Hi Guy`s ,

Time to talk about the T-3 !!

After 3 months of playing it , I find the following "Good & Bad "

The Good:

Fast key-bed , I mean ultra fast and smooth , Gr8 action.
So far the best of any arranger that I have played.

Guitar sounds , fun and very realistic.

I`m learning to dig the piano sounds , but still , it is no Roland.

So far the organ sounds are nothing new , at least to me.
They are good , but so is a B3 , and the T-3 is no B3 !
But they work for me.

The screen is very nice and easy to read.

So far all the buttons and sliders still have a solid feel.

The Bad:

Using the T-3 speakers, I find that they are holding me back.
Could sound a lot better with better speakers ! ( of course we knew that already )

The "Power Button" on the rear , bad idea.

Lettering for various buttons and functions are too hard to read to a moderate light setting. ( Sometimes my arms are not long enough either !! LOL , that is what happens over 50 )

Could use a lot more SA 2 voices , no where near enough.
Based on the cost of the KB.

Paint , I have heard that the T-2 had paint issues , I hope the T-3 has a better paint job.

Well that is about it , so please add your thoughts !!

Many thanks !

Later,

Gary 



[This message has been edited by jedi (edited 01-03-2009).]

Disclaimer: Studio use only.

The Good

TONS of Styles
Voices and Voice Pack upgrades.
Screen RGB out
Hard Disk and dual USB device ports one Host.
LAN Port for Direct Internet connect.
Controller options
Sliders under the Screen
EFX
Compression choices
MIX quality
Keyboard feel for a no weighted board. Far better then the PSR900.
Much more solid feel then the PA2x I had prior

The BAd

MIDI implementation takes some getting used to.
Harmonizer (okay sparingly for some BG vocals with lots of precessing, but wouldn't use live)

Its what I expected and does what I need it to do, However it compliments the softsyths rather then take their place in some cases.
Would love another 1/4" foot controller input



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-03-2009).]

I agree KF , "Studio Only" , I could not see the T-3 as a "working - make a living" KB.

I would like to see Yamaha come out with an "all-in-one" A/KB , like the S900 , but with the sounds and FSX key-bed.

That I would gig with !

You are soooo correct , midi files need a lot of work to play right on the T-3 , unless of course you buy them from IDC.

5 bucks for a midi file ???? I don`t think so , unless I didn`t have it already and I really needed it.

Macintosh compatibility should be a must , but it`s not , I don`t think Yamaha will ever release real Mac software.

Still have not picked up a mic yet , but I am not expecting any changes since I had the Y2K.

Later

Gary 

After several weeks now I'm starting to get used to the T3 a bit more.
So far:

THE GOOD;
Screen display nice.

Wind instrument SA2s good stuff.

Guitars are fun.

Organ sounds have much more bite than the T2.

THE ORDINARY;
The over all sound (notwithstanding the new and better voices) is only marginally better, if at all, when compared side by side with my tweaked T2 IMO.

Some of the Music Finder Set-ups and OTS are inappropriate and poorly balanced (a little rushed to market), IMO the T2 was more thoroughly finished.

Quite a few of my registrations have not transferred well to the T3 despite the use of Yamaha’s conversion program and thus I find I’m using quite a number of the T2 styles to manually restore these registrations to their previous functionality.

The layout could have been much better i.e. the "Registration Bank" should have been placed next to the sliders at least and the data entry wheel moved beside the screen on the right.

THE BAD;
The T3 would have to have the worst Vocal sounds of any “top of the range” arranger keyboard on the market.

I really don't like the new "Concert Grand" - BIG let down (mid to upper mid range –sounds cheap) it certainly has not lived up to its promise, particularly when played with clean amplification/speaker sys.
The T2 Live Grand is way better IMO (I'm quite fond of the new "Cocktail Piano" however).

If you use fast registration/preset changes where you need left hand control - it’s not the best. I’ve had to change nearly all my reg’s to single song per bank and have them foot controlled where possible as a work around – needs more foot controller sockets.


NEEDS;
Additional foot controller ¼ “ sockets as “Kingfrog” mentioned above.

Better ergonomics / design.

A really decent Piano voice, although I doubt Yamaha will ever do this, after all they put their effort into better Irish pipes instead of a decent piano, they obviously viewed that as a greater need.


COMMENTS;
Some of the new voices are really good and I’m enjoying them a lot.
I will enjoy the T3 more and more as time goes by no doubt (notwithstanding the obvious annoyances mentioned).

If Yamaha however, wants people to upgrade their T3s to their next machine, be it T4 or whatever, they will really need to deliver more than they have from the T2 to the T3, as I feel many people will not be so quick to upgrade next time around, I know I won’t.
Next time I will, for the first time in a very long time, actually consider other manufacturers for my next upgrade and really do a thorough audition of everything available.

Chris.

As good as Yamaha arranger units are I think that this latest Tyros 3 release & sales wasn't as good as they expected which they hoped would ride the coat tails of the Tyros 2 which did very well. Dont get me wrong the T3 is still an awesome sounding machine for sure...But It will be very interesting to see if they follow suit again with a Tyros 4 or break away and offer something out of the box & ground breaking which I hope they do. Meanwhile I'd like ti see the next S900 upgrade with a few feature changes like front USB, MFD transpose save, Tilt display, all inputs/outputs/midi,AC, pushed to extreme left or right rear as to not be in the middle blocked by KB stands like the Apex Deluxe, seperate mode SMF/MP3 option, increased user Ram,improved VH.
Otherwise yamaha is the one to beat IMO.

Something was mentioned about the Tyros that to me is just odd..., and to be honest this is the only forum I've ever seen this complaint show up and be related to Yamaha.

Of all the things we can complain about on a keyboard it blows my mind that people have gotten so picky now that they're using the location of the power button as a negative. I find that so odd because the location of the Tyros power button isn't in some unheard of place nor is this a location that has suddenly popped up out of no where. Maybe it's just me but if one needs to point out the negative.., lets talk about the age old technology being used on these so called "advanced keyboards".., or why in today's age some of these boards have such slow proc. power, or so little ram, ect.

The rear of the keyboard is the most common place you'll find a power switch. I just think it's pointless argument IMO considering this location of the powerswitch isn't anything new. Again.., the only time I've seen this complaint was with Yamaha's.

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-04-2009).]

Squeak agreed....


But to me most Yamaha arrangers eg: T1,2,S900 all have the power button on top deck......by placing it in the rear T3 & then most home users put the unit against a wall etc... which restricts access to the power button, plus they are so used to it on top & change is a negative. Makes sense?

To me it doesn't make sense partly due to one of the reasons the power switch is on the rear to begin with. Sure I can understand some Yamaha users have gotten used to the front panel location..., but this feature is really a rarity in keyboards (outside of arrangers both low and mid end).

Many pro and semi-pro keyboards have their switch on the rear.., and their owners also have them up against walls and have no problem accessing the power switch. In reality how close can you really get your board to the wall to begin with? Especially if you have either audio cables running from the outputs or even a sustain pedal or expression pedal hooked up.

One of the reasons the power switch is on the rear..., is so there is no accidental loss of power (by the user). 99.99% of the keyboards I've owned in my lifetime have had the powerswitch on the rear.., and I've never found it a problem.

Total BOO to rear power switches!I have to dig out my flash light EVERY time i want to adjust my 'Input-gain' from an AUX input device.If,that's if the T4 is a worthy purchase for me and the power switch is on the rear I WILL be drilling&mod'n a more convieniant spot on the FRONT panel somewhere for certainly sure!..Boo to rear..

Well Squeak there's your answer

If have ever made a "Karaoke" file from a well known song $5.00 would be cheap to buy one. IT can take many many hours to recreate all the parts exactly and would required the ability to play a MIDI guitar and in some cases a wind controller to take advantage of the Mega voices.

I have all the Toon 1000 tracks and am amazed at how well they did them when compared to the original arrangements in so many arenas. My wife makes CDs of them minus the parts she will play live with great results.

The Earth Wind and Fire tracks are a really good example of tracks I would not want to re record. I would bet if Phillip Baily sang in front of them on a CD the Avg Joe would not know it wasn't the band behind him. They use the T3 voices that well. The additional "programmed harmonies" that play like the real thing within the tracks are a nice touch as well although they are woefully bad voiced through the T3.

I have the S900 with power switch on the front, and the Tyros3 and KX8 with rear mounted switches.

