations like the M3 have always had a certain emphasis on sound design.
Current Gear: Kronos 61, RADIAS-R, Volca Bass, ESX-1, microKorg, MS2000B, R3, Kaossilator Pro +, MiniKP, AX3000B, nanoKontrol, nanoPad MK II,
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
-
Rob Sherratt
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 4590
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:49 pm
There are other reasons why the M3 is a better product for studio work ... BUT the sound synthesis engine on the Pa2x provides better sounds than you can get on the M3 for the reasons Sina said.
a) for dance/techno/trance etc, Karma comes into its own on the M3, and arranger based styles (e.g. Pa2x) for that type of music just don't work well. You need the progressive fade in of ever more complex backings, plus the gradual and random variety in rhythms that you can get with KARMA real time controls.
b) the MIDI implementation on the M3 lends itself to some very advanced studio work, where almost every parameter can be controlled via an external MIDI sequencer and via the supplied M3 Editor VSTi. The MIDI implementation is one of the most complete and most versatile on any keyboard. The Pa2x is not designed for serious studio work. The MIDI implementation is very light, there is no external VSTi available. With (considerable) work, a skilled studio based musician with software like Cubase 5 or Cakewalk Sonar etc, will achieve world class compositions with the M3 whereas the Pa2x will frustrate due to the poor MIDI and non existent external VSTi capability.
c) for spontaneous live gigs with a small band and no drummer and maybe no bass player, the Pa2x is absolutely perfect. Even if you don't want to use the arranger capabilities, its ability to switch sounds and performances at the touch of a button with no perceptible delay is fantastic. Also, any currently "held" notes at the time you switch sounds or performances, continue playing the correct (previous) sounds. The change only applies to new notes. Try doing this on the M3 and you will be disappointed.
d) On the Pa2x, select a DNC sound and play it legato and staccato, like DNC Trumpet or DNC Sax. Glissandi and all solo parts sound fantastic, JUST like the original instrument. This is because the samples used when playing legato are different from the samples used when there are gaps between the notes. No such facility exists on the M3.
In summary, (a) and (b) are pluses for the M3 when it is used in studio work with an external sequencer/ DAW. (c) and (d) are pluses for the Pa2x when used for live performances. It just sounds amazing.
Best regards,
Rob
a) for dance/techno/trance etc, Karma comes into its own on the M3, and arranger based styles (e.g. Pa2x) for that type of music just don't work well. You need the progressive fade in of ever more complex backings, plus the gradual and random variety in rhythms that you can get with KARMA real time controls.
b) the MIDI implementation on the M3 lends itself to some very advanced studio work, where almost every parameter can be controlled via an external MIDI sequencer and via the supplied M3 Editor VSTi. The MIDI implementation is one of the most complete and most versatile on any keyboard. The Pa2x is not designed for serious studio work. The MIDI implementation is very light, there is no external VSTi available. With (considerable) work, a skilled studio based musician with software like Cubase 5 or Cakewalk Sonar etc, will achieve world class compositions with the M3 whereas the Pa2x will frustrate due to the poor MIDI and non existent external VSTi capability.
c) for spontaneous live gigs with a small band and no drummer and maybe no bass player, the Pa2x is absolutely perfect. Even if you don't want to use the arranger capabilities, its ability to switch sounds and performances at the touch of a button with no perceptible delay is fantastic. Also, any currently "held" notes at the time you switch sounds or performances, continue playing the correct (previous) sounds. The change only applies to new notes. Try doing this on the M3 and you will be disappointed.
d) On the Pa2x, select a DNC sound and play it legato and staccato, like DNC Trumpet or DNC Sax. Glissandi and all solo parts sound fantastic, JUST like the original instrument. This is because the samples used when playing legato are different from the samples used when there are gaps between the notes. No such facility exists on the M3.
In summary, (a) and (b) are pluses for the M3 when it is used in studio work with an external sequencer/ DAW. (c) and (d) are pluses for the Pa2x when used for live performances. It just sounds amazing.
Best regards,
Rob
-
Extemporaneous
- Junior Member
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 12:22 am
- Location: North America
My very sincere thanks to Rob Sherratt and everyone else that has contributed to this (and related) threads in recent days.
I've learned a great deal along the way and expect that I will continue to learn much-much more in the months ahead, but I believe the central question that I had posed here has been duly answered.
I don't think there's any doubt (given my dedicated home studio application and my novice level of experience with keys), that the PA2X is the best overall choice for me at this point in time, and I'm most grateful to anyone and everyone involved for helping get me to this decision point.
Best wishes to all and ciao for now.
I've learned a great deal along the way and expect that I will continue to learn much-much more in the months ahead, but I believe the central question that I had posed here has been duly answered.
I don't think there's any doubt (given my dedicated home studio application and my novice level of experience with keys), that the PA2X is the best overall choice for me at this point in time, and I'm most grateful to anyone and everyone involved for helping get me to this decision point.
