Hello JM, I was able to get the program to recognize my chord changes and even play back some of the styles while it recognized the chord changes. I was also able to call up the fill in and ending via my keyboard...
Pretty cool. Its kind of hard to get used to though.. It usually use the entire 61 keys for playing etc.
Im so glad that youre working hard on the new version. I think Frank and BP are the best guys for the testing. They know what we want and need. I just kind of hope that we get the chance or choice to use more variations per style. It make the arrangements more interesting and that much more varied..
Either way, I cant wait to see the new version. Also, I dont know if you can add little Icons. It also kind of helps those of us that are not so computer pros. Little Icons, like the ones in Jammer pro help a lot and not only that, they make things easier to see or stand out.
I would also love the opportunity to be able to connect it to VST or Cakewalk somehow. I dont kno wif this is a possibility or it would require too much work. Either way, I think real progress is being made. Thanks buddy I realy appreciate your work.
By the way, if I wanted to register my copy that i have right now, do you accept PayPal?

Thanks,

MusiKman

During the beta test I only do bug fixes and small changes to the new functions. But after the release, in stead of waiting half a year for the next release, we must get some OMB development club together. I could put new versions with experimental features at a separate webpage. And then we could discuss it in a thread in this forum.

JM

But FR,
why do that. Thats no problem if this is an open public forum.. I think the people that would participate are the ones interested and those that dont, well, just dont care. And thats fine also. I think that we shouldnt have to run away with this awsome idea. Hey, JM is doing this to save us tons of money, where as that money would have to be spent on hardware, when it can be betterspent on upgradeable software. Now, JM, you may suddenly begin to get offers to buy you out..I wouldnt be surprised. Because the more people move in to software, the lower the sales of Hardware synths are going to be. Its just simple economics.
But on the other hand, Please remember that when I started this thread, I said that I basically want to get help from all you guys. The ones that dont care dont give help. BUt the ones that do, like yourself, JM, and BP, and others are helping.
Thats what matters. I know what you mean though FR. I have read many of your previous threads and have seen how you have been attacked by your views and opinions.
Thats why, I think its extremely important that this is kept open minded and not to influence or force on to anyone the idea that only Software arranger is the way to go.
PLease dont get that idea anyone. If JM is kind enough to spend countless hours developing his awsome software for the benefit of the arranger community, then I in my humble opinion, support and back him all the way. Why, because in the end, the entire community will benefit.
Why? simple. Choices..
Because having choices is what make life that more interesting and wonderful.
I love having the choice of having a hardware synth if I wish to do live gigs. And also Software arranger if all I do is home recording and composing.
Now, the real issue comes like this. Am I forcing everyone to accept that Software arrangers are the "ONLY" way?
Absolutely not !!
I think that everyone would appreciate that this is only in the best interest of all arranger community and for the development of software that will eventually help everyone at a low cost with extremely high functionality....

That is why JM, dont give up on that dream bro... If I had your brain, or even if I could download your knowdlege into my brain, Believe me, I would run with this idea. Hey, it may make you a good fortune someday....

Peace to all...

MusiKman

I don't really see why there should be any objection to us discussing / working on this here. The topic itself is on fire ( looking at the number of posts ). I think that it is defintely related to the arranger itself and I do not feel it in any way compromises the purpose of this forum. Also, we don't all agree on everything, but the thread has remained polite and we seem to have been able to agree to disagree and the discussion has progressed in a good and useful direction.

I like to be able to keep all of my options open. As I explained before, I think that no matter what comes in the near future, I will find that I will probably still want to use my arranger(s) for some things ( live work ..keeping it simple works best for this player ). On the other hand, I use other boards, synths, software, etc for studio / composition and at least for me, some of the software I have works hand in hand with my boards, rather than acting as an absolute and final replacement.

Maybe some live players would be comfortable going the software route. I can't speak for everyone else. I just know what works for me. Programs like Jammer, BIAB, Jazz seq, and now OMB, along with some others, plus the soft synths, are excellent tools for me, and I think if a tool works, you use it, period.

Frank, your knowledge of soft synths is a plus and I'm sure that I'll have questions for you as time goes by. I'm very satisfied with the horn / reed sounds that I have now via the VL board, ditto the synth sounds of the AN150. I am always looking for better guitar sounds, but I think without good physical modeling tools, I've reached a plateau. I've worked hard to build guitar patches on the Motif that sound realistic, ( my own "megavoices" if you will and I like them a lot ) but I am still interested in trying more via physical modeling tools and soft synths. I can live with the Motif acoustic pianos, ( not a huge staple sound for me anyway ) and the electrics are "grand" ( no pun intended ). I like the Rhodes and wurli sounds a lot. I need better organs. The Motif's are weak. The PA80's are good, but I want better. Strings are another thing. I don't really like any synth violin patches that I've ever heard / played. Based on all of the dynamics involved in making a violin sound, this seems to be another sound that needs modeling to enhance it. More to follow....


