Have to disagree Spalding, I have heard the Korg PA800 (The PA2x uses the same sound engine) side by side with the T2, both played by professional Artists, and I can assure you that the latest Korg sound engine easily matches Yamahas SA voices, and in many cases betters them.
Why, the answer is simple, the Korg sounds Real whereas the Yamaha SA sounds Impressive. (Big Difference)
TIP; always compare sounds against Real Instruments, NOT other boards.

Bill

BTW when compared to a Real Sax, (Side by Side) both are still lacking

VERY WELL SAID.


[This message has been edited by chony (edited 02-12-2008).]

well i would have to take issue with you there Abacus ! (in the friendly spirit that i understand your post to have been made :-)) Can the pa series guitar, any of them, play staccato and joined notes in real time playing ? It cannot.I own one and i know. Can the saxes play notes without each note being "re-blown" like a real sax ? No it cant. Name one instrument that has rx technology that plays better than the yamaha SA technology ?

if i get it right, SA is more of a particular WAY to reproduce sounds. the samples themselves are probably as good/bad as anyone's else. but the way they are triggered and modeled is different. something like that.
now, i must say i am yet to hear a totally knok-out performance with SA voices, to lead me believe they are far superior.
i think korg's sounds are top right now.

of course, the tehnique of the player is the main factor. even an old casio's distorsion guitar sounds good when the player know how to do it. and lately, having so many sounds with different velocity-triggered samples, any of the manufacturers have quality voices.
so, are there some incredible demos for SA? links...

[This message has been edited by adimatis (edited 02-13-2008).]

Spalding,

I don't think you understood what abacus was saying. There is no question that many of the yamaha are in a class of their own and put korg to shame. That doesn't take away from the fact that when you listen to those same instruments on a korg in action it just overall sounds more pristine. I've programmed for both keyboards even though I so far just own the yamaha and I must say last night at a wedding I attended I was just blown away by the punch and clarity of the korg. I simply cannot get those elements out of my yamaha no matter what equipment I use or how the compressor is set.

Yamaha has much better sounds but the korg has a much better sound. Read carefully.

sound overal will always be subjective but accuracy of sound is not. A sax that is reblown everytime a note is played does not "accurately reflect hopw a sax is played" Doesnt matter how good the original sample is. subtle nuances like continued blowed notes that blend into each other like a real sax is far more accurate than how korg do it. Notes that fall off naturally just as a sax player would and the ability to over blow a note are elemnets of the SA voicing technology that no other manufaturer has replicated yet.

There was a simply astoundind demo done by Peter Baartam

I cant find the link to it but click on this link and listen to the SA voices
http://aux.music.yamaha.com/tyros2/

Then go on this link and listen to the same family RX voices
http://www.korgpa.com/pa_root/en/products/pa2x_demo.html?en

Dont compare bthe quality of tyhe recording. compare the natural behaviour of the real instrument that both keyboards are trying to mimick

Hi Spalding
The new upgraded RX technology and memory goes way beyond SA, and is akin to EA (Extended Articulation) that Yamaha now use in their Motif range of instruments.
SA was good in its day but technology moves on (As is demonstrated with Yamahas Motif EA voices) and so now manufactures do not have to limit the articulations to a simple Mono/Poly (Solo/Legato) of SA.
I will see if I have time to put together a fuller explanation when I get back from work tonight.
Hope this helps for now

Bill

Go on the motifator forum which is the yamaha users forum and do searches on the Motif XS which is yamaha's latest flagship workstation using EA technology . Type in the search engine "tyros 2" . Virtually all the users are complaining that they want SA technology compared to EA technology it is far more realistic and intuitive than EA (which requires the use of a free hand to use in real time). In particular the users want the same saxes and guitars as the Tyros 2 !! They even created a petition that is being handled by yamaha japan at this moment to import the tyros 2 SA voicing technology into the Motif XS. The interesting theme of their complaints are "why does a home keyboard have better sounds in it than the top of the range pro workstation !" Go figure !!!

I have heard the Pa800 and Pa1x side by side and apart from the organs which are noticeably better on the Pa800 ( but not much as the korg organs are good anyway) compared to the PA1X there is virtually no sonic difference in the sounds or the way the RX technology triggers the sounds. Korg as far as i am aware have not redeveloped the RX technology. The marketing hype says they have a new sound engine Enhanced Definition Synthesis which when you close your eyes and listen to the instruments sounds just like the same synthesis in the KorgPA1X. Certanily not the jump that the Tyros 2 was from the tyros 1. Korgs RX technology was designed to compete with yamahas Megavoice technology.It was not an answer to the SA technology and as good as Korg sounds as an ensemble keyboard, its individual voices in key categories, sax, brass, strings,acoustic guitars are in my view are inferior to yamaha but i bought the Korg for the ensemble sound both in arranger mode and sequencer.

[This message has been edited by Spalding 4 (edited 02-13-2008).]

[This message has been edited by Spalding 4 (edited 02-13-2008).]

Acronyms, acronyms, what's a boy to do?

Don't assume that, just because another manufacturer uses a two letter acronym for some unspecified improvements to their voice technology that it has ANYTHING to do with another's.

Yamaha's SA technology is the ONLY hardware system that is capable of detecting legato and staccato play IN REALTIME, and use that to determine which set of samples to trigger. Plus, it can modify that behavior based on other rules as well, such as intervalic rules (don't make a squeak until the interval jumps more than a 4th, for instance).

Now, this isn't groundbreaking stuff, many software sample players have had complex rules-based behavior for several years. But it is, AFAIK, the only HARDWARE, non-computer-based (in other words, short of Neko, Muse or possibly MS) arranger that can do this. From what I can glean from Korg's literature, the RX technology simply uses more velocity layers to get different sounds, but you can't apply intervalic and legato/staccato rules.

This truly is, I believe, the only real improvement to ROM-plers in the last ten years. More RAM and more velocity layers is just more of the same. But the ability to play a natural technique, and have the instrument figure out, fast as a blink, which of a totally different set of samples to trigger to make the samples have that exact same natural technique is a totally new concept for hardware.

And going by the mistakes that Yamaha's WS division have made, trying to port this over to their side of the company, it is obvious that some of you are not the only ones to fail to grasp the overall concept..! The T2 has done an amazing job of making all this formidable power completely transparent to the user, whereas the MotifXS still demands a lot of non-musical (button switching, pedal pressing) techniques to achieve the same thing.

Now, this is NOT to say that any Joe Blow can sit down at an SA voice, and immediately get the best out of it. First of all, it requires a VERY refined legato/staccato technique, similar to the technique you would use on a Minimoog to trigger the envelope sweeps EXACTLY where you wanted them, and no other place EVER. That takes a degree of control and practice few attempt (not really needed for many other sounds). THEN you have to learn the intervallic rules for each sound, and play with those in mind. And each sound has a different one...

So it's unsurprising that some don't get it (you might have to actually KEEP your arranger more than a couple of months to get the hang of it!) and some do. There are some completely believable demos posted at Yamaha that showcase exactly HOW realistic these things can sound. What's that? You say YOU can't make it do this? They are playing the exact same arranger and sound as you. If you can't get it that good, just exactly who is to blame..? Oh, that's right... It MUST be the arranger!

yeh what he said but shorter :-)