The PSR-S900's panel switch is far more convenient, but you get used to the rear mounted switches after several years.

Ian

Two comments -
Jedi, I use my T3 nearly every day for gigging - not a problem as far as I can tell.

Second, A few months back while playing a gig with my PSR3000 I reached for the fade button and hit the power switch - bummer. I rather like the power switch where it is out of the way.

Hammer

Thats always the result when whiskey is thrown into the 'mix'..the hole for the power button on your 3000 is reccesed for a reason,learn to cordinate those 'hammer'n' fingers,Hammer!

Well,
If I drank I might have an excuse - but I don't so I guess I don't have an excuse.

Hammer

I've explored my Tyros3 for 2 weeks so far and am willing to share my experiences with you. I've seen that nobody seems to be waiting for positive feedback, so I'm just concentrating on points that need approval imo :

Housing:
It's absolutely HUGE !! I think it's depth is just to much (like T1+2), it's all empty space you carry around and I find that very inconvenient. I use it more for studio use, though.

Styles :
Sound nice OTB and there's a lot of them.
If I even use standard styles, I find I'm shutting up nearly all the accompaniment parts, because it's a complete chaos : too many parts, too many instruments...your sound is becoming a "blur" that way.

OTS settings :
it really pays of to walk through them, as there are some really good settings according combination voices/harmony and EQ settings. Take for instance the Jazz Tumpet (SA2) who's effects are balanced in a way that it truly sounds like a muted trumpet.

"Music Internet Direct/ Music Finder +" :
This is a website you connect to with your Tyros. It's the biggest piece of crap I've seen to date! Even the characters in the input page (numbers and letters) aren't cached, so they have to reload everytime you switch from capital to normal letters and so on.
Every single song/setting has to be seperately downloaded (because there are too few "collections") and if you've looked at the "details" page, you're only way back is starting again from the root menu (music finder +).
It's a very powerfull idea, but the site is so userunfriendely I could go on for hours complaining about it.

Yammie's way or the highway :
I hate it that Yammie's preset styles and sounds can't be overwritten with your own custumized sounds/styles : now the tiniest adjustments lead to having everything I use being grouped under the "custom" buttons.
and you can sure customize a lot !

Compressor :
If everyone who complained about the concert grand patch being "thin in the middle" knew what a compressor whas and would have bought real speakers, we wouldn't have seen that remark so much. I find the standard compression setting the problem in cutting the C3-C5 range off too much. I've had the concert grand against a CP-300, and it's definitely the same sampled sound (I dunno if it's the same samples though!). But with al my tweaking skills, I can't match the warmth and depth of the CP-300. It just is lacking soul in some way.

EQ :
Yamaha could have made the T3 sound FAR better if every part would have it's own 5-range EQ : the overall EQ is a 5 range, but on a part (left,right1,right2,etc) you only get a 2-range EQ, aka bass/treble. For someone who wants to get the most out of the tyros, this absolutely stands in the way ! This is IMO related to the complaints about the concert grand sound not matching the demo's : I don't think you want to hear a style or a guitar with the EQ settings used in the demo for the piano solo !
Yammie dares to say in it's manual that every part has it's own high-quality EQ. High-Quality EQ means 5-range EQ per part and not bass/treble !!
I now work around this by recording each single "instrument" solo, with customized "overall-EQ" seperately on a (external) HDD recorder. That's not what I was expecting to do and this is without any doubt the issue that gave me a dissapointed feeling of this "musical workstation", also considering the pricerange it's in.

EFX
The EFX department is great : finally semi-pro effects are available. It's just a shame that OTB the EFX on styles as well as sounds are just WAY too much ! This takes away the "live" sound : too much reverb and chrous. Suprisingly often too little DSP depth though!

Overall :
I'm very pleased with my T3, but as I stated above, there are some issues that need improvement. It's an arranger and definately not a professional workstation.
For the home-user or "midi-file-performer" it is complete overkill and they will not uncover more than 40% of it's potential.
For the pro it will sadly be a work-around-station, but it's worth the effort if you hear the results !

I think the way to go for the T4 will be to consult super-users worldwide in a virtual community and for once build a flagship workstation that fits flagship-users. I'd be happy to take part in such a thing, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one, hey ?

why even use an arranger like the T3 if your not going to utilize all the great styles by shutting off almost all the parts within the accomp....sort of defeats the purpose....you can achieve the same results with so many other units.

Dnj,
I mainly make my own styles, plain and simple. All those parts in a style are only useable if you don't play too much melody yourself. It all clouds up the sound by hearing drums, bass and 6 different instruments playing different patterns and layering your own lively playing upon that. In such a mix, the soundquality of the leadsounds is hugely diminished by the blurr of the parts because they are often in the same range as the lead instruments(a good mixer knows what I'm talking about).
Here also the lack of a 5-band EQ per part is in play !
Try it, and you'll notice that by turning parts of and keeping the accompaniment "realistic,tidy and clean", you're going to free the leadsounds. The SA2 saxophone for instance sounds great solo, but in blend with the styles, you don't hear the fine nuances anymore. T3 is not the only kb I use, I use it mostly for it's sounds and for (custom)styles.

BTW : the point of improvement I ment is primarily in the versatility of the styles : I don't want a machine packed full of styles only applicabele to 1 specific song. Secondary the T3 would sound alot better OTB if the OTS's would not have all of the parts activated.

I disagree on your remark making it sound like the only distinguishing point of the T3 is it's complex styles : I think the styles are nothing special the competition can't match.

I understand where MusiCo is coming from. It's not the first time someone has brought up the issues with some styles being "too busy". We've talked about this many times in the past about styles on all the major brands.., in how some leave you a lot of room for solo work.., and some make you feel as if you're fighting for the spot light with the other parts of the style.

Also understand that he creates his own styles which means he most likely digs a little deeper into his arranger than many users here.

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-05-2009).]

Everyone uses an arranger for different reasons, granted I prefer as much music coming out to the audience as possible because as a Singer performing with a FULL BAND is my signature sound & always has been since I went solo 17 years ago after 23 years with a 7 pc dance band....I have no problems soloing lead sounds to cut thru the mix at all because I make it sound that way using all the editing tools I need to do so no problem. I make hundreds of people dance everyday & it ain't gonna happen with a stripped down cocktail piano, Lh bass/drum routine at all.......although when I'm in a small situation I have custom styles just for that purpose.....being the maestro is what "ARRANGING" is all about hence the name Arranger Keyboard.....and again in the end result it all about WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE plain & simple!

You should have bought a Motif or Korg PA2x.
The TYROS is definitely not for you or anyone else who has the same needs.

I had the opposite issue with the Korg and bought the Tyros becasue I did not need to tweak as much. However you can insert a r or L part into the final mix and have ALL the EQ available.

Definitely more of a Studio/Home Box than live though, The Korg has LIVE USE all over it. Not so the T3. We record tracks and take the tracks and the RD700 and guitar on gigs and leave the T3 home. Going to pick up a module for right hand solos other than piano. Not worth lugging the T3 around for that.

Some use an arranger to simply accompany their singing... others use it to accompany their PLAYING. If you play a LOT, you sure don't need a lot going on in the accompaniment, Donny...

Exactly Diki! Not everyone buys an arranger to accompany their singing. Some people are players first..., singers second.., and not even singers at all.

Some people enjoy the styles, but also like room to play. I've found some styles to be too busy from every maker out there.

Can't agree diki, what does it matter if you sing or not? Vocals are part of the Full BAND Sound.......I just want to see & hear one man with an arranger make a dance crowd of lets say 300 to 400 pp crowd with just "simple stripped down styles" to almost nothing, vocals or not dance all night.

I'd love to see & hear it without much going on. Listen what I'm saying to you 300 to 400+pp....

Play a LOT? hahahahahah



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 01-05-2009).]

Quoting Musico:

"EQ :
Yamaha could have made the T3 sound FAR better if every part would have it's own 5-range EQ : the overall EQ is a 5 range, but on a part (left,right1,right2,etc) you only get a 2-range EQ, aka bass/treble. For someone who wants to get the most out of the tyros, this absolutely stands in the way ! This is IMO related to the complaints about the concert grand sound not matching the demo's"
*************************************

It's true the individual voices have a treble/bass EQ but it doesn't have to stop there. Three band EQ's are available in the DSP section and you can assign them to as many voices as you wish. They are customise-able for frequency, band width and mono/stereo. Solo voices in the main have a range of less than half the KB so it is arguable whether you'd need any more than 3 bands to cover the audio range - unless I'm completely missing the point somewhere.

