Tony, wrong thread, I think (talk about being overdressed for the wrong occasion!)...

Fran........ Yes, this is what I'm talking about! It's not about how good my keyboard is, it's about how much better it could be.

To be honest, I would prefer several features to be taken OFF of arrangers, as well as some additions. Why clutter an already complex keyboard with functions performed better on computers?

Who sequences (records) on the gig? Few, if any. Make the sequencers simple playback devices, but with awesome live locate features and highly advanced playlist control. I'd rather use a computer ANY DAY to sequence with.

Who uses their arranger's HD recording on the gig? Few, if any. It's much easier to use a recording device off the mixer if you HAVE to record the gig, and once again, I'd MUCH rather record to a computer at home.

Who uses their sampler a LOT on the gig? Few, I imagine. Until USB 2 or faster is used to load them, 512MB memory isn't much use if it takes an hour to load.....! Plus, the T2's sampler is very poor at importing sample libraries already developed, and Yammie have come out with very little for it..... Why, oh why are modern keyboards (not just arrangers) over 100X slower than computers in loading sample RAM? Somebody explain this one to me....

Beware the Roland VK section in their arrangers...... the reverb send is pre-Leslie and the overdrive is post-mixer. They have to fix this. It's still good, but could be MUCH better.......

I've got a thread over at the Danish G70 site about improvements to the NEXT G-series, pop over and see if you agree..... http://www.selskabsmusikeren.dk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=60&topic=1654.0

FRAN....I think you are hitting hard...you
need to start of with light jabs, not uppercuts...

Tony That was too KOOL for words.....
TR

"I want multiple mic input on board..like???."

Ketron SD1.

DonM

Hi Dikki
The vast majority of arrangers are sold to home uses, which is why a lot of the features you say should be removed, are fitted. (Home uses utilize them)
The reason hardware arrangers have slow ram and USB is because it takes typically 2 years to get from prototype to production, so the technology used is usually about 2 years old when the product is released, as an example when the prototype Tyros 2 was being tested, the mainstream computers were P3 with PC133 memory and USB 1.1, and this is why Tyros 2 uses PC133 Ram and only has USB 1.1.
All Wersi instruments up to 2003 used P3, PC133 and USB 1.1, however due to the fact that inside they are just normal computers, it was easy for Wersi (And existing owners) to fit P4 boards with DDR memory and USB 2. (This is what is meant when Wersi say there instruments are totally updatable)
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

Abacus..... I would be prepared to bet that anyone that can afford an arranger with HD recording on board already has a computer and basic (but still superior to on-arranger) recording software. And I also bet that again, other than low-end arrangers, most people that sequence prefer to use the computer. The only reason not to is that some manufacturers make it difficult to use a computer with your arranger. Otherwise, it's no contest....

Weighing an arranger down with unnecessary features only serves to distract and dilute the R&D efforts from making a better arranger into making a hybrid product that does none well.

Maybe I'd like to see the sampler and HD recording when those features can be as powerful as the alternatives, but for now, I'd MUCH prefer to see the money spent on improving the arranger section..... More fills, more variations, better ways to control them, better sounds, better styles and easier style creation, better OTS implementation, better ergonomics......

Until the arranger is perfect, why waste budget on frills?


BTW, my ten year old Kurzweil loads 2X faster than a contemporary T2..... not too much progress there, and even USB1 is capable of FAR greater bandwidth than modern samplers use. It's not the interface, it's the design of the data pipe to the RAM, IMHO.

Hi Dikki
All valid points, and yes most will have a computer, however most of them keep them separate, (EG. They show off there keyboard but hide their computer) as to sequencers on computers, you will find most arranger uses aren’t interested, likewise hard disc recording, but what they do like is to be able to press a button on there keyboard, and start recording, and with another button press, play it back. (They are mainly not interested into how much better it would be to use the computer)
Remember USB 1.1 is not much quicker then typical modern broadband connections, and compared to USB 2 is excruciatingly slow.
The memory used in your Kurzweil is not that large as it is used solely for producing a few sounds, (Although even with today’s large sample VSTs I still think Kurzweil produce the best Piano and String sounds) and this is why it loads fast.
As to features, some like it nice and simple whereas others want all the bells and whistles, and so manufactures have to try and satisfy all camps. (Jack of all trades)
BTW Are you on Skype
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

I see things differently. I know a lot of keyboard players who would never mix their computers with their boards. Some see the onboard sequencing gear as their only means to saving or playing work. I agree that sequencing on the computer with a sequencing program is usually easier and better, that's not what the market bears out. Today's arranger keyboards are the way they are because they have slowly evolved from the old organ+rhythm box technology of 30 years ago.

