Quote:YPKO forum...

"Hi all,
Allan, I was interested what you said about the Korg PA800. I am not sure if you are aware, but in September a new operating system is being released for this keyboard ( and the PA2X ). Korg are making bold statements about the revolutionary features this new O/S will bring. Although they will not be specific. They just say that it will redefine future keyboard design.
They are probably concerned about the effects that T3 will have on sales.
Chris"

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 08-27-2008).]

Pa2X/Pa800 Operating System Version 2 soon to be released

OSIMO (Italy) — Heard the rumours? We are hard at work on a new operating system for the Pa2X Pro/Pa800 packed with exciting new features that will make you think it is a whole new keyboard.

Except, we are saving you the money and putting these features into a no charge upgrade!

Want to know more? Then look out for Saturday September 13 when we will be publishing details of the incredible new features we plan for OS2 – and also the date it should be available for download!

Please stay tuned!

Yipppppeeeeee

Nobody from Korg that I know of has said anything about "Redfine keyboard design"....
Here is the direct quote from the Korg Webpage
*******************************************
Pa2X/Pa800 Operating System Version 2 soon to be released

OSIMO (Italy) — Heard the rumours? We are hard at work on a new operating system for the Pa2X Pro/Pa800 packed with exciting new features that will make you think it is a whole new keyboard.

Except, we are saving you the money and putting these features into a no charge upgrade!

Want to know more? Then look out for Saturday September 13 when we will be publishing details of the incredible new features we plan for OS2 – and also the date it should be available for download!

Please stay tuned!

The Korg Italy Team
*******************************************

Anything else, I suspect is pure hyperbole and excitement from keen users/demonstrators.

Dennis

Should be at Pakefield

Bill

I guess Korg and Yamaha are both doing software upgrades.
The difference is that Yamaha is smart to fool people and make it seem as if they are making a new keyboard (T2 - T3).

Now if only Roland would release thier TOTLA keyboard combined with the new Ketron Audya, we'd have a humdinger of a time in the next 6 months with evaluating all these wonderful products.

I have to admit I'm pretty happy with the Pa2xpro as it is, but the OS could use some tweaks and refinement.

------------------
Al Giordano
Visit us at ARRANGER WORLD! http://www.arrangerworld.com

Korg Pa2xpro, Roland VK8-M, DW Collectors Series Drums, Roland TD-12 Vdrums, Roland SPD-S.

Likewise I'm happy with the Pa2xPro, but the greater the menu choices the better. Should be a fun time the next 6 months.

Like a whole new keyboard huh?

I wonder what that will entail. If Korg can increase the polyphony by a software update that in itself would give the PA2XPRO a "whole new keyboard" concept. It is also possible that Korg will "add" additional preset combi's or improve some of the existing combi's perhaps. Likewise the Drums as well, along with additional Styles and them 'finally' fixing the Fill glitch that everybody complains about. That would sure be a blessing in disguise, no?

I will wait and see what OS 2.0 brings to the table for the PA2XPRO. If it is significant (like adding poly, etc.), I may take the bait and get myself one.

If the Ketron Audya is delayed until January before shipping and if Korg hits a home run with OS 2.0, it might be the final straw that breaks Ketrons back in my opinion, especially because of the huge price discrepancy between the two i.e. $1,400 = $3,699 vs. $5,100 (street price). The only real way, in my opinion, that Ketron could pull out of such a possible foreboding financial setback is if Ketron hits a GRAND SLAM!!! with the Audya. If it happens to indeed be the bees knees and worth every penny, then I could see a WHOLE LOTTA people forking over the dough for one - in the case of Al maybe two. BUT.., the probability of the Audya blowing everything else out of the water in today's totl market is rather low, sorry to say. We'll have to wait and see, but with all the seeming problems Ketron has been having with the Audya e.g. probable bugs, delays, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a white elephant - and a very expensive white elephant at that.

Best,
Mike

I don't care who the manufacturer of an MI product is or how great it is perceived, at $5000+ there will NEVER be a "whole lotta people forking over dough for one". In this world cheap sells and that's why products like the PSR-S900 sell well. Price point is often the number one factor that drives sales and manufacturers know that. Manufacturers such as Ketron are trying for a niche market where the product wont sell in droves but if it is successful, will sell enough to make Ketron a profit and allow them to continue working on the next TOTL arranger.

