The MicroX and X50 do not have the same ROM set, the first 32MB is the classic Triton ROM, but the other half is different between the X50 and MicroX. Unfortunately I don't know the exact details, so I cant edit it. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Data4 arrangements in the processing unit are also beneficial in creating superlative, instinctual, wavelengthy sounds.
Sounds like some copy/pasted marketing bullshit, anyone care to elaborate what that is supposed to mean?
22.214.171.124 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The part about the triton studio is incorrect -- the CD-RW is optional, but the HD was included (4G). Also it had 48M Wave ram (32 of the std tritron + 16MB bosendorfer sample)
The Triton is world famous among many musicians for being the benchmark of keyboard technology. Just look in a music video or live concert and you will see one, sometimes a few! smacks of POV or cut/paste from a KORG website MPS 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry but it's true. The Korg line of workstation is the standard that others have to measure up to.Noodle boy 11:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Should X50 be added here?
As lite version of TR? --RockyMM 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Triton Extreme Picture
Said picture claims to be released into the public domain, yet if you look at the bottom there is a watermark from SameDayMusic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable editorializing / marketing
This entire article taken as a whole is unacceptable as a Wikipedia entry. It clearly is engaging in corporate promotion of the Korg Triton line. Claiming that the Triton is "the benchmark of keyboard technology" is an unsupportable assertion... and one that, in fact, can't possibly be true, as the Triton isn't even manufactured anymore. Even 9 years ago when the Triton was new this would be a ridiculous statement to make in a Wikipedia entry. (Kurzweil and Yamaha could make their own identical assertions -- and I'm sure, did).
The fact that this article is geared towards marketing rather than information is highlighted by the fact that the introductory paragraph promotes the currently available M3 product as the Triton's successor instead of offering basic information about the Triton itself. (For example, what years it was produced... pretty straightforward stuff). The fact that the M3 is the successor to the Triton is an interesting note that should be touched upon near the end of the article but absolutely doesn't belong in the introduction of the article itself.
It's incredible to me that the year the Triton was introduced neither makes it into the introductory paragraph nor the section on "History." It really shows that the purpose of this article is not to inform ordinary readers but to promote the Triton (and the M3) as a product over its competitors.
On a completely different note, the statement that a good piano sound is a "crucial element of evaluation on expensive synths" is completely untrue. While it is a reasonable statement about the Triton, there are many "expensive synths" for which a good piano sound is completely irrelevant. (The Moog Voyager, to site one example).
I can't even believe someone wrote the "superlative, instinctual, wavelengthy" line in the first place. Why hasn't this been fixed a long time ago?
Too many details about the Triton Extreme
It seems very lopsided to show all those details about the Triton Extreme when the differences between Triton "Classic" and Studio are almost glossed over. Somebody should either pare down the TE section (I think that's preferrable) or beef up the details about the other models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldAsWill (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)