In several forums I've often read about e.g. Yamaha sounds having a higher quality than e.g. some Roland sounds etc.

I think two different things are sometimes mixed up: the technical audio quality of a sound on the one hand and the realism of a sound in relation to the 'original' acoustic instrument on the other hand.

An example would be the following: If I just audio-recorded a real French Horn, it would be 100% realistic, as the recording cannot render anything else but the waves from the real French Horn captured, of course. But if the recording was made in very bad MP3 quality, or even taken from an AM radio station, its sound quality would be awful, but still render a real French Horn.
On the other hand, the sample of a French Horn can be very unrealistic, taking only a short attack phase and looping it or making other mistakes in the sampling process (wrongly placed mics etc.), but if it is implemented in high resolution etc., its audio quality can be fantastic. Still, it would never sound like a real French Horn.

In that sense, I think many 'old' Roland samples are realistic, but lack audio brilliance, whereas some Yamaha samples have polished audio quality, but lack realism.

Arranger keyboards are designed to impress the home hobby player (That’s the market they are designed for) who in most cases hasn’t been to a live concert in years, so have no idea what real instruments sound like. (Most Hi Fi systems are also designed to sound nice rather than real, so the home hobby player cannot use these as a reference either)

To outdo the competition the manufactures tend to make their sounds more real than real so that they stand out, however if you listen regularly to live music they fall well short, (Yamaha SA2 voices are a case in point, as they sound fantastic on their own, but in comparison to real instruments they fall well short, however the standard SA voices do add realism to the sound (Except the Sax) and while not unique to Yamaha really upped the T2 above the competition)

The same applies to styles, with the ones that sound fantastic usually being the least realistic.

It’s a bit like drink comparisons where a cheaper product tastes better than a more expensive product (fruit drinks for example) usually due to more artificial flavouring. (Note how they never have the real stuff on hand for comparison)

In the end it all comes down to personal preference as to whether you like a sound or not, and unfortunately this means that in most cases realism goes out the window. (Just as it does with most Hi Fi systems)

Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

Good post.
Some of Yamaha sounds are almost too polished. They start to loose character. Not that they sound bad. I think they sound pretty good. But than again Yamaha usually waters down pretty much everything lately.