Selecting a keyboard (Big 4) + Technical Q's

F

FusionKnight

New member
I'm looking for a keyboard, as are many on this forum, and I'm searching for a little advice. I'm looking for something that will satisfy my wife's desire to play the piano and my desire to create or "develop" digital music.

My musical background is mainly classical performance. I've played piano since kindergarten and violin since the second grade. I've played in various orchestras, futzed around with a guitar, and got a Mandolin for a recent birthday.

I have always found "developing" music to be intruiging. I'm not the sort of person who could write music in my head. I like to sit down and play with sounds; much like I play with colors when painting. It's more a personally expressive excersize than a mathematical formulation.

The artists that intruige me as a composer are Paul Oakenfold, Paul Van Dyke, Phillip Glass, John Adams, Nickel Creek, The Kronos Quartet, Steve Reich, Linkin Park, Bernard Herman, Rob Dougan, Dream Theater, Tangerine Dream among others from classical, pop, bluegrass, electronica, etc.

So far we've been looking at the Big 4: the Roland Fantom-X8, the Korg Triton Extreme, the Yamaha Motif ES8, and the Kurzweil 2600XS. My initial reactions are that the Kurzweil is too expensive, the Yamaha is too hard to use, the Roland is too obscure, and the Korg seems to be playing catchup with their hardware.

From those 4 I've been most seriously considering the Yamaha and the Korg. I love the sounds of the Yamaha, the shear size of the sound and arpegiator libraries, and the expansion room.

I love the Korg's user interface though. After seeing someone at the local Guitar Center run through it once I at least had an idea of what was involved. One look at the Yamaha was enough to make me rethink this whole adventure. My wife really liked the weighted feel of the Korg. She's not so hot on the color. :p

What's with Korg using tiny ammounts of obsolete RAM? From what I understand the Triton Extreme only holds 96 Mb, while the Motif ES can take 512 Mb. Is there a difference in how these two workstations are using their RAM, or is the Triton just blatently inferior (on the hardware issue).

It has to feel and sound as much like a piano as possible for my wife to agree to it. She won't even use it if it's too hard to learn. I want something that will allow me to create rich, full musical "paintings", and give me versatility for the future. How fast do these things lose value?

From reading through this forum, it seems people are more than willing to voice their opinions given the chance. That's exactly what I need! Rant away! I always learn a lot from other people passionately arguing their opinion. :D
 
One other technical question: How do these systems handle the wide dynamic ranges required to play things like Rochmoninof, Chopin, etc?
 
IMHO.
Yamaha=Better Piano
Korg=Better at most everything else (Especially user interface, and sequencing). I'm sure you'll get many arguments though.
It does seem kind of underhanded to only allow for 96Mb of RAM though.
 
Preference

I've just been through the same search. I asked around here for advice, and came up with the Yamaha Motif ES, Roland Fantom, and Korg Triton. I went to a music store and tried them (it was an all day affair for me, as the only store that had all three was 5 hours away). All I can say is try it yourself. I listened to all the samples online, and they didn't compare to what I heard in the store. I liked the sounds on the Roland the best, but the feel of the Yamaha the best for me. It really is up to you and your wife.
 
Ps

I played Rochmoninov on all 3 (Prelude in C# minor). You know... wanted to pound something and really test the action. Yamaha had the best feel to me, but I'm a hack. I like a heavier touch.
 
I agree, if you are used to playing on a real piano, the Yamaha is the closest thing to the real deal (would you expect anything less from a company that makes the "Real Deal"). As far as which is overall best, I agree with Brahmb, you really need to get your hands on them. Unfortunately each synth has the same "Each sound, sounds like it is coming from the same synth as the last sound" complex (i.e. Rolands sound like Rolands, Korgs like Korgs, etc.). And you can usually tell by listening to presets anyways, which synth created a particular sound, once you have heard some of the other presets. So you need to find which one has the best overall suite of sounds for your needs. What may work for me, may not work for you, and Brahmb likes the Roland. It would be nice to have a "Best of" synth, but sound is far too subjective.
 
Thanks, and More Q's! :)

Thanks for the input!

I know that there's no "Best Of". There are so many features on each that I wish I could hack off and add to a "Frankenstein 'Board". In the end I'll have made a dozen trips to Guitar Center, and still wish I could buy them all! :p

Looking at the Roland videos (on their website) it seems like there are some very nice features on the Fantom X: skip-back sampling, auto chop, etc.

They have a seriously lam3 arpegio library though: only 128 patterns compared to the Motif's 1800 somthing! Has anybody found this to be limiting or problematic?
 
Do you think you'd ever have the need for more than 128. Most of my older gear only has like 3 or 4 patterns. And that has always been enough for me.
 
Variety?