Best wishes to all and ciao for now.
-
a.schemkes
- Senior Member
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:49 pm
- Location: Netherlands [PA2xPro + M3-61]
- Contact:
Yes, you can.jpapas wrote:Can you load KMP files to a Pa2x?
Korg KronosX/Pa4x/M3 • Ableton • Komplete • Omnisphere • Roland Cloud soundcloud.com/allandd
-
Rob Sherratt
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 4590
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:49 pm
Yes you can load KMP files to a Pa2x or Pa800 but only if they contain multisamples in a simpler format than is commonly used on the M3. Let me give you some guidelines:
The M3 can use KMP files which contain 4-layers of stereo samples, velocity trigered. These multi-layered and stereo KMP files do not load on the Pa2x/Pa800 unless they are edited first. Let me give you an example of say a 4-layer Stereo RhodesPiano KMP file and what you have to do to load it.
Use an external editor e.g. Awave Studio, and create eight Mono KMP file(s) (it's a directory structure actually, containing KMP and KSC files) as follows.
Copy 1 & 2: Edit the Layer 1 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer1_L.KMP and RhodesLayer1_R.KMP.
Copy 3 & 4: Edit the Layer 2 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer2_L.KMP and RhodesLayer2_R.KMP.
Copy 5 & 6: Edit the Layer 3 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer3_L.KMP and RhodesLayer3_R.KMP.
Copy 7 & 8: Edit the Layer 4 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer4_L.KMP and RhodesLayer4_R.KMP.
Now import all the KMP files into the Pa2x/Pa800.
Then assign the samples to OSC's in a Sound as follows:
RhodesLayer1_L OSC1
RhodesLayer1_R OSC2
RhodesLayer2_L OSC3
RhodesLayer2_R OSC4
RhodesLayer3_L OSC5
RhodesLayer3_R OSC6
RhodesLayer4_L OSC7
RhodesLayer4_R OSC8
Then pan all the odd numbered OSCs (left channel) full left, and all the even numbered OSCs (right channel) full right.
Then set up the velocity triger points the same way as they were assigned in the original M3-format KMP file. So if Layer 1 was the quietest samples, and Layer 4 were the loud samples, you might have velocity trigger values as follows:
OSC1 & OSC2 - 000 to 063
OSC3 & OSC4 - 064 to 090
OSC5 & OSC6 - 091 to 115
OSC7 & OSC8 - 116 to 127
If you want to know more details then search the forum for the Steinway Piano project which I wrote up in detail last year.
Of course if the KMP file you are loading only has one layer of samples then it will load but it will not play in stereo unless you do the "split to mono" trick in Awave Studio to create two separate _L and _R complimentary mono multisample sets first.
Best regards,
Rob
The M3 can use KMP files which contain 4-layers of stereo samples, velocity trigered. These multi-layered and stereo KMP files do not load on the Pa2x/Pa800 unless they are edited first. Let me give you an example of say a 4-layer Stereo RhodesPiano KMP file and what you have to do to load it.
Use an external editor e.g. Awave Studio, and create eight Mono KMP file(s) (it's a directory structure actually, containing KMP and KSC files) as follows.
Copy 1 & 2: Edit the Layer 1 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer1_L.KMP and RhodesLayer1_R.KMP.
Copy 3 & 4: Edit the Layer 2 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer2_L.KMP and RhodesLayer2_R.KMP.
Copy 5 & 6: Edit the Layer 3 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer3_L.KMP and RhodesLayer3_R.KMP.
Copy 7 & 8: Edit the Layer 4 Multisample, split the stereo into two mono Multisamples using Awave Studio's auto-split function, then save the two mono Multisamples as say RhodesLayer4_L.KMP and RhodesLayer4_R.KMP.
Now import all the KMP files into the Pa2x/Pa800.
Then assign the samples to OSC's in a Sound as follows:
RhodesLayer1_L OSC1
RhodesLayer1_R OSC2
RhodesLayer2_L OSC3
RhodesLayer2_R OSC4
RhodesLayer3_L OSC5
RhodesLayer3_R OSC6
RhodesLayer4_L OSC7
RhodesLayer4_R OSC8
Then pan all the odd numbered OSCs (left channel) full left, and all the even numbered OSCs (right channel) full right.
Then set up the velocity triger points the same way as they were assigned in the original M3-format KMP file. So if Layer 1 was the quietest samples, and Layer 4 were the loud samples, you might have velocity trigger values as follows:
OSC1 & OSC2 - 000 to 063
OSC3 & OSC4 - 064 to 090
OSC5 & OSC6 - 091 to 115
OSC7 & OSC8 - 116 to 127
If you want to know more details then search the forum for the Steinway Piano project which I wrote up in detail last year.
Of course if the KMP file you are loading only has one layer of samples then it will load but it will not play in stereo unless you do the "split to mono" trick in Awave Studio to create two separate _L and _R complimentary mono multisample sets first.
Best regards,
Rob