Just discovered this fascinating YouTube vid clip today.

Custom Made Korg Pa1000 Arranger Module

forall788 converted his Korg Pa1000 arr keyboard into an arranger module. It 'looks' very impressive.

Curious how and where a remote 61/76/88 note midi controller keyboard connects to it. Via midi ports on the back or the multi-pin connector plugs on the bottom of the module?

Would love to see a live arranger mode demo with this module & remote midi controller keyboard connected.

Scott

Scott ... Good to see you posting ...
Hope you are doing well ...

Hi Buddy, I hope you are still enjoying the Korg! Perhaps the major overhaul they are doing on the 4X will soon be available for the 1000.

I considered this for my pa4x
But monetary vallue made me quit that tought
It would have been extremely hard to sell it

Great to see you active here at SZ again Scott, you've been missed.

Hi Scott,
So glad to see you posting too!
I am still so grateful for your help.... when you told me about the "Studiomaster C3X mixer" that fit my needs perfectly and I am still using it.
Ron, in Vero Beach Florida

Scott, Nice surprise to see you posting!

Nice piece of work he made of it , Nice to see you back again here :-)

Impuls/Arno

Hi Scott..

Korg Frankenstein modules have been around for a while...

Tony, DonM, Bachus, GJ; Ron, Steve, and Impuls Arno, and Donny:
Thanks for your heads up replies. Hard to believe it's been over 20 years since first joining this forum and to have made so many 'life-long' friends here. Though I don't have time to post often now, I continue to enjoy following everyone's posts (both old and newer SZ members) whenever I have a chance.



Still enjoying the Pa1000 more than ever. I think it's exciting that the Pa4X received a major OS enhancement, and FREE too. Kudos to Korg for that. Though it would be great if the Pa1000 received this too, I suspect Korg may not as the Pa1000 needs to remain the much lower budget alternative to the Pa4X. I'm Planning to wait another year or more before considering an upgrade to a Pa5x, but who knows.

Having played TOTL model arrangers for so many years, I even surprised myself to like the Pa4X's baby brother so much. I esp appreciate it's built in speakers for personal onstage monitoring when playing with a live band as well as being able to take the keyboard alone for those quick in/out small intimate gigs. I still got the Tyros 5 (mint condition: fully loaded) but am considering selling it. If anyone here is interested, PM me.



Donny. Thanks for the heads up re that.
Until now, I had no idea that arranger keyboard owners have been doing this, as I've also never seen 3rd party module conversions done to Yamaha, Roland,
Technics, Casio or Ketron arranger keyboards.

What it is about Korg
Korg arr keyboards that make them good candidates for module conversion?

How is the keyboard controller connected to the module?
Strictly via midi, or does it require an additional connection as well?

Scott

Scott. Nice to hear from you again....Best wishes from UK

Hi Scotty,
great to see you posting again - you have been missed.

Seems to me, as a Ketron SD40 user and former SD90 owner, the Korg is a bit large for a module - just saying.

Deane

Hi Scott, so glad to hear from you! Yes, you have been missed! I agree with Diane... much too bulky...

Hi Graham. Got your recent message on Skype.
Looking forward to catching up with you there soon.





Deane and Montunoman: Thanks for the greetings.

Perhaps the Korg microArranger might make a lighter & more compact Korg arranger candidate for module frankenstein-ization: (22" width x 6" deep x 3 high" ) . Anybody know if this has successfully been done on a Korg microArranger?

I see this video is no longer available. Any chance someone has a locally downloaded copy they could share? Or anything else that might show some more detail about converting PA1000 to module?

Be careful what you wish for..! One of the problems with arranger modules is, unless specifically designed to be a module, a lot of front panel commands (buttons) don't have MIDI codes. If you convert the keyboard arranger into a module, your main keyboard may not be able to select (from its buttons) things like Bass Inversion, ritardando/accelerando etc..

