PauloF wrote:mojkarma wrote:Why would I NOT purchase an 80 over a Kronos?
Because of this!
:))))))))))))))))))
IMHO the question should be
"Why would you compare an 80 to the Kronos?"
There's no comparison...to compare a performance Synth to a Workstation, doesn't seem logical to me. They are two complete different beasts!!
;-)
The comparison of a performance synth and a workstation can be perfectly logical. It only depends how you do it.
It is a fact that a lot of people buy workstations to use them live as a performance synth. I do it, a lot of my friends do it, and if you watch music shows, concerts, gigs, everywhere you'll see workstations on stage: tritons, motifs, some fantoms and so on.
Take the Fantom G as an example: it has a live mode. It doesn't need to be labeled like that. Korg or Yamaha don't use the term live mode. They call it combination or performance or setup (like Kurzweil). What you do there is, you combine a couple of patches into a split or layered setup for live use. Kurzweil for example doesn't call its keyboard as workstation (the PC3 line), but as a performance controller. Regardless, the PC3 has a sequencer. So, the labels don't really matter.
You don't need to use the onboard sequencer just because the workstation has it. I have never used the sequencer on the Fantom G. I don't even know how to record one single note on it.
But so far, the Fantom G is the only product from Roland which covers a wide sound palette, has a sampler and a lot of memory locations for your needed setups.
So, the decision whether I buy a Kronos or the J80 (being the topic here) as a live performing musician depends on what are my priorities and how well they're covered by the instrument. For me, a sampler is a must. That fact renders the J80 useless for me. I wouldn't buy the J80 even for 1500 dollars because it doesn't have all what I need.
And this is where I start to wonder about Rolands decisions when they make a product, but completely neglect what happened to them with other keyboards they produced in the past.
Remember the failure of the Fantom Fa 76. It didn't had a sampler and it was sold very badly. Roland reacted quickly and released the Fantom S.
The Fantom G was released again without the sampler. You don't need the sampler for the workstation stuff (sequencing) because the FG was able to record audio. Yet, Roland provided the sampler functions thru an os update. Without that, they would have sell not even closely so many FG's as they actually did (regardless how big or small the number actually is).
Sadly, Roland learned nothing from its experience with the Fa76 or the FG!
The J80 is concept wise comparable to the Juno Stage (because they are both dedicated live performing oriented keyboards). I'm sure that the Juno Stage didn't sell extraordinarily well. And I'm afraid, even sure, that neither the J80 will sell so well that Roland could say that the J80 was a moneymaker for them.
Let's forget the sequencer as a part either in a workstation or on the J80. The fact is, the more features you put into the product, the wider the possible user base is. Whatever you take out, you make the potential buyer crowd smaller. And that exactly happens with Rolands decision.
Since the J80 costs as much as an equally sized workstation, everybody will compare it to the competition. The question will always be whether I absolutely need every single acoustic sound being supernatural, or some other functions/features which the J80 lacks.