From pa3x to pa4x

[Dikikeys]

The file structure is generally one of the FIRST things that gets changed in a project. The hardware dictates what bank structure is going to be used. The MINUTE that Korg decided to go with a different storage architecture, they should have known (and probably did... they aren't stupid!) that Songbook links would no longer be cross-platform, and that is the day that Korg should have made it a priority to have the tools in place to facilitate the database migration from the old structure to the new.

Just imagine Microsoft bringing out a new Excel that could not read the old Excel...

Would you be as forgiving?

[Asena]

only one that can fix it is the KorgPaManager!

He has the key

[karmathanever]

only one that can fix it is the KorgPaManager!
He has the key

Who is this mystery man????
- - - - "Only the Shadow Knows"

Just imagine Microsoft bringing out a new Excel that could not read the old Excel...
Would you be as forgiving?

Nothing to forgive really - strange analogy, but I understand what you are trying to say - if MS did do that it comes back to choice - a new Excel with great new features but some compatibility limitations - a choice!!
Look at the annoying MS Excel macro upward compatibility problems - freakin nightmare and NO conversion tools.
If you relate it perhaps to MS's OS versions then it would be a little more reasonable as an analogy - lots of incompatible/missing/changed/added things.
The thing is at the end of the day, we have a choice - what suits one may not suit another.

At least Korg produce well designed and well tested products.

Anyhow, we do not know what Korg's marketing strategy was/is with PA4X. Maybe they are focusing on "new PA owners" and existing "older-model-owners" (to upgrade) - who knows.
Until I get my hands on a PA4X, I reserve my judgement regarding it being a suitable and justifiable upgrade for me.

I can see that the issue of whether it does everything the previous model does from a compatibility perspective could be important to some owners - particularly if they are performing frequently and need the new keyboard to be instantly usable (that would raise the obvious questions like "So why upgrade?" - the answer to that alone should identify what "needs" to be done in order to utilise the new keyboard - OK that might involve time and some planning - so there is the choice.)

This is all subjective and personal and impossible from Korg's perspective to be all-things-to-all-people but it is useful to hear your and others views and concerns.

P

P.S. Paolo has already told us that the "SONGBOOK EDITOR" is to be released soon for PA4X...

[Dikikeys]

But this isn't the first time the Songbook required a ton of user input to migrate from an older model to the new, is it?

Do you think Korg completely forgot about the protests and moaning when they did this LAST time?

And no, if you think about it, it would be a complete disaster (and the end of people using the program) if the latest Excel could not open the previous generation's files. How would anybody get any work done? The entire business community would sit silent while every last piece of data they had was rendered useless?

That's what is suggested here... we should just suck it up and not complain. That we should be HAPPY to have to redo thousands of Songbook entries from scratch, because Korg could not be bothered to write a simple program to do it for us!

Especially when they remember the LAST time they did that to you

PS... did Paolo confirm that it would automatically convert older Songbook files into the new ones?

[Fransman]

I agree with Diki in this particular case.
I think it's totally unacceptable that the Songbook feature of a successor 'pro' keyboard in this price range is NOT fully compatible with it's predecessor.
Most certainly when technology is there to solve the Songbook issue automatically.

I also agree with Diki, it cannot be that complicated; it's just a matter of clever database reorganising.

Doing this 'by hand' (or even with a computer tool) takes an awful lot of time, and if you didn't write down the styles you used, you will not get it back the way it was.
Korg should solve this IMHO.

[karmathanever]

[Willfhenley]

But this isn't the first time the Songbook required a ton of user input to migrate from an older model to the new, is it?

Do you think Korg completely forgot about the protests and moaning when they did this LAST time?

And no, if you think about it, it would be a complete disaster (and the end of people using the program) if the latest Excel could not open the previous generation's files. How would anybody get any work done? The entire business community would sit silent while every last piece of data they had was rendered useless?

