Summer namm 2014

[FxProject]

Is Roland Will release à new big workstation ?
A big FA with more sounds ,with bigger screen ,and the sequencer of the fantom g ?
It would be good !!!
Fx-project

http://soundcloud.com/fx-project/anothe ... mental-mix

[cello]

Yes it's possible I guess, but I'd be very surprised indeed.

So, I would say not.

[specialplant]

I just read the newest investor news; it seems Roland hopes to get away from the loss zone it has been in for some years. I think they have a good chance of achieving better sales with the FA as a medium-priced workstation now, so the FA could be a good vehicle to bring them back to the profit zone. A high-priced workstation is probably much too risky in this situation, as demand is simply too low in that segment. Unfortunately, Yamaha seems to think so, too (except for the arranger segment).

[cello]

This makes sense - the FA, Integra and Aira are all moving really well for Roland; demand outstripping supply at the moment. The JP-80 however did less well.

Yes, I think a Roland would be wise to milk the middle market and hang back on the high end gear until it's in a stronger financial position.

I'll look forward to when that day comes, though!

[FxProject]

The idea of a Gw9 keyboard workstation (arranger) with supernatural sounds and sounds from the Fa06 /fantom g /integra ...
Fx-project
http://www.mupiz.com/fxproject
http://www.mixcloud.com/fabricefxproject/

[PauloF]

The idea of a Gw9 keyboard workstation (arranger) with supernatural sounds and sounds from the Fa06 /fantom g /integra ...
Fx-project
http://www.mupiz.com/fxproject
http://www.mixcloud.com/fabricefxproject/

They have that already (sort of)... the BK-9!

[specialplant]

That's what I thought, too. The GW line has practically been given up for the BK arranger line. However, the BK line came from the 'Roland Europe' development based in Italy, and Roland Europe is dissolved now. The BK-9 hasn't seen any updates since October 2013, and none of the announced sound expansions for the BK-9 have been released, Roland doesn't even mention them any more. Nobody knows whether the complete arranger business might eventually have been given up again by closing down Roland Europe, or whether Roland is still in the process of shifting arranger product development to Asia...

[PauloF]

That's what I thought, too. The GW line has practically been given up for the BK arranger line. However, the BK line came from the 'Roland Europe' development based in Italy, and Roland Europe is dissolved now. The BK-9 hasn't seen any updates since October 2013, and none of the announced sound expansions for the BK-9 have been released, Roland doesn't even mention them any more. Nobody knows whether the complete arranger business might eventually have been given up again by closing down Roland Europe, or whether Roland is still in the process of shifting arranger product development to Asia...

You made a very important point here!
It is indeed a very good question

[Parsifal]

The GW line has practically been given up for the BK arranger line. However, the BK line came from the 'Roland Europe' development based in Italy, and Roland Europe is dissolved now. The BK-9 hasn't seen any updates since October 2013, and none of the announced sound expansions for the BK-9 have been released, Roland doesn't even mention them any more. Nobody knows whether the complete arranger business might eventually have been given up again by closing down Roland Europe, or whether Roland is still in the process of shifting arranger product development to Asia...

Roland lost its battle for arranger market in Europe and that's because they did not understand the needs of the people of Europe who use arrangers. While there is a huge potential market for quasi-toys, most of the time when a youngster wants to buy a two-dime keyboard he asks for advice from a seasoned "veteran", who is usually a venue-player at the age of 35 or even more. And all these folks were "spoiled" for at least 20 years using synths whose keybeds were very nice, sporting both velocity and aftertouch. So, everytime one of these older people are asked for advice by young people (who are a bigger potential market that the market for professionals), they say that X brand is crap, solely on their perception about keybed feel. And they gave the answer in regard to their high-end arranger, not the entry-level instrument of the same brand! The market share of high-end arrangers might be small but that's what you get for not understanding the immense potential for brand damage their users held - prospective arranger buyers, contrary to synth enthusiasts, rely on hearsay instead of marketing media.
That's why most people nowadays use so many Korg arrangers, although entry-level Korgs are even crappier in regard to keybeds. But the "seniors" are talking about their nice and firm PA3X keybed and the youngster thinks "PA3X is Korg so I'd better buy Korg".
Apart from that, there are also several perks which helped Korg sink other brands, including Yamaha and Roland:
- Korg arrangers were ocassionaly samplers so, while Roland sound was usually considered far superior, the venue players preferred Korg instruments because they were equally reliable but they could load Roland sounds too. The other way around wasn't possible.
- Korg arrangers sport a touch screen and most young people are attracted by gimmicks.
- Korg arrangers include lots of ethnic sounds, especially for European and South-American players. You cannot expect to sell erhu and shakuhachi emulations to people who perform European and / or Latin (South-American which is basically Spanish / Portuguese type) local music. You need European + Latin ethnic instruments. Korg paid a lot more attention to this market and reaped the benefits.
There was a time when European arranger market was totally dominated by Roland G series arrangers, especially G-600 and G-1000. Korg barely hoped to hold on, yet they emerged victorious after a decade or two. Why? Because Roland G series, while not having any touchscreen or sampler at that age, had a professional keybed, great sounds and were reasonably priced - compared to the competition. Each and every keyboard release from Roland afterwards was some kind of a blunder, failing to perceive why their keyboards were so successfull and why they lost the battle for the arranger market in Europe.