Even with piano, 3 may be enough to cover any serious "holes" especially the C3/C5 area.
I use the "ST 3BAND EQ" DSP with the Concert Grand to good effect (even if that piano to me still is not as striking as the live grand) with Variation on and set to provide mid gain of +5. I left other parameters at default settings, but if you want to be more discerning they can be changed and saved as a USER file.
Thought I'd mention it- it might help to consider using the DSP's since the EQ features are of some concern to you

John

[This message has been edited by jwyvern (edited 01-05-2009).]

I can understand your confusion, Donny... Concentrate on the vocal, and let the machine do most of it for you is all very well for acts that put the 'entertainer' front and center. To the point, as you have told us many times, where you go out front and let the machine do EVERYTHING. Now, don't get me wrong, it's ONE way of doing a show.

There are others.

There are some of us quite capable of covering three or more parts of playing, while we sing as well! Hence the need to strip out three parts from the accompaniment. I rarely feel comfortable playing if both my hands are not fully utilized. But that's just me. If I had your voice, maybe I'd work it differently. MAYBE if you could play three or four parts while you sing, YOU might feel differently, too.

We all do different acts, yet somehow, we keep working. What works for you is by no means universal. It is simply ONE way of doing it. Whatever 'it' is

There are so many options with today's TOTL arranger keyboards that you can pretty much do anything you want. However, I must agree with DNJ that if you want to pack a dancefloor, and keep it packed throughout the night, you need to utilize the keyboard's higher level style variations. Some folks call them busy, but most audiences love what they hear. Just having a bass and drums as accompianament might work in a small lounge-lizard setting with no vocals and dancers, but in the larger venues where dancing is the primary point of focus, you're gonna' need more.

Cheers,

Gary

I think we are referring to the fact that stripped out arranger parts are being played by the player, not dropped altogether. It's just like playing with a live band. Somehow, despite not having full horn, string and synth sections, they manage to pack dance-floors also!

Only thing different is that the keyboard player actually PLAYS all those parts! What a concept... a keyboard player, actually PLAYING the parts! How quaint!

That's all we are talking about, not some Philip Glass minimalism

Well said Diki....

diki please get your facts straight you have no idea what your talking about.
Ahhh whats the use?...I shouldn't even get involved in these silly topics anymore.

Are you trying to claim you never do that, now...? After defending the practice some time ago?

Good grief! I thought it was only arrangers you constantly changed your mind on

I never claimed your whole show was that. Just that you DO do it... Am I wrong? If so, who lied to me? The only reason I may have my facts not straight would be you not telling it straight, ol' buddy...

John,
THX, I feel real dumb-assed for not knowing the EQ-DSP's..... I'm going to try it later this week and I'll get back to you. How you explain it works, that about solves my biggest let-down and will make it much easier to tweak the T3 to my needs without having to record every part seperately.
For Most instruments the fully configurable 3-band EQ will be adequate. Although for Grand Piano a 5-band still would be nice, I've put that to good use on a CP-300 in the past.

As for discussions about the "full-part-styles" : I don't do dancing gigs but Jazz and Blues-clubs, but mostly audio production in that area.
Styles of the T3 : some of them are too recognizable a one-song-hitchart style : better use a midi-file for that kind of stuff instead of packing it with single-use styles.

As for the styles being too busy : I've never heard a full band or professional recording with such a busy background as some of the styles on any arranger.
Ask any Hi-Fi freak what a cloud of different instruments playing different parts in roughly the same frequency-range does to the overall sound : the parts aren't distinguishable anymore (blurr) and it stresses the speakersystem to an extend where the overall soundquality (even the sounds outside the crowded freq range) will lose pretty much every detail and quality.
Those are the audience that come to see me perform and buy my recordings.

A dancing crowd, especially the drunk ones, won't care any shit for the sound quality. I'd cuite comfertably use my old PSR-8000 for such an audience.
I've seen crowds >5k people going bazookas on the sounds coming from overstressed and highly distorting speakers.
And as I stated before : In the end it all comes down to personal taste.

BUT : if you play for a serious audience of music-lovers and/or musicians and your virtuous playing of the keys is a big part of your show, you'd better not be using crowded accompaniment : all those parts coming out of your instrument "automatically" : that will make your playing and performance less believable and people are going to think your probably be faking your playing too.
You'll probably get away with that kind of stuff if you're back-upped on stage with 1 or 2 keyboard players faking in the background, but then again that would really be a fake performance.

In 40 years I have done it all on stage performing ...leaving the stage is NOT my normal operendi but in those certain Rare situations when needed it is very effective & the audiences love it.



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 01-06-2009).]

You probably shouldn't be using ANY form of accompaniment, whether it be styles or SMF, if you don't want it to look/sound fake.

There is no "half fake"...fake is fake.

Only time I feel I am not "faking" it is when I play solo piano, or organ with bass pedals.

The best part, and fortunately for ALL us arranger players, is that most audiences don't mind the fakery as long as they are entertained.

It is also much easier to strip away accompaniment parts than it is to create additional ones...hence all arrangers have full blown styles as a starting point...you don't have to use all parts, and it is a mere doddle to turn parts off on most arrangers.

Happy faking,

Ian

We gotta be realistic guys. From the moment we put our hands on our keyboards (arrangers and synths) we're all faking it. First off..., we're fooling the audience with a digital representation of the actual instrument we currently have selected. Doesn't matter if it's piano, sax, guitar, ect.

If you're at the keys and the sound coming from those keys is a Sax.., well "you're faking it". You're not really playing the sax. You're just using the piano keys as a note reference..., and other real time controls to "fake" other things to make it behave like a sax.

Even if you write your own styles you're still "faking it". You didn't use a real set of drums to record the drum track.., you didn't midi a bass guitar or electric guitar to your keyboard to record the guitar parts.., and so on.

As keyboard players we're masters of "faking it". The challenge is being really good at it.., and yes in an odd way it takes a great deal of skill to fake the things we keyboard players do with our boards. You do have to know how to play.., you do need to understand how the real instrument functions that you're currently faking with your keyboard. It takes a damn good faker to pull off a great keyboard performance.

So rather than use "faking it" as a negative thing..., just consider that it takes a very very very talented keyboard player to pull off a convincing performance from a "faked" back up band who is soloing with (although digitally sampled), but not real instruments. You're also faking your back up singers too. So the hell what..., the point is to put on a good show.

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-06-2009).]

Ian excactly either you play totaly acoustic or your only fooling yourself let alone the audience......"auto anything" is just that AUTO arranger playing....simple as that.

I say bring on a good faker using Styles & SMf, Mp3, loops or whatever...I'll close my eyes & let just my EARS tell me what the story is EVERY TIME!

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 01-06-2009).]

Absolutely nothing wrong with fakery, Donny...it comes with the territory when we play arrangers.

Just like illusionists or magicians, some are good at fakery...some aren't.

If someone expects you to pull a rabbit out of a hat...it had better not be a chicken.

I've heard perfectly awful style type playing, and I've cringed at some of the stuff played over SMF, including LH bass and piano parts....and then again, there are players that can work magic* with either form of background.

They don't even have to be technically great players(although sometimes, that helps)...they just have to have enough charisma and style to connect with the audience.

Ian

*Magic: An illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers.

By "Faking" I didn't mean faking sounds or whatever, only "faking your performance". If showing off your playing skills is what your audience want to see/hear in your show, overblowing your audience with thick layers of automated parts will make people in doubt if you are playing a SMF and are faking ALL of your playing....a.k.a. Mimmicking...you've sureley seen or been there : "stageperformers" who perform on a synth without line outs or even a power chord being plugged in. And if you do a good job on playing you don't want people to believe that you're one of those fake performers. that's what I meant.

Ian agreed.....

as always if you close your eyes when you listen to music... That which confirms authentication & evidence will shine through EVERY TIME!

I guess it would depend on what playing skills you are planning to promote or show off...if doing a replication of a sax over a big band arrangement is your goal, then having a "full" accompaniment might be what you want.

If you want people to take notice of your piano skills, perhaps less accompaniment might give you more room to play, but depending on the tune and the genre, that may not always be the case.