Isn't the idea of having a large arpegiator library to give you a large selection to choose from? It's like saying an ice-cream shop should only have 3 or 4 flavors... or am I misunderstanding what that library is for? :confused:

I guess a simple explanation of what the arpegio patterns are for, what the 128 "presets" actually are, and why the other 'boards have such huge libraries in comparison would be extremely helpful.

After reading some more this is what I find: The Fantom comes with way less arpegiator patterns, but it's programmable (I can make my own patters) where the other 'boards are not programmable; I'm just stuck with the presets. Am I understanding this right?

I admit, I'm a n3wb, but I usually catch on pretty fast, given the right info. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Not 100% sure but I think the Arp patterns can be saved to disk. So you could actually have an infinite library of patterns, but only 128 loaded at once.
The large variety of arp patterns, is geared more towards live use. You can create very complex rhythmic patterns, and trigger them with a hand full of keys (i.e. you could have 1 for a major scale over 1 octave, or the same for 2 octaves, or a minor scale over 3 octaves, etc.). Then simply holding say a C note, you could trigger a C major scale, etc. The beauty is with programmable Arp patterns you are not limited to the notes running, in Ascending, Descending, Ascending/Descending, or Random order (As on the classics). You can create wild Arp patterns that play notes, in any order you want them to. The arpegiattor has traditionally been one of the greatest weapons in the techno/dance music arsenal, but it's use can be extended into any form of music.
 
the triton can do user-created arps.

yes, the Fantom X has only 128 arps. its one of those places where yammie wins. but, in terms of UI, sequencing/expansion, i think Fantom X is better IMO. the SRX cards are an absolute killer!

BTW, i have a Fantom S. i really dont use the arps, but i use the RPS for creating patterns and i LUV it. u can use those 16 pads (something the rest of the competition dun have) to trigger sequences/samples/sysEx messages,etc...
 
More thoughts...

My wife and I just got back from Guitar Center after looking at the Triton Extreme, the Motif ES, and the Fantom X. I've got to say after playing these a bit more, Korg's big touchscreen counts for a lot!

I sat down and read through (skimmed some sections) the Motif ES manual, so I thought I'd be prepared to play with it a little. I got to it at the store, and could barely find the voices I wanted. I had no idea how to get into the sequencer, and setting parameters for the sounds was totally beyond me.

I moved over to the Triton, and was still a bit stumped. All three of these keyboards are layed out very differently. After sitting with it for about 10 mintues though, I started to unlock the sequencer. 10 min = not to bad for a total n3wb. :p

The Fantom X just didn't impress me much. I mean, the pads are nice and all, but nothing really grabbed me. The color screen really didn't make me bat an eye.

What I can't figure out though, for all three, is why the voices sound so good in the demos online, but when I get to play with the keyboard itself it just sounds yuck. I'm mainly talking about the piano voices here. The Yammie sounds awesome in the demos, but in the store it's just a fake wannabe piano... Am I missing something here? Maybe there are effects or tweaks that just weren't being used?

As far as keyboard action, I like the Korg the best. My wife liked the Roland. The Yammie is supposed to be all that, but it felt like a plastic toy... All of these 'boards should have modifiable settings for the keyboard action/attack/etc, right?

Well, after all that, I'm back where I started. I want to take a chainsaw to these three 'boards, and duct-tape them into the ultimate Frankenstein 'board. Who ever said duct-tape couldn't do anything? :D
 
As far as keyboard action, I like the Korg the best. My wife liked the Roland. The Yammie is supposed to be all that, but it felt like a plastic toy... All of these 'boards should have modifiable settings for the keyboard action/attack/etc, right?


Seriously? I know I said in another post it's a matter of opinion, but I really couldn't stand the clicking of the Roland keys and thought the Korg was the plastic toy... oh well, to each his own...
 
When searching for the next step up from my triton (horrible piano sounds), I tried the Motif, Triton Studio, and a Fantom x8.

Hands down fell in love with the Fantom X8. Great feel, and the piano sound is great. Don't get me wrong, the Motif sounded and felt great too.

It was the outstanding rhodes/wurly sounds as well as the skip back sampling feature that won me over on the fantom.

Give it a shot. I love mine.
 
Atterion-

I'm ashamed of you! Here's a guy who wants to "play with sounds" and all the discussion of the arpeggiator functions you didn't even mention the availability of KARMA Triton to him?????? What gives? :rolleyes:

If working with amazing and almost limitless, totally customizable arpeggiations fascinates you, then you simply must look at adding the KARMA (Kay Algorithmic Realtime Music Architecture) function to the Triton. Also, if you like analog, the Triton can have the MOSS board installed which is a great addition.

Go over to www.karma-lab.com for information. I have a feeling this could well be the deal maker for you.

No one answered your question about customizable response curves on the keyboards. If you're asking if you can modify the actual physical touch of the keyboard, the answer is "No". Well, not practically speaking. The customizable aspect is in how the keyboard responds to different levels of velocity.

