Quote:
Originally posted by Diki:
The way I see it, the IDEA of the VSTi arranger is a good one. The problem comes at the front end, in the human interface, in the degree of complexity the system forces you into, rather than the basic idea of it all.

What is needed, IMO, is someone to do ALL the integration for you, to reduce your involvement in the complex technology and integration to the point that it is no more complex (or at least, only a little more complexity) than a current 'closed' arranger. Proponents of the open system often dismiss these as old school relics, but what they ALWAYS ignore is the prodigious effort at the manufacturers to do ALL the tasks you are now going to have to do for yourself. Balancing ALL the sounds, so you can select them without worrying about volume, tone, EQ, power, modulation routing, effects routing and the other myriad things you are going to HAVE to do entirely by yourself. Don't dismiss the sheer skill of these people so lightly. And don't dismiss the need to create styles FOR the sounds. Performance and sound are intrinsically linked... look at how poor most translations are. Ever wonder WHY?

In all my experience of VSTi's, I have yet to find ONE with the polish of a closed arranger or WS's soundset. They ALL have glaring jumps in volume, samples that sound unconnected to the rest, and what I can describe as a 'cobbled-together' approach. Which, given that most of the ARE, is hardly surprising. The Big3 spend a FORTUNE developing these sample sets, squeezing every last kb of ROM into something integrated and coherent. There is FAR less effort in the VSTi world to do this. For a reason...

Few VSTi's are DESIGNED to be the basis of a live instrument, and even fewer (none, really) are designed for the needs of the arranger player. We have a unique set of needs. We don't set every last thing up in advance. Quite a few, to be honest, still prefer to set up one panel registration, then call up their styles and sounds on the fly. This puts ENORMOUS emphasis on how well balanced that sound set is. WS users don't need this. Listen for yourself. Most WS soundsets don't have anywhere NEAR the smoothness of voice substitution that an arranger has. One Rhodes will be quite louder than another. One string sound can be several db quieter than another. You are expected, in WS live operation, to set all this up and balance them for yourself IN ADVANCE.

That's the primary difference, IMO. You can get quite close to a passable 'arranger' experience from a modern, Karma or loop/arp WS as long as you spend an eternity setting it all up. But that AIN'T what most arranger players either want OR need.

So, all in all, I think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of the soft arranger. But a complete disjunction in HOW that concept is implemented. Wersi came the closest, IMO, in integrating the VSTi into the arranger, but even they failed to do the work in making the VSTi's as balanced. IMO, what is needed is a licensing arrangement with some of the major VSTi soundset companies, Colossus, things like that, they should be balanced by the SAME skilled people that do the ROM sets, and THEN sold to us (at a nice profit!) already set up for us. Essentially, we don't deal with the geek stuff at all. We concentrate on doing what we already do.

Just make music...

If I WANTED to put the amount of work into making music that a soft arranger FORCES you to do, I would use a TOTL WS, and sound amazing. What I want to do is put in virtually NO effort, and sound NEARLY as amazing. And, I'm sorry, but I believe I represent the majority (the vast majority!) of arranger players worldwide. This choice, to use WS's with samplers, arpeggiators and great sounds, albeit at a cost of much advance preparation, and the arranger way, that sounds MAYBE a hair less good but is very easy to do, has ALREADY been made by all of us, quite some time ago. We aren't going to change our minds now and go BACK to the complexity and advance work that WS's make you do, to get sounds that are, in all fairness, sometimes little better than what we already have (my G70 piano is on many radio played tracks and no-one has said I need to use a VSTi!), and are terribly balanced OOTB.

BUT.... if someone wakes up and does the work for us, and gives us an arranger experience using VSTi's that doesn't radically change our workload or workflow, the world will beat a path to his door.

With me at the front...


AMEN
AMEN
AMEN
Talk about hitting the nail in the head.

Of the (few) soft synths I have, only Roland made ones have the balanced sound and consistency much sought after in the above post. But they are (and they sound) old. Their age is showing.

The others are much more polished and crisp if you look at their individual sounds one by one, but they don't present a coherent overall package.

I just could not stand the quality (or lack of it) of my arranger's sounds any more, so I send the accompaniment data to the Midi Out port, and let softsynths replace the original sound engine. This worked like an engine overhaul to an old car, and squeezed a few more years out of the Casio. But, should i make the decision to buy a new one, I doubt I will return to that setup any time soon, unless in the meantime I find a way to also substitute the styles in the Casio and use it like a midi keyboard only.