I commend companies like Ketron, Wersi, Lionstracs, and Korg (with the Oasys) who have the balls to have so much belief in a product that they will manufacture and market keyboards that most people cannot or will not ever purchase due to price alone. The Korg Oasys was a fine example of that. At $8500 retail it was so expensive that no matter how great it was or wasn't, the sales figures were never going to be off the charts. Korg sold a reasonable amount of Oasys keyboards but was it enough to cover the R&D for the Oasys alone? I seriously doubt it. What Korg will do is share parts of the Oasys technology with their lower end keyboards and use those products to reap profit. The M3 is an example of that.

Automobile manufacturers use these same marketing techniques. They'll design a concept super car that few if anyone can ever afford so that they can have much of the technology trickle down into their lower end models. The concept cars raise a lot of attention for the company and help with marketing but selling the concept car is often not even a reality.

I remember back in the mid 1980's Casio (yes Casio) made a sampler that was rumored to be on par with the likes of Fairlight and Synclavier. Had Casio been able to market that sampler at a fraction of the Fairlight or Synclavier's cost, they'd have had a winner on their hands. The reality was that there was no way to manufacture a product of that nature any cheaper, Casio only made the concept sampler to show that even they could compete with the big boys. Later some of that sampling and synthesizer Technology Casio developed trickled down to the FZ, RZ, CZ, and SK Series which sold quite well for Casio.

It doesn't matter to me how many new features are added as long as Korg is continuing to support the PA2X Pro, I commend them. Chances are the updates won't be earth shattering but the PA2X Pro is already a fine musical instrument so any additions are welcomed additions.

Like the PA2X my Yamaha 9000 Pro was supposed to be future proof with software updates but Yamaha pulled the plug on it. 9000 Pro updates were more difficult to find than a cure for cancer would be before Yamaha discontinued it. After they discontinued it.... fugget about it! Just be glad Korg isn't orphaning the PA2X at this time.

Mike,

You cannot add polyphony with a software upgrade. That is a sound chip enhancement. But, the Korg uses the same sound chip as the M3 and Oasys, so I don't think that should be problem. I haven't experienced any drop outs as yet with the keyboard.

Al

It is possible to add Polyphony via software but it all depends on the architecture of the instrument. I don't believe the PA2X can add polyphony via software though as its an embedded product, but it may be possible. Who knows, maybe Korg has a PC hidden under the PA2X shell?

The Korg Oasys and Wersi Abacus both added polyphony in new software updates. These of course are computer based instruments so they have an advantage over embedded instruments in that they aren't fixed. Just another one of the advantages an Open Architecture keyboard has.

By the way... the PA2X Pro does not use the same sound chip as the Oasys. It may share some of the same type of sounds but not the same sound chip. The Oasys uses the HD-1 sound engine, the PA2X Pro the EDS sound engine. While quite good sounding the EDS engine does not have the dynamic range or filtering that the HD-1 engine has.

Just curious, but why the need for more polyphony?

Are you running out of voices?

Or is it one of those stats that are easier to quantify than sound quality, or ease of operation, or quality of styles, and thus makes it to the top of the list?

Me, I'd shoot for better D/A's, if you want to find a factor that is never discussed much, and manufacturers rarely publish specs on. It would probably make more difference to your perceived impression of the PA2Xpro's overall 'quality' than a few more voices of polyphony, IMO

Al, the reason I suggested a possible polyphony increase by using software on a hardware/software based instrument such as a keyboard is because it IS possible to increase the polyphony on, let's say, a computer's hardware based sound card. For instance, the Creative Sound Blaster Live! released several years ago had an original factory hardware based polyhony of 512 if I remember correctly. >> Yep... 512 capable notes of polyphony playback on a dinky little sound card back in 1998??? Go figure, right Al? Anyway, Creative apparently didn't think 512 notes of polyphony was enough for Sound Blaster Live! Users - (tell that same thing to Yamaha and the rest of 'em and they'll just laugh at us, right? - so Creative, by way of a software update, increased the Sound Blaster Live! polyphony to 1024! For a $100 sound card mind you! And here we are today in 2008 where Yamaha, Korg, Roland, and the rest of them have convinced all of us that 128 is "muy excellent e muchas buenas, si?" (and likely ALL we'll ever get for years to come if they had their druthers right? )