[Saxifraga]

@parsival
You have to sadly admit that Korg arrangers sound better than the Roland Bk arrangers.

I hope Roland can come up with a damn good next gen workstation that implements the Integra Engine with a better VA engine like Korgs AL-1 and all the Fantom G features + streaming samples and a damn good internal sound library managment tool that gets away from this idiotic soundbank scheme with fixed numbers of sounds, samples, sequences, etc. We live in the times of free memory allocation for at least 30 years now!
A new generation of workstations also needs an API that allows programmers to drop MIDI and call directly objects and functions of a workstation for better DAW integration.
Korg just chickend out and circumvented that decission by using a lame ftp server for smaple transfer.
But Rolands method of using slow USB sticks is not the way to go. Flash ram is also not the way to go. We need an ethernet port on every synth because they are computers which could directly plug into the net without need for Macs and PCs. Why not purchase sounds and tools or engines programmed for your synth directly from a Roland SynthApp store? (Ihope my english is understandable)

[RamiK]

I don't want to go out of this forum point; however, I do believe that KORG has the best arrangers in market that is due to their quality made hardware and prestigious software, saying that KORG's new arrangers do not have such a good keybed/built quality is not very accurate, yes maybe the current quality of made is not as good as in the past but a moment, ALL manufacturers has reduced their quality, so the comparison should be made between products that are relatively produced concurrently.

Software wise, personally I couldn't find any arranger that can come any close to what KORG is offering, you can customize every thing from the sounds to keyboard behavior as tailor sewing a custom-made suit . The sound editing utility is so excellent that there in no parameter you can't edit, it I almost a similar to a synthesizer in this aspect.

Hardware wise, as much as i can see these keyboards are Heavy Duty keyboards, they are made to last, personally I think they are relatively better than other same level keyboards, i do like the key action.

Im not sure if KORG has ever made any keyboards that may truly be called an ENTRY level except the pa300, All the other PA keyboards can be used professionally. The lowest level keyboards made by Korg were pa50, pa500, pa600, and if some one can check them he'll find they are any thing but level keyboards.

In my opinion Korg has dominated the market of professional oriental musician(synthesizer and arranger workstations) because of the previously mentioned points. Likely as per what was previously mention it seems to dominate other markets. So this means they can meet the musician requirements and this is most important point.

Finally I'd like to,say it does not matter what is the brand name on your keyboards when you are on stage performing or in a studio composing, what matters it does fulfill your needs.

Best regards to all
Rami K

[Parsifal]

@parsival
You have to sadly admit that Korg arrangers sound better than the Roland Bk arrangers.

As I said, each and every keyboard release from Roland after the G series was some kind of a blunder. So I don't need to admit anything, I've already stated some points Korg has in its favour. The fact you feel the need to put sounds too on that list denotes some subjective insecurity from your part. Do you feel threatened by Roland arrangers? :)

It seems that I was correct about the European perception about Korg / Roland arranger. Every professional would stand by and swear that Korg arrangers are better than Roland ones. Although this might actually not be the case.
Korg build quality, up to (but not including) PA3X, sucks big time. No, it's not "everybody" who threw away their build quality standards, it's mostly Korg: PA300 build quality is similar to PA600 and PA900. There are Roland entry-level keyboards better built than Korg arrangers twice the price. Not to mention Korg / Yamaha obsession for speakers, alongside crappy keybeds, which usually means carrying a lot of dead weight to a gig. At least with Roland you can pack a BK7m alongside a synth with a nicer keybed in the same overall weight bracket.

however, I do believe that KORG has the best arrangers in market that is due to their quality made hardware and prestigious software, saying that KORG's new arrangers do not have such a good keybed/built quality is not very accurate, yes maybe the current quality of made is not as good as in the past but a moment, ALL manufacturers has reduced their quality, so the comparison should be made between products that are relatively produced concurrently.