This leaves you reaching for the module to hit those, and particularly if you are using another arranger to control the module, it's tough to get the module close enough to reach those buttons without obscuring your main arranger's buttons...

We often take for granted how easy it is to hit important buttons and get back to playing with minimal disruption, but put them a lot further away and it gets trickier...

Yes. My desire is to place the module on a stand tier above the keyboard I'd be controlling it from, so I'd still be using the PA1000's buttons and screen for all operations. But I'd be triggering it from a keyboard action I prefer, which will also provide some additional functionality of its own. I'd even have the option to combine it with different keyboards, depending on the needs of the gig.

I actually have a number of boards I'm thinking I could combine it with (61, 76, 88) any of which would give me something I prefer, and while total weight (keyboard and module) might in some cases be greater than the weight of the PA1000 alone, no single piece would be as heavy as the PA1000.

Anotherscott ?

A simple way to get a feel for the greatly increased distance between keybed and buttons would be to simply put the PA1000 on the top tier of a stand and put whatever controller you want underneath it, MIDI the two together, then try to play the bottom keyboard while having to reach for the top keyboard's buttons, sliders and knobs.

For the sake of experimentation, bring the top keyboard's buttons in close enough that, if the Korg's keybed wasn't there, the controls are where you'd place them while still being able to read the bottom keyboard's display and get to its controllers.

I remember playing big multi-keyboard rigs back in the day when there were no other options, and the distance my hands had to move to get quickly and accurately from one to the others was definitely a factor. It's no coincidence that the keyboard DESIGNED to go quickly from one manual to another is the organ, and there's NOTHING between the two manuals, going from one to the other on say a B3 is virtually instant.

I would still counsel playing the two keyboards MIDI'd together and see if it works for you before you take a hacksaw to your PA1000. That will kill its resale value, and the way Korg is going, the PA1000 may be the last MOTL arranger Korg make. That's going to keep its resale value high if no better successor exists...

I understand what you're saying, but...


There is not necessarily any greatly increased distance. For example, one of the boards I was talking about using this way is a Korg Liano, which gives me 88 better feeling keys in a very lightweight package (albeit with no aftertouch). Here is a picture. If you imagined moving the "brains" of the PA1000 forward to where the keys are, there would be just a slight increase in height to the controls, and no increase in depth. Top view and side view:





I only use two controls on the Liano... a volume knob, and a sound selector knob which I only move between piano and EP. I can make those adjustment by sliding my fingers into the small gap between the top of the Liano and the board/module above, I do not need to keep them visually exposed. Assuming I even would be using the Liano's own sounds, which is a possibility, but not a certainty.


As an aside, 99% of the time, all I need access to is the screen (which nicely tilts, for when the board is placed higher) and the 4 Variation buttons (which are at the front-most edge). I use a footswitch for start and stop.

If I'm only using the board as a controller (which is a possibility), the bottom board has no display or panel controls I need to get to, so I can bring the module fully forward as I did on the Liano above. But yes, I may also want to use a board that brings its own sounds/functionalities to the table, one of them being the Yamaha CK61. But its control panel is pretty shallow. Here are pics of that setup, with the full CK control surface exposed. Again, imagine if the PA1000 brain was moved to where its keys are in these pics.





That doesn't seem likely to be problematic to me. But if it turns out it is, I'm not tied to using sounds/functions of the board beneath, I can go with the alternate plan of a controller board for which I would need to access to anything behind the keys. (Or, if I just want to access some sounds from it, access them via MIDI, either from an iPhone/iPad or from the PA1000 itself, which can send MIDI Program Changes from within Keyboard Sets.)

I also have boards with sounds with an even shallower control surface that needs to be kept visible than that of the CK61. If I wanted to use a hammer action on some gig, for example, I could make the board one of the Casio Privias I have, which have control surfaces that are noticeably less deep than that Yamaha's.

