Seems an awful lot of respect is being given to the basic engine, without nearly as much consideration to the samples themselves, to how much sample compression and shortened loops they have, to the D/A converters they go through, to the OS that drives the engine and to the style programmers that utilize all of the above.

I am also a bit bemused by, on the one hand, the slavish devotion to the 'latest' engine, whilst at the same time the admittance that the engine of the Korg Trinity was by far the best one from a sound perspective. So, what is the truth..? Is the latest ALWAYS the best, or is it just the latest?

Now, I've heard the PA1 and PA2 side by side, and while it's possible to tell a SLIGHT difference between the two, their similarities are FAR greater than their differences. There's no doubt that much of the sample content is common to both, the styles are common to both, and the OS is pretty common to both (things like the paucity of fills haven't been addressed in over a decade).

I honestly hear as little increase in change between PA1 and 2 as between T2 and T3. The engine doesn't make THAT much difference, IMO. Not as much as a new set of drum samples, or guitar samples, or any of the things that are obvious to the listener.

In all fairness, it isn't in an arranger company's interest to make a next model at 180º away from the previous model. People are buying the successor to what they have BECAUSE they liked the first one so much. Not because they hated it! THOSE guys go to another manufacturer.

The difference in sound between a T3 and a MoXS is about the same between a PA2 and an M3. And it is still primarily down to the samples themselves, not really the engine, IMO...