They are called "arrangers" for a reason...every human arranger would put together a tune in a different way, each one believing it is right for him...some arrangers prefer dense backgrounds, and others may wish to have a minimal amount of orchestration...the arranger(the instrument) gives us that choice.

To me, all arranger play is some sort of fakery, albeit in a good positive light, not in a negative connotation.

In 99% of the cases, the audience do not care, as long as the performance has merit and/or entertains them.

Ian

So called fakery is used in 98% of music performed & recorded today .....when the computer world took over fakery rose to the top. Nothing you hear is pure anymore in any way shape or form......unless you see someone playing in front of you ACOUSTICLY ONLY NO EFX whatsoever used.....even the vocals w/ efx make the voice trickery to an extent......we all do it ....we all embrace it....we all live with it.....and we all enjoy it... plain & simple. The fakery will get better in years to come for sure, no matter how you want to percieve it.......
R U Ready?

L8tr,

I'm off to another of my fakery gigs this afternoon

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 01-06-2009).]

You just have to understand the two types of fakery in performing and how they differ. One fakery is the most common one used in 99.9999999999% of all music you hear which is a performance that is somehow "enhanced" through technology by means of keyboards, effects, software, ect.

Then there's the gawd awful form of fakery known as "milli vanillied it". If you fall under the category of "milli vanilli it" then shame on you!

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 01-06-2009).]

Squeak why the surprise?....the latter vanilliesque way of faking is still done every day on stages all over the world.....ever go to Disney & see a show...lip-syncing is KING in many large National & Worldwide Acts....it is a very accepted practice....why? because the bottom line is the audience enjoyed what they see & hear....simple as that.

Yeah, but that depends on who's lips the person is syncing with. Sure there's a lot of lip synching going on today. Many pros out there putting on a stage performance lip to their own recordings though.

Milli Vanilli it applies to the true phonies out there. Good example..., when in college I caught a phony in the act. The school hired out for a musician..., the guy shows up with a keyboard mixer ect. I later realized the guy couldn't play keys..., he had the board plugged in, but tried to hide that the board wasn't hooked up via the output to anything. His vocal tracks ALL Milli Vanillied. Only reason I caught him on the vocal parts was because I recognized the actual singers voice..., who was a college student that I knew. Those are your true phonies...

What I don't understand is why someone who constructs their own "styles" would buy an Arranger. I am already running into walls with an Arranger with CONFORMING to what it can do rather then what I want to do.

Because of the poor MIDI implementation of the T3 and my own laziness Im going to purchase a module. Roland XR Korg M3M Motif XS (probably not the Motif as I already have Yamaha Sounds.)

The Sonic Cell may even do the job although I am curious about the ARPs in the M3M.

First of all, if you close your eyes at a performance, they might as well put on a CD

The audience, unless they have absolutely NO concern whether an act is karaoke, lip synching, or a DJ prancing around (sadly, that's a large percentage these days ) wants to feel that whoever they are looking at is actually playing and singing. Allow the machines to play almost everything, and you are allowing them to assume you aren't playing anything at all...

Force yourself to play as much as you can, and that is a degree of effort that will be easily SEEN, rather than just heard. If the audience just wants to HEAR something like the record, they can hire a DJ... Oh, that's right. We're supposed to do THAT now as well, aren't we?

Is the bloom coming off the rose, Kingfrog?

I remember when you first got the T3, it was all 'this is going to be my 'arranger', just like Bacharach, or Nelson Riddle', or whoever you considered a great arranger in the human sense of the word.

Sadly, as you are beginning to find out (or already probably knew) a machine is no substitute for a talented arranger (and talented players). Sure, you can get close up to a point. But after that it gets harder and harder the further on towards true music you want to take it. If there WERE an arranger that could equal the efforts of talented teams of pros, with all their experience and creativity, you can be assured there wouldn't be a REAL arranger working today!

I'm curious, too... why a module? I would have thought, in a studio environment, that VSTi's are going to take you MUCH further along the road towards realism and expressiveness...

I'll say this without all teh rolling eyes and silly smileys.....when I played Alto Sax & Percussion in HS school orchestras.....we were always taken to big Philharmonic Halls, Academies of Music for Music appreciation exercises. What's that you say?......
You sit in the audience listening to a approx 50pc orchestra...then during the performances they would shut the lights out during certain solos....when the lights went on again you had to write down what instruments were playing the solos. You were tested and graded accordingly. The reason for this was to teach you how to LISTEN to different instruments within the MIX & isolate them so your ears would become sharper....you'd be very surprised at how keen your auditory range, detecting, & ability to perceive sound can improve.

Believe me listen to the darkness & you will be surprised at what you hear !

Nice story, and all, Donny, but what has this got to do with performing..? Other than a school outing, when have you ever been to a live performance of ANY musical ensemble where they darken the entire hall and you have to GUESS what is playing?

You hear a harp arpeggio, and you WATCH the harp guy play it. You hear the tympani, you SEE the guy play it. You hear a great drum solo, you SEE the guy playing it.

A good enough stereo, and you can do exactly the same thing at home. Turn out the lights, listen to a CD. But you wouldn't go to a live performance and WANT to do that, would you?

I think the audience WANTS to see what they are hearing. Let the machines do most of it, and you ARE getting close to that 'hall in the dark'. And they can stay at home and do THAT!

To my mind, there's a HUGE difference between playing a great 'fake' sax part, where the audience can see you making all the bends, playing all the notes, getting 'into' the part (all part of showmanship, eh, Donny?) and hitting 'Ending 4' and hearing one come out of the speakers, all disembodied and stuff...

I'm sorry, but the only audience that doesn't care either way is the same audience that would be just as happy if no-one was up there at all! Or just a DJ, or a guy lip-synching... and I for one don't want to be that guy

Ever since I was kid & experienced what I just told you above ....I always close my eyes and sort out the music parts.
I dont need to SEE someone play...
I want to HEAR them play. Not on SZ of course which is futile ....but anywhere in my journeys in life.

No the Rose is very much in Bloom. But only for NEW material. I have zero complaints and find plenty of usable styles that do all I need them to do and more in creation of new works. I bought the T3 for Styles. (An expensive Band in the Box) The voices are a bonus. All I need to get is "close" Its not like I'm going to get a record or songwriting deal. The T3 is close enough by itself. However....

The rose withers when I want to re record something I have already sequenced from years ago. Thats why I initially bought the Korg PA2x. I erroneously thought I would have the best of both worlds, a solid traditional workstation, AND an Arranger for inspiration for new songs. Sadly the latter did not offer the wealth of arrangements to choose from and my reason for buying an Arranger was severely limited. I may as well have purchased the M3. But I need "professional arrangements" (meaning anything better then I can do). The T3 has the largest support on that regard.

But as a "conventional" workstation where I can take previously recorded Sequences and pipe them through it's a PIA. I don;t know if you are familiar with Sonar, You don;t want to see the INS file for the T3....LOL Plus the better voices have "Mega" information I do not have recorded in my sequences. A workstation/module is built specifically for this purpose and in that regard a walk in the park to re-voice finished arrangements including the T3 Drum parts as well.

I do use VSTIs Dimension Pro, B2 and even Drums on Demand loops, but I don't have an M3M's worth nor will I get some of the Karma type Arps. Takes a lot of heat off the PC as well keeping the VSTIS to a minimum.

Then there's my wife who is not getting the whole VSTI thing and uses the T3 as a MIDI player to record parts for her live gigs to CD. A module would help her as well with her writing and recording as she is more hardware oriented than Software oriented.She still has an ESQ Mirage and TX7 in the attic she won;t part with.

Purchasing a module does not in any way diminish the T3 as a tool for creation of new songs. It actually enhances the process providing a different "voice" to a song. Three different Manufacturers voicings in an arrangement sounds better then using One VSTI Sampler or Hardware Brand which is why I'm leaning toward an M3M. We already have the Roland RD700 Piano as a controller, the T3 and a Korg M3M module would complete the Hardware "Trinity".

Besides I get this stuff at less than dealer cost directly from the reps, so why not take advantage while I have the opportunity to have a T3 and an M3M for less than a discounted T3?



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-07-2009).]

Yep... it doesn't really matter whether it's translated styles or translated MIDI's, working them so they sound as good on another piece of gear is a PITA.

There's something abut the SOUND of the sound that makes you play a certain way. Change the sound even just a little bit (an envelope release here, a filter to velocity parameter there) and you would have played the part a different way. So getting a different manufacturer's sound (or even the same one on a different product) to work on the file you created for a different keyboard is an exercise in futility...