Anyway, to make a long story short"er" , the reason Creative was able to increase a hardware based sound card's polyphony through just a software update >> (from what I've gathered anyway), was that the hardware DSP chip used in the Sound Blaster Live! was supposedly a very powerful sound chip made by E-mu and it apparently had reserve scalability - being so powerful and all - and the software update utilized the reserve power on the hardware chip and was effectively able to double the sound card's polyphony from 512 to 1024! JUST through the use of software...

Now understand, most likely the hardware chips Yamaha used in the T2 had reached the limit of its performance and efficiency, evidenced by the fact the T2 slow screen redraw issues compared to the T1. Yamaha probably used similar powered chips in the T2 that they did in the T1, but because of the T2's extra cpu intensive features such as direct Audio recording and the Sample-"player", etc., the chips on the T2, needless to say, were apparently maxed out in my opinion, with the T2 even considered by me to be "underpowered" for all the features it has. >> Same scenario that happened to the PSR9000PRO most likely as well, only this time it's in a 61 key flavor. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/wink.gif[/img] So what I am saying is, the T2 would NOT be scalable and heaven knows if the T3 will or will not be.
Or if Yamaha even takes CPU/DSP chip scalability into consideration when they build their keyboards.
Or for that matter Korg, since we're talking about OS 2.0 for the PA2XPRO? [img]http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/redface-oops-6.gif[/img]

So in theory, I think it could be done if the manufacturers took chip scalability into consideration. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/cool.gif[/img] Who knows if any of them do or not though. [img]http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/sorry.gif[/img]

Best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 08-28-2008).]

If the hardware is based on SHARC chips or an FPGA, then in theory software developers could add nearly an infinite number of changes and updates being only limited by the number of chips used and the host computer driving them. There are theoretical limits to each chip but the possibilities far exceed those of custom embedded chips used by most manufacturers such as Yamaha. The Wersi is one such device that utilizes several SHARC processors to produce its audio, sampling, and synthesis. The major advantage of a system like this isn't just the incredible sound quality of the processing card itself, but the ability to swap cards out when a faster card becomes available.

Hi Mike
Regarding creative cards, you are mixing voices and polyphony up. (Easily done with the creative (Ouch) marketing used)
The Polyphony of Creative cards vary between 32 and 128 notes, depending on the type of card. (The average is 64)
The 512 voices you refer to are the number of sounds (Voices) they can access, later software updates allowed the cards to access the computer ram, thus increasing the number of sounds (Voices) that could be accessed. (These can be identified in the small print which states that the additional number of sounds (voices) is dependent on the computer system used)
Hope this makes things clearer.

Bill

Thanks for your reply Bill. Thanks also for clarifying the differences. So you're saying that the Creative card could theoretically "access" up to (in the case of the Sound Blaster Live!) 1024 different 'sounds' but yet not be able to playback all of those sounds i.e. "tones" - {where a "tone" is the basic structure that makes up the 'sound'(s)} all at once.

I would still like to make the point that you can buy a relatively "inexpensive" piece of equipment like a computer sound card for a $100 or so that has 128 notes of polyphony. We're paying, in some cases, over 4 Grand and more for our sound producing keyboards and the manufacturers seem stuck in a HUGE rut - one in which they don't want to get out of apparently either of a measly 128 notes of polyphony.

I know, I know, Chas will say a person only has 10 fingers, but if that is the rule of thumb the manufacturers go by, all we would ever need would be 10 notes of polyphony - which thankfully the manufacturers have obviously ignored by the way. Sorry Chas. With ALL thes new CPU and Polyphony intensive features being added to workstations and even more polyphony intensive arrangers, 128 notes of polyphony CAN NOT cut the mustard in my opinion. But it always seems to fall on deaf ears except in a RARE few occasions like Ketron's forthcoming Audya and Korg's now obsolete Oasys, etc. If Ensnareyou is right about the SHARC chips or an FPGA then I still think theoretically polyphony need not be solely based and hardwired to hardware as far as increasing the amount goes. But on the other hand I could indeed be wrong about that assumption.

