voxpops

I agree with a lot of this. I, too, much prefer longer key lengths, but I find I'm able to adapt sufficiently to the VR's keybed to make it worthwhile. I suspect the design decision on keybed has a lot to do with keeping the board within certain dimensions (under 12" front to back). I found the XW-P1 bordered on being too deep for certain stands, and could interfere with access to lower-tier controls. As for synth sounds, it would be great if Roland (et al) could come up with some alternative lead patches that could be loaded. I'm not using an iPad, and it would be nice to have some further choices available.

If the Electro 3 works better for you, you buy an Electro 3. There's no one here suggesting anything else. But if your requirements go beyond what's provided in the NE3 (or any other board) you need to know whether the VR can adequately meet those additional needs. That, surely, is the purpose of this thread. It's been well established that the VR-09 does a lot of things quite well, and a few things poorly. Is the overall mix of features and performance adequate for your needs? No? Then look elsewhere. No problem. Might it work? Yes? Ask questions, go check it out. Could it be improved? Yes? Then hound Roland by all means. But why would someone want to subvert the thread, and divert people away from the VR, seemingly at all costs? I don't know. Maybe they have a haughty opinion about what's "right" in a board, and cannot abide the fact that others don't share their absolute conviction, or maybe they have some fetishistic attachment to some other brand/board that requires they mention it at all times, whether relevant or not. I don't know, but I do know that these people constantly risk diminishing their own credibility. I know we should maintain a sense of humor, and not take these threads too seriously, but people do come here for advice, and it would be nice if they didn't have to wade through too much irrelevant ranting on their way to their new purchase!

I have owned the Electro 3 (both 61 and 73). The sample section was barely usable to me, and it could not be layered or split. The organ was OK, but I much prefer the organ in the NE4. My Numa beats the pants off the NE3 organ IMO, and I've been using it with various synth modules via its (clunky) MIDI control section. That works, but I wanted a smaller, lighter all-in-one (synth/organ) second tier alternative - the VR fits the bill much better than the NE3. As for pianos/EPs, I have those covered on my weighted boards. We're not talking about a synth experience, we're talking about a hybrid organ/synth, and for that I would not touch Yamaha. For me, the PX-5S is no substitute for the VR. They are completely different and not interchangeable. Since we've been discussing the clone properties of the VR, I find the suggestion of the PX in this context a little bizarre.

As has been said before, there is no other lightweight organ/synth apart from the XW-P1 and the Stage 2 Compact. Personally, I found the Casio's organ inadequate, and the Stage 2 beyond budget. The PC361 is heavier (and also has diving board keys); the SK1 does not work as a synth; the Electro's sample player does not qualify as a synth; the PX-5s has a weighted action, and is not a serious clonewheel contender. I'm wondering which board - past or present - you're referring to.

It's surprising the number of boards that stumble at this hurdle - even some of the more expensive ones. I would say that the VR is as much a synth as it is an organ, and so I don't think the lack of waterfall keys is that big of an issue - they are at least well rounded at the edges/lips to allow for smears etc. In another post, I suggested that people might be better off not thinking of it as a clonewheel, as its feature set, layout and implementation fall a little short of a true clone. It's more of a hybrid instrument along the lines of the PC3, albeit at a lower level. (Edit: It surprised me initially that the VR always starts up in piano mode, which makes me think it was never intended to be primarily an organ. Due to the dearth of (and therefore demand for) low-cost, lightweight, multifunction clonewheels, we on this board have tended to concentrate on its organ features, but a lot of players may find its other sound blocks more useful, depending on their style.)

I thought it worth pointing out that the old Roland HP3000 I bought back in the '80s featured "patch remain," allowing notes to be sustained smoothly while new patches were selected. If it was possible to program an instrument to do that with '80s technology and software, how hard is it to do it now?

I suspect that most companies send a smallish quantity of new product out, and then gear up production according to demand. It seems that most new products are backordered for a while after the initial run has been sold. The first VR batch has probably been sold, and there will now be a delay before new stock arrives. It's likely that there is significant demand, but the absence in stores is not necessarily indicative of how large that demand is.

