If using a touchscreen is, as you say, financially cheaper, why didn't Roland go with one on their latest arranger, rather than use the allegedly more expensive non-touch screens(two of them actually) and physical buttons/sliders?

Since Roland has purportedly been successful using touchscreen technology on earlier, similar arranger instruments, what other reasons would they have not to extend it's use, especially since users of the older instruments were allegedly pleased (and familiar) with this type of interface, and the cost to the company, and ultimately, the end user, would be lower?

I'm also interested in how you have confirmed "its cheeper to integrate a touchscreen the 50 extra hardware buttons" on an arranger keyboard?

Ian