Thanks again Bill for your explanation on the Creative product.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

Companies like Wersi, Lionstracs, and Open Labs offer instruments where polyphony is so high you won't even think twice about it. Is 1024+ voice polyphony enough for you? How about the polyphony only being limited by CPU speed and RAM? That's one of the strong points of open architecture instruments.

The reason the big three don't offer more polyphony is that they are limited by the CPU and its processing power. To increase polyphony they'd need a better CPU, more RAM, and that would significantly change the price point of the instrument. There's a reason the Audya, Lionstracs Mediastation, and Wersi OAS instruments cost more, they use higher end components that cost significantly more.

The Korg Oasys is a great example of an open ended instrument where the manufacturer didn't offer the kind of support for it that they should have. The Oasys has the processing power and RAM capability to be far more than it is but rather than allowing third parties access to Korg software so they could integrate third party VST's and other applications into the Oasys, Korg chose to keep the system closed. Korg had a great idea with the Oasys but I believe the sales weren't as expected and as such Korg decided to not develop much more software for the instrument. I was one of the people who purchased an Oasys and had high hopes for it. I saw the writing on the wall early on when software updates lacked the much needed features and instead Korg decided to offer sound sets rather than features so I sold my Oasys. It was a phenomenal synthesizer but by no means the Pro Workstation Korg touted it to be.

People have really got to get their heads around the difference between VSTi's DXi's and ROMPLERS.

It is only with the first two that CPU, Ram etc etc makes any difference.

The third is TOTALLY dependent on the number of Oscillators on board, 1 osc = 1 note, 4 osc = 4 notes, you get the idea.

Oscillators are hardware, ie, can only be increased by building a new keyboard, or have the ability to install a new mother board, or in the case of romplers more probably a daughter-board.

The ROM chips ONLY store wave/sample data and have nothing to do with polyphony. Polyphony on these instruments is determined by the number of oscillators

If there are only 64 available oscillators, then no matter WHAT you do it will ALWAYS be 64 note polyphony TOTAL.

The more samples used to create the sound the less available polyphony.

Which is the opposite on VSTi DXi where the upper limit on polyphony is, theoretically, unlimited.

Dennis

Hi Dennis
If the sounds are produced by synthesis, then your oscillator description is correct, however most boards use samples, which are audio recordings of parts of the real instrument, (No oscillators involved) which are then combined (Processed) by the CPU and RAM/ROM to produce the sound .
Point to note; there many types of CPU out there, (Not all are called CPUs) so it does not have to be the same as in a computer.
Hope this makes things clearer.

Bill

Bill, and with all due respect, what I can assure you of is that the note polyphony (as in the number of notes that can be played and NOT the number of samples being used) on a hardware based synth is DIRECTLY related to the number of oscillators which use the audio samples contained in the ROM. Its what passes these days for the older VCO's. They have just dropped the DC from the DCO. It is the same thing.

Its the software, or VSTi-DXi that can use samples with no oscillators required, which can therefore provided a theoretical unlimited amount of polypony depending on RAM and CPU.

This is also why manufacturers cannot increase poly with a software update. It is the fundamental architecure of a synth, even one that uses only samples.

Even if you sample your own sound it has to assigned, either by you or the 'board, to an oscillator to play.

If you don't believe me, just ask the engineers at Korg, Roland or Yamaha et al! ( I did!!)

Sorry to have to disagree with you, but you are either wrong, or you are misunderstanding what I was saying in my previous post, in your statement.

Dennis

I also agree ..the samples are the wave form..the oscillators are the means to the polyphony.
64 oscillators means a max of 64 polyphony..

Hi Dennis
The term Oscillator in a modern sampling board is in name only, however it is still used because everybody understands it.
Modern board’s polyphony is determined by the processing power and ram in the board, however unlike software boards, this is fixed during the initial design stage.

As a comparison; the dynamics on an electronic keyboard have nothing whatsoever to do with normal dynamics, but instead relate to the speed of the key depression, which the software interprets to provide the various volumes etc.
However it is still called dynamics as this is a term that everybody understands.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
Regards

Bill