Any RUMORS of new Korg arranger (Pa5X?) in the near future?

[Korghelper]

I was thinking more on the lines of the Kronos’s engine rather than the actual Kronos’s sounds...

Multiple synthesis engines. 12 stereo insert effects. Etc..

Just as the PAX series is based to a large extent on legacy hardware from the WS line (dating back to the Triton days) along with their legacy limitations, the next gen PAX really needs to shed the old and start to utilize the technology Korg already have matured for the Kronos.

It’s not like I’m suggesting Korg invent or develop something they don’t already have. Pretty much most arranger manufacturers repurpose existing tech for the arranger lines (we aren’t really a high priority, LOL) and Korg has mined the old WS tech for as long as it can go. I’m pretty sure that if the hardware could produce 12 or so insert effects, by now it already would have.

So, out with the old, in with the slightly less old!

An arranger with proper synth modeling, proper Hammond modeling, proper string modeling, sufficient inserts to no longer jump through hoops deciding which sounds you are willing to compromise because there aren’t enough to go around, all that sounds pretty damn good.

And Korg already have the tech...

[karmathanever]

An arranger with proper synth modeling, proper Hammond modeling, proper string modeling, sufficient inserts to no longer jump through hoops deciding which sounds you are willing to compromise because there aren’t enough to go around, all that sounds pretty damn good.

....Multiple synthesis engines. 12 stereo insert effects. Etc.....

......and the price is........

Take care

P

[Musicwithharry]

An arranger with proper synth modeling, proper Hammond modeling, proper string modeling, sufficient inserts to no longer jump through hoops deciding which sounds you are willing to compromise because there aren’t enough to go around, all that sounds pretty damn good.

....Multiple synthesis engines. 12 stereo insert effects. Etc.....

......and the price is........

Take care

P

If people will pay the $5k-$6k for a Yamaha Genos, I do not see a problem with people getting a new PA series that has so much more that we have all talked about in this thread

Maybe they can do a PA Series, like an LE or LX version that has not as many features and price it lower

Grace,

Harry

[Korghelper]

......and the price is........

Take care

P

A Kronos costs less than a PA4x. Just like a Triton cost less than a PA1x. I think you are trying too hard to find a roadblock to Korg doing what they have already done in the past, repurposing slightly aging WS tech for the arranger line.

Think about it for a minute... were you saying that it would be too expensive for Korg to utilize the Triton technology for the PA1 series back then? If so, they proved you wrong! Honestly, given Korg’s current synth lineup, how do you envision ANY real progress forward without utilizing the Kronos architecture? It’s the only one they have...

Now remember, Korg don’t have to use EVERYTHING in the Kronos. Perhaps some of the models don’t have too much application for us arranger players, perhaps some of the editing is a bit deep. But just as the Triton morphed into the current gen arrangers, and didn’t overlap so much they each scavenged each other’s markets, what other road forward do Korg have other than the underlying engine of the Kronos series???

[karmathanever]

A Kronos costs less than a PA4x. Just like a Triton cost less than a PA1x. I think you are trying too hard to find a roadblock to Korg doing what they have already done in the past, repurposing slightly aging WS tech for the arranger line.

Firstly (FYI) they are about the same price here - and they are very different as you are aware.
The "road block" as you strangely put it, was merely pointing out the complexity of the control surface which would push it further away from a comfortable performance keyboard - who knows, maybe they already have a solution for that. Arrangers need to be "stage keyboards" - PA4X definitely is right now (Genos isn't)
Arranger owners mostly want to switch on and play and be able to comfortably manipulate the keyboard "live" whether on stage, at home etc...

Think about it for a minute... were you saying that it would be too expensive for Korg to utilize the Triton technology for the PA1 series back then? If so, they proved you wrong! Honestly, given Korg’s current synth lineup, how do you envision ANY real progress forward without utilizing the Kronos architecture? It’s the only one they have...

Not saying that at all - of course they already have the technology - it's not just a matter of how cheap/easy it is for them, they have a market and profit line to consider.
If Korg create a hybrid I can only imagine that there will be a significant price tag - that's all really - I know as little as you regarding Korg's plans but they are a business like all others.