Keep up the excellent work guys.

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 04-04-2003).]

Update:

So far so good Joe. I like the new beta version of your program with the updates and I registered it right after I wrote the post saying I was going to do so. It was easy to control var up and var down via two of the Motif's assignable knobs and I used the extra foot switch as the fill in button. It works like a charm. I actually COULD use this for playing at a live venue if I really had to, and if I ever get a cheap laptop, I might consider loading the program up and using it as a backup should my arranger go on the blink. Of course I still think that I'd be more comfortable the traditional arranger way, but I think that OMB is in general a very useful piece of software for me that works well at the home studio and could be pressed into service for live work as well. I've said from day one with the Motif that I always wanted one with arranger functions. Now I have it. Great Job on this Joe.

I can now use the Yamaha styles with the Motif and really play it as an arranger board. The one problem I did have was that the voices don't match up properly. Most midi boards use patch number 26 for instance for a Jazz guitar voice. The Motif uses midi patch numbers 91 - 93 in one of its banks. Thanks to Michael P Bedesem's style updater program, I was easily able to convert the voices of a few of my favorite Yamaha styles so that they correspond with the Motif. I know I'm not supposed to modify any of your software according to your disclaimer Michael, but I took the liberty of modifying the patch list so that it has all of the Motif patches in it. This way I don't have to enter the patch, cc0, and cc32 data manually. I hope you don't mind.. It sure beats converting the style to a midfile, doing all the patch / cc data work in Sonar and then having to convert the midifile back to a Yamaha style.

I hope Frank will reconsider a little and pitch in here again. Your input would be greatly appreciated here Frank. I dabble with this stuff, and know my way around it fairly well, but not at all to the degree and with the amount of experience that you have.

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 04-07-2003).]

AJ, I am glad that you are pleased with the latest revision. Is it true that the Motiv is not GM compatible (in bank 0)? You can use the MIDI mapper for this problem if you install an instrument definition file (*.idf) in windows multimedia-configuration. I don't know how to obtain or build such an idf file though.

Frank, I hope you will cheer up. A few days ago you sounded so enthousiastic and now you are "too old"? It's obvious that many here value your opinion on this subject and lean on your knowledge.

JM

Joe,

The Motif is GM compatible but while some of it's GM voices are ok and a few are even very good, others do not sound all that good to me. Also, the GM drum data does not translate properly, so I have to manually set it up it anyway. Another problem is that the Motif uses patches 1 thru 128, rather than what your software and most other midi modules I've worked with use ( 0-127 ), so really none of the instruments translate properly. I will try your suggestion and see if I can make a patch map / ins. file, but if I'm not able to obtain the proper file, the other method I use of converting style patches in Michaels program is acceptable to me.

The software does sound good and works fine with my software XG module and my PA80 as well. I'm also contemplating doing a " best of " GM based soundfont bank, taking and sampling the best of my Motif, PA80, soft synths, and other soundfont voices.

Cheers,

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 04-08-2003).]

JM
Microsoft did an IDF editor for Win95 (IDFEdit) which you can still download from various places on the net. Look for idfedit.zip - it's only 86kB.

Bryan

Wow!! You guys are really making awsome progress...
I wont be able to register until the end of the month. My budget is so tight I barely have enough for the gas right now. ITs so expensive here in the south bay...Either way, Im so glad that its looking better and better.
BP, is there a way to program OMB to work with my Korg Trinity?
My korg trinity is not GM compatible unless I load a GM setup disk and it takes away some really awsome sounding patches. But, I wonder if it would be possible to set it up in a way that it works with OMB.
I know that the drums dont sounds correct if it doesnt have the GM drums installed, so I wonder how would I be able to get this straight in order to use it with OMB?
Do you have any ideas?

Cheers,
MUsiKman

Musikman, I would use some kind of GM or XG (soundcard or softsynth) device for the accompaniment and then use the Trinity for the multivoices. You can use the MIDI mapper to assign the accompaniment channels (9-16)to the internal synth and the multivoice channels (1-8) to the external Trinity. That is as far as I would go with redirecting things with the MIDI mapper. I tried to install an IDF file in which I redirected the harmonica patch to strings using IDFedit. But whatever I tried in the multimedia configuration tool, it kept blowing the harmonica.
JM