Hi Diki.
I'm sorry James, but perhaps you haven't been here for the last five years while Dom CONSTANTLY told us that the MS WAS an arranger. He NEVER came here and told us it was an empty VSTi player, and that we would HAVE to do all the work ourselves for it to sound better than a Casio. Dom himself made the comparison...
You can call it whatever you want, it's primary function is as a VST HOST which clearly means it can do whatever you want. How well it sounds doing that is the end users problem.
And Yamaha, Ketron and Korg have samplers in them. This makes them pretty much identical to an open machine, albeit at a different level.
lol.... No chances in hell mate, that's a pretty ridiculous comparison. A sample library is simply more PCM data. Where an open keyboard can install completely new Sequencers, Synth Engines, Modelling Technology, heck you can even watch your XXX collection of DVD's while your gigging with it
My G70 has a virtual B3 in it... how is this different to running B4 on a VSTi?
Come on man, it's me your talking to here. You know very well that your stuck what you have on your keyboard where an open keyboard will run any B3 or any of the thousands of VSTi synth in the world.
Plus it has a lot of sounds in it that rival many VSTi's.
Maybe so since there are plenty poor VSTi's out there, but your G70 wouldn't stand a chance against a premium VSTi.
Something like Quantum Leap Goliath for example would destroy the G70 hands down in a sound by sound comparison.
Bottom line is, open or closed, the musician on the whole needs a palette of sounds to work with that will cover most music, and many of the TOTL closed models have that covered VERY well, already. If you think in terms of playing the vast majority of music that most arranger players do, a T3 or PA2X can do most of it without even going to the sampler, and that can cover most other needs.
I don't get your point because the second the next model is out with new improved sounds, the old keyboards will be up for sale. Where using something like Goliath on an open keyboard would shoot you instantly years beyond the sound of any closed keyboard.
I said from day one that all the MS was was a blank slate, and have tried to point out from day one also that making styles and soundsets as good as, let alone better than a closed arranger was beyond the skill of any of us. Time has born me out. I haven't heard a user style on the MS yet that gave even my G70 a run for its' money. But Dom constantly dissed closed arrangers as passé, but never acknowledged that the CONTENT is what makes arranger players buy arrangers, and his keyboard had NONE worth talking about.
I haven't heard a style playing back of any good quality either but the keyboard is not to blame. The choice of VSTi's that were used as the sound engine to drive the Arranger are in my opinion very poor quality. The Yamaha XG70 and the Roland Sound Canvas are cheap sound engines that don't stand up to stock sounds on a closed keyboard.
If a premium VSTi was used, then it would instantly sound a million times better than anything we have hear so far.
However, since there is also no such thing as a VSTi Arranger that comes with it's own sound engine, the end user will have to pair the arranger with an engine and then adjust levels and so on to get the most from the arranger functions.
Again, none of that has anything to do with Lionstracs though. It's not their problem nobody develops a VSTi Arranger that comes with it's own quality sound engine and ready to go content like the thousands of VSTi synth you can buy do.
So if you want to use an OPEN keyboard as an arranger and have it sounding a million times better than anything on the market right now, then be prepaid to do some work and to buy a sound engine to go with the arranger software.
An open keyboard IS technically unlimited, but it takes a player with prodigious technical skills to create something on it that a child with a T3 could do in his sleep! Let's face it, arrangers are bought by people that DON'T want the already better soundsets that modern WS have. They are bought by people that don't want the techno and hiphop loops that come with modern WS's. They are bought by people that want familiar sounds and styles of yesteryear, and no WS, open or closed, caters to their taste.
Yeah imagine having to do all the work yourself to create something and not depend on others to hold your hand.
Diki, I've covered all this already. An open keyboard is not for everyone. If you don't have the ability to use what is in front of you, then you have the wrong keyboard.
This is why some people buy a T3 over a Pa2X when the PA2X is far more advanced in all functions. It's too much machine for some, and so they go with the one they can use and that matches their abilities.