But whether it is another module, another arranger, or some VSTi's, the problem is pretty much the same. A tough nut to crack

Yeah, Donny...

With my looks, I only WISH the audience would close their eyes while I play

Sadly, that doesn't happen (at least not until the tequila kicks in!), so I have to wow them with my playing (or at least try )...

Ok, Ok, I'll bring a bottle of "Patrone" when I come down to Destin...... btw, I love that hat Diki

You play in 95º weather with 95% humidity... see if your hat holds up! (this would make it a FRIED chicken hat! )

Or your arranger! Everyone seems to like black arrangers... leave it in the sun out here, and it's melted in just a few minutes. And don't get me started about touch screens!

Kingfrog,
Good idea to get the M3M. Great sounds with V2 and since it is easy to mount close to your board (with a littl custom work you could really have it convienent) you can use all the controls without having to try to MIDI control it, which the T3 will not do anyways.

If I had the funds, I would add a M3M to my Pa2.

I wish someone would write a program to convert Yamaha (especially tyros) styles to PA..that worked PERFECTLY. It could be done. EMC sure does not do it!

Really the only thing I am missing is the song specific styles from the vast Yamaha world. BUT, at this point I am not willing to give up all the great features of the PA to get them.

Lee

I never really thought about it, but after reading these posts, I have to say that it is just the music itself, not who or what is playing it that pleases my senses. I do close my eyes when listening to music more than I realized. And now for some more personal analysis...................-charley

Hi Lee,
me too.

Unfortunately I don't think there's a simple solution for converting Tyros to Korg
PERFECTLY. Notes can be converted ( even the fret & strum noises in the mega voice guitars) can be used with a rx guitar sound.

I find the hardest part is trying to get a drum track to match up. The sounds are different, the mapping to a certain extent is different, & the drum velocities differ. Unfortunately tweaking drums takes me far too much time, I'm lousy at it.

Even if I play a T series style on my PSR1500, it still seems to need a certain amount of tweaking.

Meanwhile I've got a bit of method behind my madness. If I'm looking for a style & not sure which ones are suitable, I do a quick conversion via EMC, then if I find a suitable one , (and EMC's messed it up,) I convert it manually via midi to style using OMB or XGWorks or a mix of both.

Actually be fascinated to know why some T3 styles are a hassle & supposedly won't work with OMB & XG works or earlier model PSR's without a conversion process.
Wondering if it's the new guitar setting, though from what I've read it's more to do with a note transposition setting function rather than something along the lines of Korgs Guitar Mode.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by leeboy:
[B]

I wish someone would write a program to convert Yamaha (especially tyros) styles to PA..that worked PERFECTLY. It could be done. EMC sure does not do it!

Really the only thing I am missing is the song specific styles from the vast Yamaha world. BUT, at this point I am not willing to give up all the great features of the PA to get them.

Lee

best wishes
Rikki
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/PA800_StyleMaking/?yguid=69517899

[This message has been edited by rikkisbears (edited 01-09-2009).]

I have a bid on one on Ebay.


[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-09-2009).]

I'd think that as long as you can get them to clock together, all will be good. Expecting much more from Yamaha's pretty stripped down MIDI implementation is optimistic, I'm afraid... (and it's not just Yamaha)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the complete dumbing down of arranger MIDI capabilities over the last few years? My old RA90, and G1000 had MUCH better MIDI implementation that the G70. I can't speak for Yamaha, perhaps they've ALWAYS sucked but it's as if the manufacturers have decided that not enough people use TWO or more keyboards or modules anymore, now they have made them a bit better (but still not good enough!).

If you are having issues with connectivity, I encourage you to make a BIG noise to the dealer's manufacturer reps and tech support... Perhaps if they are woken up to the fact that there ARE many of us with more than a cheap PSR in our living rooms, they MIGHT pull their finger out of their... well, you know where!

At the very least, two different arrangers from different manufacturers should be able to synchronize clocks, and basic style division navigation... Intros, Endings, Variations and Fills. Just THAT would make assembling the perfect arranger (whatever you want THAT to be!) a MUCH easier task...

Hi Diki,
me. The PA800's capabilities are pretty good.
My SD1's midi is complex, ( maybe it's just the wording in the manual & the terminolgy that's off??)
& my psr1500 as a controller is pretty poor.

My G800 was great ( so were most of my other earlier keyboards) My arranger modules had to sync to an acoustic midi piano at the time. ( Yamaha Disklavier ).

Style recording ( if a pc was involved) if I remember correctly , had to be done via midi pc/g800 hook up , so the midi implementation had to be good.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diki:
[B]
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the complete dumbing down of arranger MIDI capabilities over the last few years? My old RA90, and G1000 had MUCH better MIDI implementation that the G70. I can't speak for Yamaha, perhaps they've ALWAYS sucked but it's as if the manufacturers have decided that not enough people use TWO or more keyboards or modules anymore, now they have made them a bit better (but still not good enough!).



------------------
best wishes
Rikki

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/PA800_StyleMaking/

I just wish that the manufacturers would either get their heads together, and decide on a COMMON MIDI spec for arranger navigation, or let the users decide their own... Most modern controllers have a 'learn' function. Something like this would be a boon for hooking two arrangers together.

You see, that is my main goal... Roland's MIDI spec is already pretty decent for general communication (although it is convoluted to control external gear from keyboard Parts but not from style or sequence - go figure!), but try to hook two arrangers together, have one play some parts of the style, have the other play the rest, and it's virtually impossible.

No two manufacturers implement style division navigation the same way, and they are ALL set in stone. I have said for a long time that, if this was easy (or even doable!) I would already have several arrangers. And I'm pretty sure so would MANY here. Shore up the weak points of your arranger (they ALL have them!) with the strong points of another... This would result in a MASSIVE increase in arranger sales, IMO.

I cannot understand why the industry doesn't see this. All it is is a tiny bit of code, and a sit down to decide the standard. And arranger sales would increase...

Maybe it's just TOO obvious?

Don't get me started.....

MIDI implementation on the T3 sucks badly. If anyone uses Cakewalk Sonar check out the INS file. My guess is the manufacturers are not considering people actually "Need" anything else because well....it's an "arranger" not a workstation...and certainly not an Arranger/Workstation although one can create 16 tracks of original material on it.I guess thats the "workstation part."

UH no a Fantom G series is a Workstation. Then the M3 Them the Motiff. Why?

Because on the Fantom everything looks like it should Mixers,Effect racks, just like computer software. The manual can stay in the plastic. It's the most naturally "intuitive" workstations I have come across.
The Korg manual is War and Peace and it's needed. The Motif is well...the Motif not as bad as the Korg but not as good as the Roland. Just talking from a pure stand alone workstation not voices or Arps. Voices are subjective.

I don't think anyone who has had time on a Fantom series would not say it's a nice intuitive workstation and could find their way around it without digging into a manual for awhile. Now if only Roland could come up with great voices......


[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-10-2009).]

I am a PSR S900 owner who 'stepped up' to the Tyros 3 after about 8 months with the PSR.

Overall, the Tyros is an amazing product, and like many have said, it has it's pluses and minuses, like any other instrument.

What appeals to me about the Tyros is the level of realism on many of the SA2 sounds (I refer to the 2 Saxes and the Clarinet).

I don't know that any Grand Piano off a synth is going to be 'all that and a bag of chips' to the truly discerning ear, but in the 'real world', I think the Tyros 3 is 'decent' and 'acceptable'. The cocktail piano sound is nice too.

To me, the Tyros 3 offers a way for a musician of almost any level to put out some great sounding music. It might not be "studio quality" it might not win any Grammys, but if you are a solo player, the Tyros 3 will fulfill that "full band" sound out of just one instrument/arranger OTB, and that's saying quite a lot.

Some of the low-end boards are so tinky sounding they're embarrasing. The S900 and the big brother T3 output a level of realism (especially if you're running the right compression setting and using decent speakers or keyboard amp(s)) that I find most folks feel is quite acceptable.

No keyboard that sells for the 3 to 4k range is going to be all things to all people. Many of the synth/arrangers on the market are so complicated, the average owner can't properly configure it or get any songs to sound decent.

I find the Song Finder, while somewhat slow and cumbersome to use, has some very nice "cover" backings for many of the popular songs of various eras.