This really does fill me with confidence in respect of the PX-5S - so much so that I've grown impatient waiting for it to show up locally and placed an order. At the end of the day, even if it doesn't work out for me, I have no regrets supporting a company that is so obviously listening and trying to satisfy the (million-and-one) demands of working musicians. I'm possibly less sanguine about this than you, Craig. Although I knew about most of the bugs (thanks to you and a few others) going into the VR-09 purchase, I think it's pretty shameful for a company like Roland to release a board (at whatever price) with a list of very obvious bugs/flaws that could, and should have been remedied prior to placing it on the market. It smacks of disdain for the end-user, which is so much in contrast to Casio's approach. With each passing year, I'm becoming less enchanted with Roland's strategy, even though I'm very keen on their SN sound engines. I can understand those who say that if Roland won't listen, vote with your wallet, but given my personal need for lightweight instruments that fulfill a need, I am prepared to live with the VR's shortcomings. But I think Roland, Yamaha, Korg, Nord and Kawai are all going to have to watch their backs in future - there's a rival that means business...

Eric, some people have complained that, compared to the PX-5S, the VR-09 is not as much bang for the buck, given the nature of the keybed, the limited quality of the pianos, and so on. To me, that is the wrong way to look at it. The Casio is possibly the best value hammer action, lighweight piano/synth out there at the moment; the VR is complementary to it, providing a very good quality drawbar organ, with much else to supplement it, at the same price. I wasn't sure at first but, as with others reporting on this thread, the VR is growing on me, and I'm finding the organ to be as capable as many other clonewheels in terms of raw tone and rotary, but with a few compromises. To decide, I think you just have to weigh up whether you can live with those compromises or not. It's the same with all boards - including the PX - but I can understand why some people would balk at the specific limitations of the VR. However, when weighed against the competition within a reasonable price "bandwidth," the VR comes out pretty much on top. Yes, as has been remarked, it might look at first glance, like a $600 board rather than a $1k unit, but good luck finding anything that challenges the VR's feature set. Edit: BTW Craig's absolutely right, that "rinky-dink" VK organ model can be tweaked considerably on the VR to render it very usable.

Yes, apologies, it was a case of operator error. In "keyboard" MIDI mode you can split organ with anything else, the same as when splitting piano and synth. Thanks for pointing it out!

I tried this very briefly this morning. The limitation seems to be that if you're running organ on the VR, the controller MIDI board defaults to lower manual organ. If you want to play piano and organ, I think you can only access the GM piano (via MIDI Mode 2) - someone correct me if I'm wrong. However, you can easily split piano and synth, for example, and have one of the non-GM pianos driven by your controller. You just need to be aware of the issue relating to only being allowed to employ a single set of effects.

To a greater or lesser extent, I am marginal about ALL boards! Your argument means I should give up playing altogether. I have been through just about every brand and model that an aging player with a bad back can carry, and every single board was compromised in one way or another. I have come to accept there will be compromises at all price-points and among all manufacturers.

Not true. They had other products. My point is that if no one had been buying Hammond products, it is doubtful whether Suzuki would have maintained the franchise, and invested in R&D, and thus new products. Obviously, all manufacturers watch the level of sales to see whether they're satisfying the market or not, and Roland will gear up for its next generation of products based on those figures. If a product suits, you buy it - if it doesn't, you don't, but all this talk of a boycott is silly. It implies a homogeneous group with a common cause and grievance - and a willingness to pursue an organized and concerted action against the company to get them to change their ways. That is just not the case here. What we are talking about is the rule of the market. That alone will dictate Roland's future direction.

Actually, MANY of us boycotted Hammond for years over the awful and egregious faults or omissions of their previous generations of clones. It wasn't until the XK-3 series that they became a player to a lot of serious organists. One could argue that we would have never gotten that improvement if we accepted the earlier attempts. Yes, I find it strange that we consumers should just accept whatever the companies provide as a gift from the gods and if any issues just be stoic or let's say have a Lutheran approach of 'life is suffering and better go along with what by their grace they give us'. We consumers have the power. Finally. Thank goodness that the people never accepted all that candlelight nonsense. That five-thousand-year boycott of those greedy chandlers really produced results. We would never have gotten electricity without it.

