I am not arguing that that is what it sounded like. However, you realize that it was no more than 32 notes.

The only reason you are not concerned about the polyphony is if the note drop-outs have not happened to you. I will agree that not everyone will be upset by it - some people only play bass and drums and for the most part do not use auto accompaniments. Others play not very complex arrangements.

However, it happened to me a number of times on a 64-note poly instrument (which handles polyphony "well"), and I believe that going to a lower-polyphony instrument would make this problem worse. I would keep quiet about it if Korg had said "We realize this is a problem, but in order to have the instrument not delayed by another x months we had to re-use the existing antiquated components (e.g. Triton engine). We will correct it in two years". Istead they are saying to me "You don't need any more polyphony. Plenty of known musicians use Triton, therefore it is not a problem for you". I find this attitude insulting - they don't know what does or does not work for me. I see this as a company that is being lazy and backward, trying to milk their 5 year old technology, when in today's software-based instruments all they needed to do was to replace a processor with a newer model, which is likely not twice by twenty times as fast, and increase the limits on some software counters.

Also, what about 32 MB limit for a sample RAM? WHO limits sample ram to 32 MB in 2003???? My 3 year old PDA has more RAM than that.

I think that KORG is aiming this instrument at the studio musicians, who have no problems using racks full of additional tone generators (and various effects). However, this makes this instrument unsuitable for people who play single acts, need to be able to quickly get in, set up, and break down, and are concerned about poratbility and compactness,. I believe this is a marketing mistake on Korg's part.

Regards