Personally, I have a very negative feeling towards Roland gear in general. I don't like their UIs, I HATE their manuals. I find the company's attitude to be geared only toward getting you to purchase with very little interest in support afterwards. I especially hate what I call the "gotcha" that every piece of gear I have ever bought from Roland inevitably comes with. By that, I mean that their advertising copy always touts some wonderful feature that you think is going to be incredible, only to find out that it doesn't really function quite the way you think it will. Maybe that's changed. I haven't bought a piece of Roland gear since my supposedly multi-timbral JV1010 turned out to be almost impossible to utilize in that manner. I also have found their equipment to be pricey for what it does. They're not WAY out of line, just higher than Yamaha and Korg.

Korg has extremely detailed manuals that read like a medical reference book. Still, if you can understand the terminology, every function of the instrument is clearly documented. I've always liked the Triton's UI. I find it very intuitive, but everyone's different.

Yamahas, to me, always seem to have the best feel to them and I have always found their equipment to be extremely well constructed. I still play my KX88 controller every day and it's as solid as ever and it's nearly 20 years old.

I really haven't had much experience with Kurzweil. People who use the 2600 certainly are VERY loyal. Even though the unit has been around for quite some time, it seems that a lot of people feel the sounds are still among the best ever put into a synth.

Ted
 
After another (three hour) trip to Guitar Center, I've filled in some gaps in my understanding, but also come away with more questions. Here's my thoughts as of now:

Roland +'s: bells & whistles! skipback sampling, pads, color display, easy piano access
Roland -'s: doesn't feel professional enough... feels to "consumer".

Korg +'s: Ease of use! touchscreen, intuitive OS, less buttons
Korg -'s: Seems like it's a static 'board, it can barely be upgraded, and has some serious hardware deficiencies.

Yamaha +'s: The best sounds I've heard. [Let me say this is based on demos I've heard from their website; the ES8 in the store just doesn't sound as good... this is probably just because of background noise/bad speakers], powerful, professional feel. The hardware seems solid, the upgradability is far beyond the others. I feel like there's nothing the ES8 can't do.
Yamaha -'s: It might be able to do everything, but the interface gets in the way. I know I can deal with it, but it does make this machine less than inspiring, and will kill my wife's desire to use it.

So I guess my main concern is that the non-Yamaha machines just don't seem up to par as far as the guts are concerned. I know I've asked (and read a lot) for opinions on which is best, but now I want to ask about the technical guts. Is my feeling that the Roland and Korg (in particular) just aren't up to par? Are the technical limitations of the Roland and Korg even enough for a novice like myself to ever notice?

The technical issues I'm most concerned about are Korg's 60/60 polyphony, obsolete RAM, pitifully small amount of RAM, and lack of expansion cards. Do you think these are real issues?

Tedluk, thanks for letting me know about KARMA! Let me see if I get this: KARMA basically fixes the "guts" issues I have with the Triton Extreme by basically using your computer to make up for what the Extreme lacks?

How does the KARMA software compare to the software included with the Motif or Fantom?

Well, I have a few weeks before the tax refund comes, so there's more research to be done! :p
 
tedluk,
i agree with you 100% that roland advertises some features and they dont really give it. in the sense, u expect something to work by the way it was advertised, but then, it doesn't do it. people have been complaining as hell about the lame file system in the Fantom workstations. its just totally stupid. i hate such things.

on the +ve side, i love my Fantom S. it;s got good effects, nice presets, sampler, pads for RPs and a huge screen. only wish that Roland still continued this workstation in their product line. for a lot of others, this has driven them nuts cos when they plan to sell it sometime, their value will be greatly depreciated.

plus, there's this mob attitude for dumped products.!! :(
 
Fusionknight,

Korg Triton series workstations have 128 voices of polyfony, the same as a Motif ES or a Fantom X.

what they actually mean is that when u use only one oscillator, u get 128 voices, and when u use both of 'em u get only 64 notes of polyfony. this shouldnt be a problem. i had a Triton Le and never ran into polyfony issues.

on the other hand, look at Fantom X. it uses 4 tones per patch, and if its a stereo 4-tone, 128/8 = 16 voices at a time. i've read complaints from users of poly issues with this.

the Fantom S has 64 voices and u'll easily run out of polyfony when u play some rolling chords holding your pedal down while playing a piano patch(or any other 4-stereo tone patch for that matter)
 
fusion knight,

on another note, i'll add by saying that your opinion that there's nothing that the ES8 can do is very arguable. IMHO, in terms of expandability, there's no chance on earth that the PLG cards are gonna compare against the SRX cards of the Fantom. really, u gotta try out some SRX cards and u'll know what im talking about. go to ROlandus.com and just check out the demos of some SRX cards.....they just added another card (SRX-11) which has a fantastic sounding piano.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top