A friend has an Oasys 76 board, and for the 8000 dollar cost, ok, it's more of a 'showpiece'. The Motif is simply in plain language too much of a beast for us older players to lug around to gigs or offsite locations.

I think half of being a happy Tyros 3 owner is discovering how to get the most sound out of the board, and being able to 'articulate' those sounds with note falls. The harp is itself a joy, and I have to say Star Wars midi on the S900, well, it's pretty danged impressive for just ONE instrument to voice a symphony!

The T3's string section and french horns are warm and realistic (to me). The drum sounds sound more punchy and authentic than the S900 (to me).

If your goal is just one board that will do a great job overall with many different types of music, I think the Tyros 3 is a sensible choice.

Also, the available RAM slots mean you will be able to buy new custom-voices directly from Yamaha as they are invented/released.

This shows a degree of flexibility which may enhance the longetivity of the ownership experience. If I think that they'll be coming with new piano sounds, new organ sounds, or new whatever sounds down the road, that has appeal to me. Something new around the corner.

I personally think most of the backing tracks are well done and sound good "in real life". If you watch some of the performance videos on YouTube featuring the Tyros 3, I think your ears will tell you this is a quality board for its price point.

Yes, there are some boards that sound better on some "certain" instrument types. But for overall value and ease of use, the Tyros was simply a "must buy" instrument.

The rear power button is a non issue, and is offset (IMHO) by the FRONT USB port which is great for carrying those extra tracks around on.

Yamaha support has been very user friendly, on both boards. I made friends with one of the techs who has built his own "custom" voices for the S900 (he hasn't done anything for the T3 yet), and some of those are very nice.

The slider bars on the Tyros are a huge improvement for 'on the fly' sound balancing during a performance, the S900 requires you to use those tiny up/down arrows, which in plain language are awkward to manipulate in real time while playing a song.

Overall, the Tyros is a great board from many perspectives. Of course beauty is in the ear of the beholder. The aftertouch keyboard on the T3 is nicer and more expressive than the S9's board which lacks that feature.

The octave shift buttons on the left side are OK to me, and being able to hit them together to return to 'default' is a nice touch.


robert

The M3 is a monster. Loving mine, though on some of the bread and butter acoustic sounds, even with V2, it isn't quite up to snuff vs my Yamahas ( T2 and Motif ES... and I realize how subjective that can be). For synths, soundscapes, drums, and traditional keyboard stuff... especially the 4 way Grand Piano, I really like it. The Karma funtion is quite powerful, and when you add the Karma MW software, the possibilities seem unlimited.

I think of the Cakewalk instrument files as being part of an almost obsolete technolgy, much in the way the soundfont format is a dinosaur in the sampling world. Instead, with the M3, I can open the entire control. surface up as a Vst in any VST compatible host, including Sonar, and can control every function that can be controlled from the keyboard itself, in addition to other functions that cannot be controlled from within the hardware.

In effect, my M3 has become a module, mainly because my Motif sits below the laptop that I use my software DAWs on, and acts as my midi controller for it. That of course changes only when I feel the need to use the M3's sliders in real time.


AJ

Hey Donny, here is a twist on that darkness test you mentioned. Next time you come to the forum cover up the left hand side of the screen with the poster's names and guess who posted the messages

I bet you could do it too lol

Nigel....Im gonna try that .....after all these years I bet I could definitly pick out a few just by their posts & writing footprint alone for sure.
Good idea Nigel!

It would be EASY, Nigel!

"If I think that they'll be coming with new piano sounds, new organ sounds, or new whatever sounds down the road, that has appeal to me. Something new around the corner."

All they need are new DRUM sounds. Ones that sound like drums. Can a good rim shot be that hard to do? All the other companies can do it.
DonM

Nigel, I could probably tell from punctuation (or the lack thereof ) alone!

So many spellcheckers, so little time!

Clearly you are operating on a production level that is quantum steps over that of a novice to intermediate level keyboard player. My point in my post about the Tyros 3 is that it's pretty simple to operate and you can from day 1 output some decent sounding music (assuming you know at least a few rudimentary chords and can either play by ear or read music).

So the end-user feedback from this instrument in my mind is immensely positive and rewarding. I've read some people's posts that suggest the Tyros 3 is an 'expensive toy' and nothing more. Well, even if it's true, it's a toy that no one is gonna throw rocks at on Christmas morning, I can tell you that!

The subtle nuances that are possible with and without the SA2 buttons are dazzling on several of the voices, notably the saxes, clarinet, harmonica and even the classical guitar (which I think is phenomenally great sounding).

If you tried to purchase all of the instruments that are contained in this one single unit, it would cost many times its price point, and you would have great difficulty properly playing instruments like the sax, clarinet, violin and even guitar if you were a keyboardist at heart.

Yes, I know there are samplers and modules and computer software solutions and yada yada, but if you just want to sit down, flip a couple of switches and produce great-sounding music in moments (not days), the Tyros 3 offers that kind of simple fulfillment.

Could you call up one of a thousand software programs, VSTi sounds, yada yada and make a 24-track production that sounds better than the Tyros? I betcha you could, yeah. Could you do all that in the few seconds it takes to turn on the Tyros 3, select a music style or locate an appropriate style family via music finder and begin playing nearly instantly? No, I really don't think so.

So, to each their own, based on their own skills and how demanding their ears and/or audience might or might not be.

There will always be a "better sounding" device, be it software, sampler, hardware module or hardware device. That's the nature of the musical beast, and the end result of the endless creativity of the men and women who build this stuff so that music junkies can realize some or all of their potential.

My point in writing about the S900/Tyros 3 is that both these instruments fill a niche in the marketplace and can give back some good times to those who invest in them.

I bought a pretty high end Gibson Les Paul guitar, yes, it sounded really nice. Compared to what the Tyros 3 can do for around the same price point, though, the Les Paul was a wrong purchase for me. Far too limited in terms of what I myself could create alone onstage with just a single instrument and amplifier. Even as a given that the guitar can have added effects (wah, fuz, chorus, yada yada) either by foot boxes or via 'modeling' amplifiers, still and all nowhere NEAR the amazing array of musical styles I can get out of either the S900 and/or the Tyros 3.

Still others have written the Tyros 3 isn't "that much" better than the Tyros 2, and I'm sure that's not altogether wrong.

Yet I'll venture a bet that many T2 owners would swap straight across for the T3 if Yamaha made an open offer to do so at no cost.

Just the convenience features of the sliders, the instant hard disk record, and the flexibility of the new Super-Articulation 2 voices would be enough for many to go that extra step to the T3.

Because it's so pricey though, many are holding back waiting for the next-generation to be released by Yami, Korg, or Roland.

Like cars, the upgrades are constant. What we're all waiting for is the "quantum leap" in quality, I alluded to the OASYS boards... yes, they're more flexible, can do more, yada yada, but they are about twice the price point.

So you pays your money and you takes your choice, no?

robert

Robert,

Although my post followed yours, it was more a reply ( albeit late ) to Kingfrog about the idea of incorporating an M3 to go along with his current setup. I find it to be a worthwhile addition to my setup, and pretty much like every other board or software I've ever had, it isn't the end all solution or tool for every situation either, just the right tool for me in a lot of them.

It has to do with the kind of stuff I like to play and write, much of which is based around synth driven sounds. I'm no "analog elitist" either, and while I still love many of the vintage boards, I'm also glad I don't have to try to repair them ( Vsti's are a great thing, even if they aren't always exact replications ). I'm very much into the digital driven modern soundscapes that the old boards weren't necessarily that good for. My musical heroes are guys like Rick Wright, Rick Wakeman, Emerson, etc. Today I can add Tim Conrardy to that list. Not because of what he can play ( he can play ), but because of the soundscapes and patches he has made for so many hardware and software synths. He comes up with patches I could never dream of doing on my own

I still love the blues, hence the moniker, and I like jazz fusion and prog rock ala King Crimson, Yes, Pink Floyd etc, along with Some folk, but these days I'm also into playing and making electronica and ambient music. The T2 and my PA80 both make ok starting points for an idea, but for most of my preferred genres neither is a particularly good choice for much beyond that. They are here mainly because I also play out live (solo) on occasion, though not as much as I once did. Hence the upgrades to PA800 and T3 ( from T2 ) weren't a priority for me, but I'm sure for those who use an arranger more than I do, they would be a fair consideration. I actually considered moving to the PA800 or PA2. In fact, while I was at the store giving the PA800 a serious workout, right next to it sat the M3, and the rest as they say was history. Sure a lot of T2 owners would go to the T3 if it were a free crossgrade. I would.. Unfortunately that's not reality is it ?

