From: "Elson Trinidad" <
elson@...>
> Peter Korsten wrote:
>
> > Roland, for instance, doesn't really innovate: they just improve on what
> > others do, and sell it for an appropiate price.
>
> Actually they're tying to capitalize (though not in the best way) on their
> earlier successes, hence this "Groove Approved" mumbo jumbo. They like to
tout,
> "Yeah, we made the 808 and the 909 and the 303. Are we ever gonna
re-release em
> or make updated versions of them? No. Just buy this lame Groovebox
instead.
> After all, it's 'Groove Approved.'"
There's a market for these boxes, otherwise Roland wouldn't make them. And
the CS1x isn't any different from these boxes.
I was thinking more about there JV/XV/XP synths and modules. The technology
may be kinda old, but it still sounds good. And the pros love it. Ever
noticed that you always see Roland on stage and in the studio? And, while
we're at it, hardly any Yamaha?
> >Korg is pretty innovative (the spin-offs of their OASYS keyboard, like
the
> Prophecy, Trinity and Z1)
>
> Not innovative in the true sense; the Z1 is just another VA synth, the
Trinity
> is just a late '90s version of the M1 and the Triton is just another
sampling
> workstation. Oh but wait! They're all in silver casings!
The Z1 is way much more than a VA synth. As a matter of fact, it's the first
available polyphonic physical modelling synth (the Yamaha VP1 was not
available). You can take a modelled violin in oscillator 1 and a modelled
analogue in oscillator 2. Try that with any other synth.
And the workstation concept comes from Korg: after all, the M1 is theirs as
well. The Trinity and Triton are further improvements on that concept,
meanwhile bringing new features. (The Trinity can be expanded to a whole
studio-in-a-box.)
Calling Korg "not innovative" is, in my opinion, unfair and biased.
> But they ARE making products that the public wants and likes, for example
the
> Electribes and the MS2000 (which currently is sold out in most stores, and
won't
> get new shipments until October!)
Well, the public wants those, and Roland's groove boxes, and Yamaha's CS
series. I don't really get this point.
> >Yamaha is even more innovative.
>
> True, though not with the best results, popularitywise. For example the
FS1r,
> really is a good piece of equipment, but has lame presets and it never
caught on.
> Hey but something has to be said for a company that takes risks. Though
they're
> huge anyway and have been around for 113 years, so it's not like they're
gonna
> go bankrupt anyway.
Not likely. But the ironic thing is that their most down-to-earth products
sell like crazy. The CS series, the 01V, and all the other stuff that they
make - take, for instance, all their accoustic pianos.
> Same with the EX series synths, which are some of the best sample-based
synths
> you can find. Though apparently the CS1/2/6x models are apparently
popular. I
> also like the
> QY-70, which is an amazing product that got very little publicity.
Everyone I
> know who bought one, including me, learned of it word-of-mouth.
The EX5 got bad word-of-mouth from its users, and for a good reason. (BTW, I
have a silver one and love it.) It is significantly handicapped in several
areas, and Yamaha will only give you a working OS if you pay an amount of
money which is a significant part of the list price of this rather expensive
synth.
The EX5 was new, though not revolutionary, but it wasn't finished. And
that's exactly what they did with the A3000. I would hope that newer Yamahas
actually work when you buy them.
With the FS1r, it's the same story. You have these FSEQ's, but there is no
way you can edit them on the machine, and there is no software available to
make use of it. So it's a useless feature. (I know that there is some
software, but with "use" I mean actually producing usable stuff.)
That's Yamaha's problem. They been building quite a few unfinished products
lately, and now they're back at the trusted AWM2 engine, which is even older
than Roland's JV engine. Duh!
Now why does this remind me of Microsoft... world's biggest company in their
class... "freedom to innovate"... unfinished products... :)
Praise be that we have one of the few ∗finished∗ products from that period.
:) (Although mine is acting quite funny lately.)
- Peter