Actually, MANY of us boycotted Hammond for years over the awful and egregious faults or omissions of their previous generations of clones. It wasn't until the XK-3 series that they became a player to a lot of serious organists. One could argue that we would have never gotten that improvement if we accepted the earlier attempts. If your "boycott" had been successful, they would not have been in business long enough to produce the XK-3.

At the risk of being shot down in flames by both the opposing camps here, I'll try to offer a perspective that recognizes the validity of both arguments, but that also presents one logical (I hope) rationale for purchase. Firstly, I accept that the keybed is on the poor side of average for an unweighted board these days; that the non-organ sounds range from quite nice to quite disappointing, with some obvious velocity jumps, overt looping, and egregious stretching; and that the software compromises are, in some cases, at the level of faults rather than just oversights or a you-didn't-pay-enough-to-get-a-fully-functional-device attitude on the part of Roland. However, just taking the organ/rotary on its own, I would say that it's twice as good as that in the XW-P1, and well over half as good as that in the Electro, SK, or Numa - probably nearer 75%. And, has been said many times, it has a well-designed, easy-to-use interface that lends itself to live performance. Organ purists are not going to want this board. Understood. Professionals needing a single keyboard to cover piano, organ and synth would not choose the VR over a Stage 2 or a Kronos. Understood again. But that leaves a vast army of people ranging from teenage twiddlers to semi-pros who can make good use of its versatility. I played the VR alongside the Electro 4, and there was no contest - the Nord was a clear winner, and by a wide margin. However, these days I'm gravitating more towards AP and EP sounds for over 90% of what I do, and I wouldn't dream of playing an unweighted board for those, so I have a Nord Piano, Korg SV-1 or Roland RD-64 to choose from, depending on the gig. For the remaining 10% of sounds it makes sense for me to have a really easy-to-carry and setup top-tier (as I find a single board limiting for rapid changes). However, as I don't produce my main income from playing these days, why should I invest an additional $3k-plus on the alternative (but admittedly better) boards? If I want a purer B3 sound, I'll take my Numa along, but it's quite a bit bulkier, and for the occasional synth sounds I need, I have to MIDI up a module, or perch a Micron (or similar) precariously on its flat but narrow top shelf - more gear, more hassle. The VR is a tangle of compromises, but it does enough, well enough, for me, since I am not reliant on its piano engine. As for sending a message to Roland by not purchasing, I really think that's a specious argument. If the Hammond XK/SK had used the VK-7's diving-board action, would the VR detractors have boycotted Hammond? I doubt it. Do people boycott Nord because they use a so-so Fatar action? Not really. You take all the factors into account, weigh them up, and make a decision depending on which side the scales balance. Roland will have known that this board would not appeal to pros as their main board, and they don't expect those people to purchase it. They have a VR-700, with what some have described as a commendably good action, to attract their share of single-board users. Edit: just to add that I'm of the opinion, in this day of excellent software pianos and other instruments, that there is no real excuse for putting tiny, over-looped/stretched piano samples in hardware instruments. Korg, to their credit, has recognized this, and fully embraced the potential that software opens up - which is great, as long as you can live with the start-up time involved.

Can't give a definitive answer, but the other day I very quickly swapped the VB3 input over from an Axiom 61 to the VR-09, and saw no activity at all when I played with the drawbars. I didn't get around to attempting to do a "MIDI learn" exercise, but usually, if the drawbars are sending any kind of CC signal, you get some response in VB3 - even if it's a drawbar toggling the percussion, for example. I doubt whether the VR-09 will be a suitable VB3 controller.

Took it to a gig this weekend. No real issues at all (although I'm not over-fond of the action). Was very easy to operate live, and was nice to have so much available in a small, lightweight box. I think it's a keeper. If nothing else, it's a fun board to have around.