For the most part, though, I prefer to stick with boards that are lighter than those Privias... it's a matter of how much I want that hammer action in my rig. I did mention that one of the reasons I like the PA1000 module idea is that, besides letting me choose an action I prefer (in # of keys and/or feel), it reduces the number of heavy-ish pieces I need to bring. The PA1000's 23.7 lbs feels heavier than its number indicates. I think because it is back-heavy, and the angle of the side panels provides no comfortable, balanced grip area.

There's another reason this interest me, though. Besides looking for a preferable action and typically a reduction in the # of 20+ lb pieces I need to haul around, in some cases, I like the idea of 3 boards' worth of functionality. There is no single board I can pair with the PA1000 that gives me quite everything I want, for those occasional gigs where I'm in the mood for some creative excess. ;-) The problem is, if I put the PA1000 on the top of a 3-tier setup (which I did for one gig this year), I feel that the PA1000 is a bit too far away. By putting its "brain" above the second-tier board, I can add its functionality to the rig without bringing a whole 3rd board. I could partially have solved that by using it *as* a module even though the whole keyboard was there (that is, have it up there, but play it from one of the bottom 2 boards), but as you were talking about, that puts its controls a further distance away, and it's a heavier piece to bring, and it starts to look overwhelming for some situations, having 3 full keyboards up there. All I need is the cape!

Oh, one more thing...



I was hoping that these module conversions would be reversible, such that I could re-install the brain into the keyboard if desired. Certainly I don't envision myself taking a hacksaw to anything! :-)

Interesting. Good to hear you've put a lot of thought into this!

I'm curious... does the central panel of the 1000 come away from the rest of the front panel without cutting? If it does, that's great! Most arrangers have the entire top surface covered in buttons and sliders. It's major surgery to convert them to modules.

By the way, have you ever tried a Roland BK-7m module? Very small, surprisingly powerful...

Based on the pictures I"ve seen, yes, that seems to be the case. Check this video... lots of pics of the module, but also, at about 52 seconds in, you can see the PA1000 with its brain removed, still otherwise quite intact. It looks like the tinkerer added some multi-pin connectors to facilitate being able to reconnect and disconnect the brain from its original housing on a whim.




That is an indeed an option I am considering. The hesitation is that I already have and use the PA1000, I already know how to get what I need out of it, I love its sounds, and I have lots of songs already set up on it. So it would be gig-ready, as opposed to my learning a new device, hoping to find sounds I like as much, and programming the songs into it.

It's not even really the accompaniment styles that matter per se... I only use their drum rhythms, nothing else. Everything else, I play live. But the combination of a particular drum rhythm (with its variations) with the various split/layered keyboard-playable sounds and their relative volumes, is a lot to have to set up again from scratch for each song.

(I also do more than the basic "1 sound on bottom, up to 3 sounds on top" layer/split arrangements; I do a good amount of assigning the up-to-3 sounds on top each to different key ranges. I don't even know whether the Roland is capable of that, off-hand.)

Have a look at the various Ketron modules before you get the tools out.

Also have a look for a used BK7m, as there reasonably priced these days.

Bill

The Roland's have an EXCEPTIONAL drum sound, a massive selection of kits, and lots of very dynamic styles. But possibly its best feature is its Makeup Tools 'header editor' that is BY FAR the simplest way to not only change kits for a style, but also simple but powerful editing of the sounds within a kit.

They also include kits from Roland's 808, 909 and CR-78 years, along with a huge selection of ethnic kits and great percussion. Their style structure also allows for up to six fills, and four intro/endings. Their style structure main weakness is no actual break/fill, just a break. But if you're using MIDI PC's for division choice, it's easy to repurpose Intro1 (usually a count-in and pickup) as a break/fill.

You'll find that Roland's fills are generally MUCH smoother and more connected than Korg's are, imho.

Quite honestly, as a drum machine module with keyboard sounds, I think there is no equal 🎹❤️😎