As for the Les Paul.. me too... I bought one. Very much apples and oranges vs a keyboard no ? More like night and day to me. My problem is that I'm a mediocre guitar player. That said, in most situations I'd rather take the time to learn a piece on it that I need in a song than spend the time trying to replicate it in software and samples. I can do the latter pretty convincingly btw, not because I'm so talented but simply because it's possible with today's technology. But.. SA voices, Sample sets, Real Guitar / Real Strat or what have you, it is never quite the same, not without a lot of fiddling around. Probably doesn't matter to a lot of folks, hence the arranger or sample set works, but you don't capture all the nuances with a single keyboard performances, even in today's world.

Here's a challenge to those that say they can.. Pick any Nick Drake song. If you're at all familiar with him it's pretty simple stuff right ? No drums, no bass.. just Nick singing and playing his Guild M20 / Martin D28. Recreate one of his songs in one take on any sample set, keyboard, whatever you want. Heck take a few takes.. I doubt anyone ever gets close. I've tried. I can hit every note at exactly the right time, and it still isn't really close to the same. I'd need many more hours to get every picking sound, every scrape, every body tap, every pull off into the sequencer. Is that being picky ? Sure it is, but it is what it is. A lot of the beauty in that type of music is that the starkness of it allows you to hear every nuance of the guitar he plays. It's simple music but the guitar work is very intricate. I'd rather spend the time to learn to play the real thing when possible. Fortunately for me, most of my music isn't driven by intricate guitar work. If it was, I'd grudgingly have to go the sample / SA voice route more often until ( and if ) I could get better on guitar.

Lack of true real time controls was always a concern of mine on most of my past and present arrangers, and is still why to this day I have an affinity for the Casio MZ2000 ( it has sliders ). The factory styles aren't particularly good in it, and some ( not all ) of the acoustic sounds are well.. very Casio like, but the good news is that many of the synth sounds are too, but more in the vintage casio synth way and that's a really good thing for me. It's real time synth editing tools available rival those of the better workstations of the same era, while style creation vs my other two arrangers is a breeze by comparison, with every tool I need right onboard, including a midi to style converter that works quite well.

I used to post a lot more here, but the constant bickering got to be a bit much for me. Not that I walk above others, because I can find myself getting right into the mix too. Plus I tend to be very long winded when I do post ( like this.. lol ). In hindsight though it was a blessing in disguise, as I realized it was consuming time that I could better spend learning and developing new musical ideas along with actually making music.

Cheers,

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

I'm guessing you're referring to acoustic type voices. I think Roland put a good portion of their "voice" effort into the Synth, Synth Bass, and Lead sounds on the Fantom G. I also think Roland was coddling up to the hip hop and electronic/techno generation with the Fantom G; in fact, the whole previous Fantom line as well in my opinion.

There are many excellent acoustical type voices on the Fantom G in my opinion, but there are several 'underwhelming' ones as well, such as in the Woodwind section, some of the Acoustic Guitars, etc. What is fantastic is you can edit the patches to your heart's content and it can go a long way in getting the sound you want. Trouble is, many people don't want to get their hands dirty and sculpt the sounds to their own needs and satisfaction, and instead rely totally on the factory preset sounds.

I agree though that Roland could have done better by providing a more profuse supply of excellent acoustic type voices. Maybe they reasoned if they gave it too much sparkle from the get go that they wouldn't be able to entice Fantom G owners to fork over the cash for the new ARX cards hitting the market? I guess they call that marketing shrewdness huh?

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

If you guys aren't careful you might "scare" your audience away.. Probably scare a cat off a gut wagon too.. Now that would take some doing! From the looks of it though, I think you guys may be up to the task... lol.. HA HA!

Just kidding Diki. You guys might want to think about shaving or trimming the dead split ends off your hair once in a while though.

Looks like you guys are having fun. Sun, surf, and seagulls. Now that's what I call relaxing! I wish I could join you!

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

Be nice if the Tyros could be loaded as a VSTI. INS files for it are terrible because of Yamaha's patch scheme.

I just bought and am waiting for a used Sonic Cell that can be used as a VSTi, and am going to give it a run.I have the drum problem solved with ToonTracks so I don't know what the Korg will offer I don't already have. The Sonic Cell should be of benefit live with its SEQ/Mp3 playback ability allowing the notebook to remain home.

Roland has always coddled the current sound market. Its part of their success. I have had issues with all brands though because I write using as generic voicing as possible.I have always subscribed to the thought "If a tune from my Studio is going to be deemed "dated" it won't be because of the sound set" ever since the gated Phil Collins snare sound in the 80's became all the rage.

Good songs will stand accompanied by generic real instrumental voicing no matter what year they are written.

That V-Piano sure is something though. That's getting as close to a 9' Steinway as ANY keyboard EVER HAS in my opinion. No samples either, all strictly *physical* modeling. Amazing.

Just for drill, I recorded two songs on my Fantom G recently. One showcases "acoustic" sounds and the other gives a taste of the Fantom G synth sounds. The acoustic sounds will give people who never heard or used a Fantom G a preview of it's acoustic sound capability. Those sounds are Piano, Guitar, Brass, Strings, Sax, and Drums/Percussion. There are a couple of Vox voices used so please forgive me for straying a little into the synth arena okay?

On the Synth demo I used the Fantom G Sequencer to record the rhythm part (played in realtime, then played that part back in realtime through the Fantom G sequencer, and playing the 'lead' synth part in realtime (w/right hand) and recording everything into my DAW - realtime. Got that?

Oh.., the Synth one I kept in .wav format because it is so short in length. The other is in .mp3 format with a time of 2min/37sec.

Enjoy!

Aint Too Proud To.mp3

A Little Synth.wav

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

Since when has it been some newly discovered secret that Roland coddled the hip hop market? Shoot.., that's not (new) news for Roland or ANY other major workstation maker. Synth workstations have ALWAYS been geared more toward electronica. A lot of that has started to change over the last few years though.

Not too long ago it wasn't uncommon to hear that arranger keyboards had better acoustic voices (they simply did have better acoustic voices). The synth makers over the years got smart and started moving some of those higher end acoustic voices from their arranger line to their pro workstation models. The ENTIRE Yamaha Motif line is proof enough of how they've done this. SA voices were a "trickle up" for the Motif XS (many including myself still feel the SA voices were better on the Tyros 2 than they were on the Motif XS though).

The problem is this..., the keyboard makers got smart and realized the need for good acoustic instruments in their pro workstations but made damn sure they still produced synths that do what the do best and that's MODERN MUSIC. Problem is we don't have this TRICKLE DOWN effect in the pro arranger line. The synths are kicking ass at acoustic and more traditional styles of music now.., but the pro arrangers still suck donkey butt for ANYTHING modern.

Nice..., that synth part was a great flash back man I felt this sudden urge to grab a can of Tab Cola and flip my collar

And Thats why my "discovery" of Arranger keyboards just two years ago became an Epiphany. I had tons of modules in search of the Holy Grail....GOOD non synthy sounding acoustic sounds. I bought the Proteus One for three sounds, the Roland U220 for two, The QSR for a few, the Proteus 2000 for a few more, The Triton was a God Send, Then I heard a PSR3000. A PSR s900, the Korg PA2x (bought it) A Tyros 3 (Sold Korg bought Tyros) Sold everything else...

Never jumped into the VSTi market with both feet because I always built PCs in the sweet spot pricing area which were taxed by too many software synths and samplers.

Now I have for my needs, the best of all worlds, a Great (low resource hog) Drum VSTI in the ToonTrack Product, A Great VSTi Sampler in the Dimension Pro, A great Style Generator in the T3 and a ton of great some great real instrument voices........No excuses. We will see what Roland's Sonic Cell brings to the Mix if anything. No need for the B4 VSTi. Tyros is fine. For those pesky Synth only sounds Cakewalk comes with a whole host of pure wave based synth plug ins with all kinds of knobs and dials and a Beatscape program to make loops if thats the flava of the day.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 02-06-2009).]