Anyone notice that there are holes for the attachment of a music rest, and a rest appears in one of the images on the Roland VR-09 page (with iPad), and yet there is no stand mentioned in the accessories list? It's something that some of us would find useful - I wonder why it's not listed.

Thanks for the very comprehensive report! Great to hear that, on the whole, it worked well for you.

I have an old Nord Modular G2X gig bag that works. Like all Nord bags, it's very well padded. It's only just long enough (a bit of a squeeze), but in all other respects it's perfect. For a slightly looser fit, you could try the Gator Cases GKB-61 SLIM - but I don't know how well padded or robust it is.

Interesting thought. For now, honestly if you take the XW-P1, use the system EQ to roll some of the high end off our drawbar mode and add a Vent, I think you'd be surprised. Instead of doing rotary, the insert effects can do a pretty good CV simulation. I wish I were a better organ player. Time to go practice. Mike, what would be really helpful with the XW-P1 is a firmware update that addresses two issues: 1. The drawbars "jump" too far between position 0 and 1 when applied to the internal organ. They work fine when controlling VB3, but on the internal organ it is almost impossible to get subtle registration changes. 2. The overdrive/distortion needs to offer more subtle settings. I agree about the EQ - I played with it on the XW, and it did improve the sound a little. As for the rotary sim, I added an RT-20 when I had the board, but still couldn't live with it. I'm sure the Vent would have been better, but it seems a little silly to add that to a $500 board, unless you already have one lying around. The VB3 route worked for me with that board.

I think most of us here would agree that the VR is a real mixed bag. I don't think anyone will love everything about it, and some will not find sufficient in it to satisfy their needs, but a percentage will, on balance, find it does enough to warrant a purchase. For me, the discovery that I can get an organ sound that is much closer to an M-series + 147 than is possible using the Numa on its own, widens my available sound spectrum. That, coupled with the synth engine, lightweight chassis and easy operation, provides sufficient to justify the purchase. The bugs and thoughtless oversights are very disappointing - how long has Roland been in this game? The APs are not "top of the line" as implied by the marketing, as it takes more than a bunch of short samples derived from other, more expensive boards to make a playable instrument, and the EPs are a bit of a joke, to be honest, compared with most other $1k+ boards today. However, I knew that I would only be using this in conjunction with a lower-tier piano-based board, and so, while it would have been a nice bonus to have those additional sounds, it was not a deal-breaker for me. I don't have a problem with the criticisms posted here, as the balance of competing views starts to create an image in the mind of potential purchasers of a board that is never going to be all things to all people - which is obviously true. So far, the PX-5S comments seem to be skewed into significantly more positive territory; hopefully that will remain the case as more people get one, which would indicate a stunning value at the same price point. If someone is looking for a piano-centric board for $1k, for example, the weight of negative comments here, as opposed to positive comments there, will hopefully direct them toward a more satisfying outcome. The reverse might well be true for organ, although they need to be aware of issues such as the percussion/CV overlap, so they can decide if it's a major issue for them, or not. All-in-all, respectful discussion and criticism has to be good. No?

Good luck!

A general comment about Roland. For whatever reason, it seems that, aside from the reinvention of their 1980s modeling technology, Roland products have seen a lot of recycling of old samples/technology and reduction of features in recent years. As an example, compare the features on the older FP-4 to those on the newer FP-4F and FP-50. Even the VR-09 utilizes a 15-year-old organ model and a number of samples that don't really outclass the 1992 Boss DS-330 synth that I picked up recently for under $60. Times have been tough in recent years, and maybe the money isn't there for R&D, but contrast Roland with Casio, and the huge strides they've made with their latest Privia - which is sold at the same price as the VR. But aside from the technology, Casio has shown that they're willing to listen, communicate with, and respond to their users. They have not been so arrogant and aloof as to just pronounce from on high. Of course, a lot of that has been down to the initiative of just one guy - but there is not even one person from Roland prepared to come on here and talk to the people who pay their wages. It's a shame. I do hope that they don't throw away a remarkable heritage of being at the forefront of music technology due to a bad dose of corporatism.