P.S. I just wanted to thank everybody that is able to pitch in and help me get started on what kind of seems like an overwhelming new toy.

However, I was just noticing today that after about a week of poking around how much more I now know already. I am more of a button poker and see what it happens person rather than a direction reader. The only thing on these gizmos is that there can be a lot of hidden functions that are illogical and not readily tested because a lot of it is not really set up like a virtual keyboard control panel where everything is pretty much layed out.

Scott, in general I use the lowest octave of my Roland A37 Controller Keyboard to operate the fills, variations, intros and endings. I use the buttons on my keyboard to do other things like changing effects, instruments, etc. In fact, using a host like forte Ensemble I change scenes by sending program change numbers. This allows me to make whole sale changes in the software with the press of one button (effects - reverb, program changes, etc.).

Realizing that once I figure out how to use Hypercanvas or Super Quartet, would it be safe to assume that if I take Yamaha styles, at least from the same keyboard, for example the PSR2000, that I will be able to set up some kind of global type setting for the few different types of styles, or am I going to have to tweak even styles from the same kb source?

In other words, I have found that the settings used for backrounds in big band could easily all be the same, combo sounds the same, etc?

Also, wondering if anyone has tried one of these computers with a touch sensitive screen?

I am getting alot of ideas. I am mainly wondering and speculating of course.

Scott, for those just starting off on this journey (software based arranger system), I would recommend converting the styles to GM or GM2 format. This will give you many options for wavetables - especially Roland or Soundfont. It is a great deal of boring work but it is worth it. I for example am now using the Colossus 14 GB or so GM wavetable. Sounds terrific.

However, you would need to change each time you change to other formats. If you don't you could end up with howling dogs, pianos playing and so on .... all in the wrong places.

Hi Scott,
you do realize that Super Quartet isn't GM.
I think it's mainly piano, bass, guitar & drums. Be a good adjunct to Hypercanvas, but I think you'd be lacking a lot of instruments for your styles if you only had super quartet.

There is actually a third one in the series Orchestral. Trident has tried it and there's an earlier posting of his on Synthzone.


best wishes
Rikki
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott Langholff:
[B]Realizing that once I figure out how to use Hypercanvas or Super Quartet,

Rikki & Scott, you could use super quartet for your lead or melody voices and use a GM Wavetable (Hyper Canvas) for the styles.

Orchestral has a lot of VERY good quality (at least IMHO) voices, but they will suit o someone that makes soundtracks, or classical music. The piano is superb. It is not GM/GS compatible.

Super Quartet is Keys, Bass, Guitar and Drums only, it has some nice sounds and the drums are much better (again IMHO) than the Hypercanvas. Of course you can add a second guitar or another "keyboard" in this virtual band but it lacks synth sounds and distortion-overdrive guitars. Not GM/GS compatible.

The thing that makes HyperCanvas good is that is has an good quality all around and the intruments are blending very well together. For lack of a better word, they all "belong" together. And of course they are GM/GS compatible.

Hope it Helps
Theodore

I hope what I'm about to say isn't out of place amongst all you techies, but I haven't got the first idea what you are all talking about....what is a soft synth when it's at home?.
I've played arranger keyboards live in all sorts of venues over the past 10 years and unless you're talking about rap or hip hop I've never had any trouble reproducing reasonable live cover versions of most everything that's been a hit over the last 50 years.
What are you trying to reproduce in terms of a musical sound?

I think the Acoustic guitar emulations are very decent in Super Q. Not quite as good as Musiclabs Real Guitar or Dasample ElectroAc, but a bit less drain on the CPU than those two. Drums are nice in SQ too. Makes me wish they had added another kit or two. I like SQ's piano better than the one in my Motif. SQ is very nice to me for lead voices, and I think it it does complement Hyper Canvas rather well.

Although in a lot of cases we are talking live here RHempstead, in others we are not. Some of us use these as studio sounds as well. I do both, although live play is incidental for me, in that I do it occasionally, not for a living.

Even though I readily accept the idea that sound itself is very subjective, I think it's hard to argue that any of the current arrangers ( or workstations for that matter ), matches some of this stuff sonically.

I own a Motif ES6, and while it's billed as one of the better if not best sounding workstations out there, I can easily surpass the quality of sounds in it in almost any instrument group with software. No real surprise there.. For example, Musiclabs Real Guitar contains more Sample Rom for a few guitar sounds than the ES does for it's entire sound palette. It also has several specialized effects that give it a more real guitar feel. These are adjustable and are quite playable in real time, even using a standard keyboard as a controller. Although the ES6 Guitar megavoices are quite playable, I think they pale in comparison

I like my Motif, and my arranger ( PA80 ), but when I want to capture a sound as closely as possible, I go to software. Ironically, my favorite emulations from the ES6 actually come from the two add on plug in boards. The VL150 Physical Modeling board still does one of the best horn / sax emlations I've heard, and the technology is ten yrs old or better. Ditto the AN150 analog modeling board. I really get the feel of a Prophet 5 from it, yet I still like NI's Pro53 software a little better.
For me, there is more. I always wanted a CS80, never could afford one, especially in it's heyday. The Arturia software version is close enough that I really can't tell a difference, although perhaps a sound pro with a discerning ear possibly could. I doubt most other folks would know..

AJ

[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 06-22-2005).]

AJ, you said it well....much better than I ever could. You are also way ahead of me in the understanding and implementation of a high powered software based workstation/arranger system. I am happy to see the progress made by members of this forum with varying degrees of a software based systems. Of course, one could not get anywhere with this without the software developers (arrangers, samplers, physical modelling and so on). It is indeed a different world in a short few years. It's great....just another of many alternatives to assist musicians and their clients.