Now remember, Korg don’t have to use EVERYTHING in the Kronos. Perhaps some of the models don’t have too much application for us arranger players, perhaps some of the editing is a bit deep. But just as the Triton morphed into the current gen arrangers, and didn’t overlap so much they each scavenged each other’s markets, what other road forward do Korg have other than the underlying engine of the Kronos series???

Good question - guess we need to get a job with Korg....

[Asena]

EASY GUYS!

After this CORONA s**t, we will have a new KB, And YES, it,s Maybe Just maybe A %x, New Processor is there IM sure Wery sure! Almost on the corner.

[karmathanever]

After this CORONA s**t, we will have a new KB

After this Corona "s**t" none of us will be able to afford a new KB!!!

Take care Asena - great to hear from you

P

[Asena]

Thank you

[Vex]

After this CORONA s**t, we will have a new KB

After this Corona "s**t" none of us will be able to afford a new KB!!!

This is soooo sadly true.
If Korg knock right now and tell me " hey, we have super new flagship (name is totally not important) with all new cool features, samples and styles - you name it what.... Would you like to buy it? .... I'll just tell them "thanks, I don't have money now, see you when gigs are at full speed".Goodbye, closing the door, lights off.

[Korghelper]

I was more envisioning simply the CODE from the Kronos, the CPU, the effects architecture, the internal structure etc. rather than the physical layout of the Kronos. Although the PAX series picked up SOME of the Triton's hardware layout and the touchscreen, there was also some considerable differences, it wasn't really shoehorning the PAX into the Triton box.

In fact it's quite possible that the basic voice boards, CPU and I/O boards from the Kronos, along with power supply and HD support architecture could be mounted inside the existing PA4X form factor, further reducing development cost.

In the US at least, Kronos prices are generally a hair less than the PA4X, probably because of supply vs. demand functions (US isn't really a hotbed of arranger use!), so I don't see a reason why moving to the newer architecture should drastically increase the price, especially if the move created an arranger with radical improvements over the current architecture, something that I think it urgently needs, given the rapid steps forward that Yamaha have made lately... Even a lowly SX900 puts the PA4X to shame when it comes to effects architecture. The Genos is an altogether different category, with 28 inserts. The Kronos's 12 would go a long way to put Korg back in the game.

But yes... COVID-19 has maybe changed the game. But perhaps there is opportunity in tragedy? With the likelihood of a collapse in TOTL arranger demand for maybe at least a year or more, maybe now is the time for Korg to start to work on a Kronos based next gen, now that they probably have plenty of time to get it right... Without everyone incessantly whining for a new PA4X ASAP, now is the time to take the big leap forward given they have a laerger window than usual.

[Randelph]

Speaking of borrowing from the Kronos:

? How much Pa tech is cross pollinated with the Japanese team (which is also partially in the US)?

As almost always, there's very little info about how things are done internally with any keyboard manufacturer. Of course with 24 oscillators (!) the sound engine is very different, but beyond that I'm sure the Italians would benefit from the expertise of the Japanese team. And visa versa, I love the musicality of the Sounds and Styles from the Italian team!

Just wondering if anyone has any insights. For example, not much can be borrowed from the Kronos if there's not much sharing of tech going on.

[Korghelper]

I guess the place to look would be the current generation and its underlying engine...

We are still using voice technology largely derived from the workstation line prior to the Kronos. Effects architecture, voice architecture, sampling architecture all bear a large resemblance to the Triton line.

I don't really see much competition between the Italian and Japanese sectors, essentially, they make different products and sell them to different types of musicians. but use the same Japanese produced engines.

Japan gives the Italians an engine and says 'go build an arranger with this'... Rather like building a car! 'Here's our V8 naturally aspirated engine from the 90's, go build a 21st century sedan with it!' while all the time building a modern small fuel efficient twin turbo hybrid engine but reserving it for Japanese sportscar production.

If Korg want to compete in the 21st century arranger market, they need to put their 21st century engine in their Italian produced cars!