There's altogether WAY too much time and effort here spent on trying to address soundset issues on one keyboard alone. JMO, but I simply don't believe that, if you need a good well rounded sound selection to cover acoustic AND electronic textures, you simply aren't going to find it in any ONE keyboard. Playing out live, if you want to only use one arranger/WS/whatever, is going to involve a fair bit of compromise. Accepting that we ARE compromising is the hard part! We all think that what WE bought is the best possible solution, and in a way it is. But it is a solution to a slightly different problem to everyone else. So we ALL (or most of us!) have the BEST solution. Just not the same

But if you are recording, or playing at a level where the necessity of TOTL performance outweighs the inconvenience of carting multiple keyboards, you HAVE to use several different keyboards. No one makes ANYTHING that covers it all at the highest level. Sadly, as I have mentioned often, arrangers are the LEAST capable of any keyboard type to integrate with each other. For God knows what reason, no two manufacturers use the same MIDI codes to talk to each other, so we are left with HAVING to compromise, sometimes severely.

If they did, I would definitely gig with at least two, and maybe three arrangers and weight be damned. I would sound like a band! Right now, part of my palette sounds great, some not so great. As sadly, if we could just accept it, do we all...

I honestly believe the most revolutionary thing we could ask for on an arranger is not loops, arps, Guitar Modes, audio loops or anything like that. It would simply be a standardized set of MIDI codes so that one arranger could control another from a different manufacturer. Then let us shore up the holes in our soundsets with other arrangers with stronger sounds (but holes of their own)....

I think the skilled musicians who belong to this board are a wonderful resource for those of us that are much further behind on the learning curve (like moi!).

Hearing your experiences, suggestions, recommendations, and overall thoughts is invaluable to those of us who haven't touched a lot of different boards or other instruments.

So my suggestion is to ignore the flames, and continue to share for the benefit of us who wish to learn and improve.

Like you my fingers are much more suited to keys than stretching great distances on a guitar fretboard. Gibson (and let's avoid the flames here) has yielded to the pressure for corporate profits and is cookie-cutting their Les Paul in the "flavor of the month" and quality has deteriorated greatly in the view of many axemen. They don't sound as pure as their older siblings, and the fit/finish well, it's just not "all that" on every unit. You have to hunt through a stack at music stores to find one that's 'right' for you.

Given that most of us have X amount of time to devote to producing music, one must make some hard choices or lose oneself in a morass of time-consuming technique/practice time.

The purist musician will laud the endless practice times (they call it paying your dues) and that's not wrong if you're 18 or 20, but when you're a senior citizen, one is closer to the end of band practice than the beginning, one must optimize one's free time (IMHO).

Thus I feel I can get better "guitar" out of my Tyros 3 than I can with my semi-arthritic fingers off a bad-action guitar!

So, my motto is whatever floats the boat!

Cheers,
robert

Everything you say is too true! The limiting factor is backbreaking work and the lack of "roadies" to tote those beasty workstations, modules, keyboard amps, mixers, yada yada yada. Given what many gigs pay (or don't pay, to be more accurate), the amount of legwork to drag all that stuff is a primary roadblock, assuming you have the wherewithal to BUY that much equipment. Then you have issues and concerns worrying about theft/damage to that much stuff while it's sitting onstage during breaks or if you're in a rowdy venue where mass quantities of alcohol are being consumed... So for many, the limiting factor is how much 'work' we have to do to get set up for performance gig, paid or not, and whether our ancient bodies are 'up to the task' of dragging the heavier stuff from our homes to our cars to the venue then reversing it all... this is why I don't have a motif module or a motif board. If found out my T3 doesn't easily fit in my vehicle, that's another major concern for another day... stuff happens I guess... or why don't I own a bigger vehicle???

cheers
robert

Robert,

I'm somewhat aware about the the Gibson stuff. I failed to mention that my Les Paul actually started it's life as an Epiphone. It had a very nice Sunburst finish, but I could never get anywhere near the rich tones of the old Les Paul that I remember an old band mate got from his, though I realize mine was an Epiphone. I say it "started life" as an Epiphone because I traded a keyboard controller to a local guitar Guru ( who also happens to be a friend ) for some custom work on it. He did a fabulous job. It still looks pretty much the same, but the sound and response are quite different now. Two of the three guitarists who regularly frequent my very modest little studio to record and / or jam have Gibson LP's ( I'm not certain which models or how old to be exact ) and both seem to like mine better. I tend to agree with them. Bless my friend Floyd for what he did to that guitar.

I remember wishing that we could emulate a guitar flawlessy on a keyboard, and waiting for the day that the technolgy would bring us there. Yet another part of me silently cheers that it hasn't completely gotten to that point yet.

Diki's spot on for me. No one keyboard is the end all for a studio musician. I'll stand by that disclaimer for every board I've ever owned or even played, and the M3 is no exception. I embraced the Vsti technology initially because when they were the flavor of the day I so wanted to own a CS80, OB8, and a Prophet 5 ( amongst others ). Finances dictated otherwise. Today I have many of the major reproductions inside my computer, and while some of them aren't perfect emulations of their hardware cousins, they are more than close enough for me.

I identify with what you say about the feel you get from your Tyros. For those times I want a more complex guitar solo, for example, at my level of guitar play, using Musiclabs Real Strat and a good guitar amp sim is actually going to sound much more authentic than if I tried to play the same piece on an actual Strat. I'm not certain I'm happy about that though.. it just exposes my mediocre guitar playing ability more than anything else. Actually, the T2 is pretty much the equal of Real Strat when it comes down to the articulations. It may not have quite the complexity and flexibility of RS, but for me that part of it is close enough for most guitar solo work. I just prefer the actual tone is a bit better on RS, but that is a very subjective personal preference.

Cheers,

AJ

[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

AMEN

Tyros 3 although a great arranger was released too early after Tyros2 leaving many T2 users with a bad taste in their mouth after shelling out bucks & then right behind it an upgraded T3 comes along so soon making it difficult to trade, sell, upgrade or rebuy the T3. Yamaha could have waited another year improved the T3 even more & then released it....I'd love to know why the T3 came so soon unless they needed to sell off old Tyros parts with a rehash model...so they can move on to the next Arranger project hopefully very soon?

What do you think?

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 02-07-2009).]

Maybe because you, and innumerable others in the year before the T3 came out were going 'when is the new Tyros coming? I can't wait to see what Yamaha come out with next... C'mon Yamaha!, blah, blah, blah! '

Talk about mixed messages!

Diki....I buy, try, dump, or whatever that's how I roll my friend....if it serves me I keep it, make money & move on simple as that ......it's just a tool of the trade nothing more.....
why do I do it?.....because I can my friend ...

Carry on

No problem with that... (I think you said you had learned your lesson, anyway! ). It's just that you can't complain BEFORE it comes out that it is taking too long to get here, and then after it comes out complain that it comes out too soon, without at least realizing that all you are doing is complain... No matter WHAT happens!

Donny, the T3 came out roughly 3 years after the T2 which is basically Yammie's timetable for releasing new high and mid range arrangers. The T2 came out 3 years after the T1 did and many people took the plunge for a T2 because it offered the "new" SA1 voices and there were 42 of them so that was a pretty exciting reason to upgrade from the T1 to the T2. I would have done the upgrade dance too if the T2 (or T3) had 76 keys. But the reason T2 owners (and others) were hesitant on getting a T3, in my opinion, was there was no "significant" reason for doing so. It still only had 61 keys, still no REAL Sampler, the Drums are underwhelming, and it only has a mere "11" SA2 voices with most of them just variations of the same sample(s). So not only is the T3 just a "minor" upgrade from a T2, in some instances the T2 beats the snot out of the T3. Better drums for one. Lower price for another.

>> I wanted to post this other compilation of Fantom G sounds for everyone who may be interested. This is a combination of Synth and Acoustic sounds together in a song format. The sounds included are Lead Synth, Synth Bass, Rock Organ, a Rhodes EP, Distortion Guitar, and an acoustic Drum kit. I included one as a .wav file for audio purists.

The Fantom G has 24bit DAC's which, in my opinion, gives it a nice clean punchy sound. If there's anybody thinking about getting a "true" Workstation keyboard you may want to put the Fantom G on your short list of workstation keyboard purchases. I'm liking my Fantom G7 more and more each day with the possibilities growing exponentially as to what it can do. A person really needs to be willing to dig in and take the time and effort to be able to get the most out of it though. Something that many keyboardists would rather not do of course.

Enjoy!

Arise.mp3

Arise.wav

All the best,
Mike