That's what is suggested here... we should just suck it up and not complain. That we should be HAPPY to have to redo thousands of Songbook entries from scratch, because Korg could not be bothered to write a simple program to do it for us!

Especially when they remember the LAST time they did that to you

PS... did Paolo confirm that it would automatically convert older Songbook files into the new ones?

Korg's inability to use their own "Standard" has forced me rethink my long term strategy. I'm in the process of writing a Kontakt 5 based arranger as Native Instruments does understand compatibility. I could understand the change made between the PA1x and PA2x but beyond that, there's no excuse for the incompatibility.

Writing a SW Based Arranger is not a trivial task but I think I'll have less time invested than I would trying to migrate 7 years of style writing & editing. Korg gave the farm away in their user manual by doing such a great job of explaining their entire chord recognition scheme. THANK YOU KORG! It would have been almost impossible without it. And thank you for the SMF Export as well. Those two "Intellectual Property" disclosures have made things much, much easier to build a SW Based arranger.

[Willfhenley]

But this isn't the first time the Songbook required a ton of user input to migrate from an older model to the new, is it?

Do you think Korg completely forgot about the protests and moaning when they did this LAST time?

And no, if you think about it, it would be a complete disaster (and the end of people using the program) if the latest Excel could not open the previous generation's files. How would anybody get any work done? The entire business community would sit silent while every last piece of data they had was rendered useless?

That's what is suggested here... we should just suck it up and not complain. That we should be HAPPY to have to redo thousands of Songbook entries from scratch, because Korg could not be bothered to write a simple program to do it for us!

Especially when they remember the LAST time they did that to you

PS... did Paolo confirm that it would automatically convert older Songbook files into the new ones?

Korg's inability to use their own "Standard" has forced me rethink my long term strategy. I'm in the process of writing a Kontakt 5 based arranger as Native Instruments does understand compatibility. I could understand the change made between the PA1x and PA2x but beyond that, there's no excuse for the incompatibility.

Writing a SW Based Arranger is not a trivial task but I think I'll have less time invested than I would trying to migrate 7 years of style writing & editing. Korg gave the farm away in their user manual by doing such a great job of explaining their entire chord recognition scheme. THANK YOU KORG! And thank you for the SMF Export as well. Those two "Intellectual Property" disclosures have made things much, much easier to build a SW Based arranger.

[Bachus]

But this isn't the first time the Songbook required a ton of user input to migrate from an older model to the new, is it?

Do you think Korg completely forgot about the protests and moaning when they did this LAST time?

And no, if you think about it, it would be a complete disaster (and the end of people using the program) if the latest Excel could not open the previous generation's files. How would anybody get any work done? The entire business community would sit silent while every last piece of data they had was rendered useless?

That's what is suggested here... we should just suck it up and not complain. That we should be HAPPY to have to redo thousands of Songbook entries from scratch, because Korg could not be bothered to write a simple program to do it for us!

Especially when they remember the LAST time they did that to you

PS... did Paolo confirm that it would automatically convert older Songbook files into the new ones?

Korg's inability to use their own "Standard" has forced me rethink my long term strategy. I'm in the process of writing a Kontakt 5 based arranger as Native Instruments does understand compatibility. I could understand the change made between the PA1x and PA2x but beyond that, there's no excuse for the incompatibility.

Writing a SW Based Arranger is not a trivial task but I think I'll have less time invested than I would trying to migrate 7 years of style writing & editing. Korg gave the farm away in their user manual by doing such a great job of explaining their entire chord recognition scheme. THANK YOU KORG! And thank you for the SMF Export as well. Those two "Intellectual Property" disclosures have made things much, much easier to build a SW Based arranger.

Just use Varranger...

It works natively with Korg, yamaha, ketron and Roland styles, it has high quallity soundsets(software based) available for full compatibillity with all 4 brands of styles.. And it supports VST's on top of that...

Its a continously improving project taking step after step...


If you build your own software arranger, you have a lot of catching up to do, as Varrangers current build is allready high quallity...