[Randelph]

I guess the place to look would be the current generation and its underlying engine...

We are still using voice technology largely derived from the workstation line prior to the Kronos. Effects architecture, voice architecture, sampling architecture all bear a large resemblance to the Triton line.

I don't really see much competition between the Italian and Japanese sectors, essentially, they make different products and sell them to different types of musicians. but use the same Japanese produced engines.

Japan gives the Italians an engine and says 'go build an arranger with this'... Rather like building a car! 'Here's our V8 naturally aspirated engine from the 90's, go build a 21st century sedan with it!' while all the time building a modern small fuel efficient twin turbo hybrid engine but reserving it for Japanese sportscar production.

If Korg want to compete in the 21st century arranger market, they need to put their 21st century engine in their Italian produced cars!

Korghelper,
But what about the DNC 'engine'?

TBH, I don't understand the talk about different engines. In my mind they could use a general purpose chip and make it suit their needs thru programming, like the Atom intel chip in the Kronos.

But apparently there's a lot more you can do if you produce a custom made cpu that is designed / optimized for your needs. Makes sense. Yamaha is known for making their own chips. So an 'engine' could be just programming, like the Kronos, or it could be the custom-made CPU as well as programming of course.

I'd appreciate it if someone with this kind of knowledge broke it down for us, esp as regards the Pa series.

And DNC. I've heard many people say that the higher end arranger boards sound even BETTER than top-of-line workstations. With DNC I could see why, to have that much control over TWENTY-FOUR oscillators is pretty sweet. I've never heard a better sounding board, but that could be 'cause my exposure to higher end boards that have been made in the last 5 years is pretty limited. But I think it's also 'cause the workstation model is to roll-your-own-sound, to give you the pieces, whereas arrangers aim more for the sound being delivered already formed.

But still, the sound of the Pa1000 blows me away. There's a lushness, rich detail that is cinematic and engrossing.

Still, as architecture goes, I'm a big fan of the workstation boards that have 16 voices available. The upshot is that you've got discreet elements / oscillators that can be combined as needed, you've invested your sound design into many discreet pieces, as opposed to putting SO much design into a single voice.

But for an arranger that attempts to simplify, 3-4 voices instead of 16, it's a good choice.

[korg1]

''Patience is not about waiting,but how we act when things take longer than we expect'' Paolo Korgelho


In the meantime,i want to break into pieces my pc everytime i don't see any korg news about pa4x......

Or even worst.....to break my pa4x....

[Korghelper]

I'm just using the term 'engine' for the underlying architecture of the entire signal path. While the basic sampling code has got more elaborate in the PA series (even more elaborate than the Triton and Kronos in some ways), the underlying engine hasn't really added any new synthesis functions like the Kronos. And the effects architecture (something that the hardware itself may have a lot to do with) hasn't really made any great leap forward for a decade or so.

While I appreciate that 24 oscillators is a potentially powerful tool, I think for the average user having 28 insert effects freely assignable between style voices and keyboard sounds is likely the more useful in the long run. At least ONE insert effect for every single sound being used by the style, the SMF and the keyboard sounds would make it much less like a game of 'what can I do without?' when it comes to using sounds. The effects architecture often has as much to do with the sound as the voice programming itself, and trying to figure out what compromised sound will 'sort' of work in place of its full effected version is a step few of us enjoy...

Whether the Kronos is running on a more modern CPU/motherboard architecture, or whether it is running on more optimized software, or whether it has altogether different hardware under the hood, the end result is a keyboard with FAR more potential than we can envision for the current PA series architecture. Virtual analog, virtual Hammond (not the rather crippled PA version), and a far better effects architecture are something that Korg need desperately to make a real leap forward. The 'engine' is already in production, no new chips or code needs inventing (very costly!). It just needs putting in the next generation of Korg arrangers, just like the Triton's basic underpinning was used for the older Korg arrangers and up to today's.

I simply get the feeling we are at the end of the line for the older hardware. Micro-improvements don't cut it when the competition is making leaps forward...