No, "best arrangers" is a subjective thing, due to personal needs and preferences. Leaving these aside, the only way you can establish some brand supremacy over others is by sales, and sales only. Re-read my post, those were (and still are) the reasons Korg keyboards are preferred. Because most of the people used to bash other brands and prop Korg, like you. At least Europe is full of Korg arranger fanboys who not only feel the need to praise their brand but also crap on all other brands aswell.

Software wise, personally I couldn't find any arranger that can come any close to what KORG is offering, you can customize every thing from the sounds to keyboard behavior as tailor sewing a custom-made suit . The sound editing utility is so excellent that there in no parameter you can't edit, it I almost a similar to a synthesizer in this aspect.

I don't care about "software-wise". I was talking about why Roland arrangers don't sell. I highly doubt that the flexibility Korg offers is more important than sound quality and if you say that BK9 sounds worse than any Korg PA keyboard (including PA3), you're full of shit.

Hardware wise, as much as i can see these keyboards are Heavy Duty keyboards, they are made to last, personally I think they are relatively better than other same level keyboards, i do like the key action.

No way, these keyboards WERE built to last. Now, not so much. Of course you LIKE the key action, you're a Korg (and gimmick) lover. That does not hide the fact most Korg keybeds are utter crap. (except professional synths and PA3X which has a flawless keybed but that's it)

Im not sure if KORG has ever made any keyboards that may truly be called an ENTRY level except the pa300, All the other PA keyboards can be used professionally. The lowest level keyboards made by Korg were pa50, pa500, pa600, and if some one can check them he'll find they are any thing but level keyboards.

Oh yeah? Have you ever unsuccessfully tried to use GW8 professionally? Or is only brand bias? Keep in mind I was talking about keybed quality, not software fluff you keep on propping Korg about. REALLY want to edit your sounds in detail? Why don't you use a computer software on a Mac / PC, it's even easier!

In my opinion Korg has dominated the market of professional oriental musician(synthesizer and arranger workstations) because of the previously mentioned points. Likely as per what was previously mention it seems to dominate other markets. So this means they can meet the musician requirements and this is most important point.


Best regards to all
Rami K

No, Korg has dominated the market because of the points I've made in the post above, although you're in denial. I bet Roland arrangers can meet musician requirements as well as Yamaha or Korg.

[spottingjonah]

I hope Roland can come up with a damn good next gen workstation that implements the Integra Engine with a better VA engine like Korgs AL-1 and all the Fantom G features + streaming samples and a damn good internal sound library managment tool that gets away from this idiotic soundbank scheme with fixed numbers of sounds, samples, sequences, etc. We live in the times of free memory allocation for at least 30 years now!

I agree... I would like to see this too, but sadly it doesn't seem like that is in the cards for Roland. Maybe ever again. They seem to be moving in a completely different direction. Not a bad direction, just not one that will produce the dream workstation you mention. I see more development of their Analog Circuit Behavior (ACB) technology, more focus on responding to the needs of touring companies, and generally trying to sell more to the masses rather than the minority of dinos like me. Oh well. Live and adapt. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[RamiK]

Parsifal

first of all I don't understand why you are using bad language, it is not acceptable, you need to respect others, you have no right to attack others just because they have different opinions.

I DO know that every thing is subjective, and I've repeatedly mentioned words (I think, I believe,....) so you should be able to understand that what ever I'm saying is my point of view which is based on my experience. nevertheless you may need to pay attention to what I wrote in the very end:

Finally I'd like to,say it does not matter what is the brand name on your keyboards when you are on stage performing or in a studio composing, what matters it does fulfill your needs.<br sab="759"><br sab="760">Best regards to all<br sab="761">Rami K

I don't prefer a brand over another, it's simply at this time I see KORG products meet my requirements.

Regards

[specialplant]

@parsival
You have to sadly admit that Korg arrangers sound better than the Roland Bk arrangers.

Have you played a BK arranger yourself? Besides my Integra, I have owned Yamaha MoX, MoXF, Korg M3 Xpanded and a Roland BK-7m. At the time when I had the MoX, I made a thorough side-by-side comparison of MoX and BK-7m sounds, and the BK-7m was superior in quite a number of sounds, IMO altogether it was a draw. The BK-7m nearly has the same sounds as E80 and G70. The BK-9 has all the BK-7m sounds plus 600 more from SonicCell/FantomX, a few from SRX boards and other sources. So the BK-9 simply cannot sound poor (although a lot of BK-9 demos do not present it favorably), and I don't think Korg's arrangers sound better in general.
The BK-9 has a number of good features, but one of Roland's mistakes was to equip it with this questionable double display, which makes it appear a bit cheap to the superficial buyer...
Now, if Roland gave up support (e.g. regarding the announced sound expansions) and left BK-9 buyers bummed, it would be their next serious mistake.