Simon,
I agree with you and is one of the reasons I opt for recording to an AW4416 Yamaha h/d recorder rather than the Sonar 2.0 that has cobwebs on it in my computer.

What I found for me was, with the AW, I press record and go and get alot more music done. With Sonar, I would spend an hour first getting it all ready, then ten minutes recording and 3 days tweeking and editing, just because I could.

I know I am behind the curve with this way of thinking, but it sure works better for me and the creative process.
Terry

Frank,
Respect your opinion...but

"you can make better music than anything up to and including the PSR2000"

First it depends on what you mean by better. Second I think that is real debateable.

I've certainly heard my fair share as has anyone else music that was made on million dollar equipment setups that absolutely sucked. Conversely, I've heard some great music come out of very inexpensive setups.
Terry

I personally play a variety of keyboards live depending on the situation, but I've been told by people who have heard me and/or played with me for a long time that I always sound like "me" no matter what I played. Of course I care about the quality of the sound as well as it's playability but equally I care about the environment I'll be in and what'll work best in terms of available stage room, transportation, will require the least on-site setup/takedown, and be the most reliable. And it has to sound great. Tyros, 9000Pro, Gigasampler... I'll take all three thanks.

Frank,

can you post some of your songs created with your system for us to hear?

Samples in arranger rom-memory (32-64-128 megabytes) are no match for hard disk streaming samples (multiple gigabytes). That's just a plain fact.

The piano piece I mentioned was 'thrown' togehter by a good pianist, just using the Post Bosendorfer 290 Gigasamples(http://www.postaudiomedia.com/producthtml/bosendorfer.html, $199)

Like Frank I'm seeking to combine the best of sounds (= disk-streaming, certainly for acustic instruments) with (software) arrangers.

There is still a way to go, however.
For instance: so far there are no satisfactory 'streaming' GM sets which can be combined with (software) arrangers.
I do appreciate the great amount of tweaking done by arranger engineers. However, the sample technology used (rom-sounds) is not the best, simply because the "no-loop", "nach note sampled 8 to 16 times" (velocity layers), requires gigabytes.

Frank and Elle,
I think you are missing Simons (and The Pro's) very valuable point - arranger keyboards are turn-on, pick a style and go - either at home OR live.

While I for one will not dispute the quality of 'pure' sampling and the ease of use (with a "little work up front") in the studio environment, I can't really see you picking up that computer (plus card, cables, board, mouse, speakers, etc), putting it in an SKB case and showing up at the gig ready to play.

Again I think it's unfair to discuss/compare apples and oranges.

Regards,
Steve

Steve and all,
I agree Steve it's apples and oranges, but further it's two totally different kinds of musicians we're talking about also desktop vs playing musician. If we follow the former trend....heck we won't need instruments at all, no endless hours of practice and technical expertise, then music will be made by programmers (no offense Steve) not musicians at all.
Terry

Hi all,

As we all know, there's 2 kinds of arranger users. I suppose Frank and I belong to the ones that don't do life performances and are more into seeking the ultimate in "auto-accompaniment sound" as such. Life performers (both at home or onstage) foremost need stability and 'instant gratification'. Two different approaches, usages and 'quests' altogether.

However...and this exactly is my point ...the systems of both these arranger user-types show a clear tendency to merge;

My humble guess is that the next wave in arrangers will offer some form of HD streaming samples, simply because this constitues the next wave in "acoustic reality'.

This is what Frank and I are trying to frickle out of our combined systems today.

Obviously the "instant gratificatos" will always need hardware controllers, but that's what the arrangers are already becoming :
button pushing controllers for an ever more open internal streaming softsynth & sampler.
That's also what softwynth affectionados are using : harward controlers to avoid a mouse clicking nervous breakdown.

All what's needed is combining/interfacing two markets into one product: software arrangers with software streaming samplers.

The Wintel hardware needed for a software only 'instant' arranger is available already;

What's lacking is an interest from the small software sampler vendor market to look into the small arranger market and maybe differentiate their product line from a 'studio/film composer only' focus into also developing an arranger oriented module/interface.

Or maybe the - even smaller - software arranger companies (see Frank's suggestions) should talk to softsampler vendors like Tascam/Gigastudio to take the current 'tweakerish' sample arranging to the 'instant level'

Ahhh, we all have our dreams.

Frank & Elle,
I have no doubt, the boards are slowly moving the way you would like to see them, in the name of progress.

I suppose my point in the final analysis FOR ME is....sometimes more and more is just too much. Tweeking, u/l'n d/ln', sampling, resampling. bigger better faster, more more more, which leads us to believe to make good music, we need more more more. I guess just a bit of future shock and progress overlaod. What ever happened to just sitting down and making some music?
Terry

I couldn't agree more,.. but then again
Aren't we human or what:-)