I think what we all want is a DIFFERENT type of arranger - not an at-home entertainment system. So why don't we design one. We can input our ideas and maybe someone (or more) in the group can give us a visual.

I want Roland's VK8 and Vari-Os technology and Kurzweil sound banks.
I want the ability to quickly and easily adjust volume/on/off of all arranger functions.
I want a loop sequencer.
I want a sequencer where I can see and adjust what channels are active, what instrument is playing and the volume for each.
I want something with 76 keys, but I'll settle for 61.
Speakers are nice, but optional for me.
Let's keep weight under 40lbs.

That's all for now.

Hey Diki - look what this post has turned into. WoW!

Abacus.... sorry, no Skype, yet (I prefer the written word).

It's not about how much or little sample RAM you have, it's about how fast it loads. My venerable Kurzweil loads it's RAM at about 1MB/sec, 2 to 4 times faster than a T2. Especially for live use (arranger's reason d'etre) the speed with which you can load a sample set in response to a request (rather than pre-loading before the gig) is of crucial importance....

The piano and string sounds Kurzweils are famous for are ROM sounds, so no loading time at all, but if you need an Irish bagpipe for a song (if your arranger doesn't have a good one) or a hip-hop drumkit and some slamming beats, the speed with which they load is critical, no matter if they are 4MB or 40MB.

I think someone informed me that if you maxed out the T2's RAM, it would take over an hour to load..... USB1 is WAY faster than that! I think I read that USB 1.1 maxes out at 1.5MB/sec, so it should be faster than my K2500, not 2 to 4X slower....... 512MB should load up in 6 minutes, NOT 30-40 min. Why is it so slow?

So...... smaller soundsets are necessary, but unfortunately newer soundsets are GBs in size because of computer speeds and streaming technology, but Yamaha provide no way to import Akai format samples, which, because Akai's had smaller RAM (usually 32MB max) are the perfect size to load into a live keyboard.

So you are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place if you actually want to USE the provided sampler in a live situation, hence my call for better load time implementation.

Well cassp....... yes, probably the least boring thread for a while!

You seem to be describing your perfect arranger, and many of it's ideas are in the G70......

Varios seems to have been abandoned by Roland and was mono only, and still suffers from exactly the same RAM load-time problems that samplers have..... a good idea before it's time.

By 'loop sequencer' do you mean the old Roland Chord Sequencer? If so, welcome aboard, brother! The best idea they ever dropped.....

As for your requests for computer-like sequence editing facilities, well....... why not use a computer? Why try to do the same thing on a 4 inch square display when you could see everything on a nice widescreen 24 inch flatscreen?OK, some people prefer to do their sequencing on-board rather than use a computer, but some people still write letters to each other in paper and ink and POST them to each other rather than use e-mail. Only those who have never used a computer sequencer prefer the on-board one.....

The G70 comes in a smidgen above 40lbs, but is manageable (I'll take durability over feather-weight any day)

It has live sliders for everything, keyboard, sequence and style parts

See above for how I feel about the VK organ (but it's still great!)

And having both a K2500 and a G70, I can assure you that the G70 more than stands up to the K's ROM sounds, betters most of them and is infinitely easier to use, live, especially if you haven't got a ton of time to set up EVERYTHING in advance. If I've got no prep time, I grab the G70 first for everything.....!

Give it a whirl, and consider an Akai Z8 or '4 for the sampling chores.

Maybe I should clarify some of my ideas.
Yes, I do mean something like the old chord sequencer.
No, I don't mean a recording sequencer, but more likely a sequence player; for midi files and such.
I realize the G70 has most of what I like and want - I have a VR-760, but I forgot to mention this thing should be under $2500.
Forget the VariOs, I don't use that stuff anyway. I've got a Digitech sitting downstairs collecting dust.
And by the way, maybe we should consider more than one display screen.