Sure, someone COULD make an open keyboard geared to the older player. But he would first have to stock it with what a great closed arranger already has. He would have to make an OS that provides the live player all the conveniences that a great arranger already has... And in this area in particular, Dom failed miserably. You mentioned that only the content needs to be provided, IF the OS of an arranger is provided. And here as well, the MS failed badly. You only have to read Dennis's post about his real life experience with the MS to see that, OK, maybe it's all right to expect the user to provide all his own content, but you shouldn't expect him to write the OS too! For Pete's sake! No Bass inversions, let alone chord inversions (for just one example)... A Casio can do that!
Your barking up the wrong tree entirely because you trying to push the blame of how the VSTi Arranger software sounds back on Lionstracs when the function of the keyboard is a VST HOST.
For example..... if I buy and install Pianoteq on the Mediastation I'm not going to turn around to Lionstracs and say well done guys, the Piano sounds fantastic. How it sounds has feck all to do with Lionstracs because they didn't write the Pianoteq.
Remember what defines and open keyboard is it's ability to act as a VST HOST and its custom OS that makes managing third party software a seamless.
For the MS to be competitive as an arranger, it not only needs content equal to the best of the closed arrangers, but an OS that is their equal too. The list of OS features geared to the arranger player that are missing on the MS is formidable. Not to mention that many things it DID implement, it did so in a very clumsy, inelegant manner. Dom needed FAR more than just a few styles and a soundset to make it work.
No comment on that because feature requests are fine by me and can be found on any product support forum for every keyboard going. I could write a book on the things I'd like to see KORG add to my OASYS.
Didn't stop him constantly telling us it WAS better than any closed arranger, though. It would take more than you doing a few demos to get this off the ground. Look at the Audya. Incredible demos. Doesn't stop it being a dog, though, as iffy as the OS is at the moment. An arranger is the whole package. Content, OS, hardware, ergonomics and features. Hardware alone isn't even close. And that's all Dom ever provided.
Hmmm.... Better yes, but better for everyone, no. I can't stress how important that is. There is no such thing as a universally better keyboard for everyone because not everyone has the ability to control such a complex machine. Those who do though have the opportunity to take it and far exceed the ability of a close arranger.
To be honest, I am not sure it's even going to fly in the WS world,
Ooooh it will. Lionstracs have already secured the future of this keyboard. There's another thread on the forum that explains this.
Even closed WS's like the MoXS and M3 and the Oasys (c'mon, man! That's no more open than an Audya. It only ran proprietary add ons.
lol.... What does OASYS stand for and how many closed keyboard do you know of which can have receive multiply new sound engines from software updates. The OASYS has 7 Synth engines.
As I have said ad nauseam, the only people that could make an open arranger as good as a closed one are the very people making sounds and styles for the closed market. No-one out in the real world has ever accomplished this task, and if they could, they would already BE working for Korg or Yamaha or Roland.
Making sounds and writing styles has nothing to do with building a keyboard, be it open or closed. For Roland, Yamaha or KORG to turn around and build an open arranger, sound designers and style programmers would be at the bottom of a very long list of things needed to make it happen. The programmers are the ones who write the systems.
What would you estimate, James? Be honest... how many people do you know capable of turning an open VSTi player into a full on arranger capable of blowing the T3 out of the water?
Probably the majority of workstation user I know, but very few arranger users. You also ask this question as if it's the only goal everyone should try to achieve with the OPEN keyboard.
Most of my friends who could do what you ask wouldn't even want to because to them the T3 suck just as much as every other home arranger keyboard.
Enough for 99% of the arranger playing demographic, anyway. The MS was a product for the 1%. Even Dom can't make a living on that margin, despite eschewing making any decent content for the MS while he WAS calling it an arranger
1% of what, the Arranger users who can make use it ? Again you automatically assume that the only goal here is for people to use it as an arranger. Sorry mate, but that's by far the least interesting part about the keyboards. The majority of keyboard players are workstation and DAW users. Arrangers are in the minority by a long shot.
So this is indeed marketed at the biggest section of the keyboard market there is and not your 1%.
Regards
James.
Previous Topic
Index
