To the genesys,
That would be ideal, but would have limited sales. Well if Yamaha went out with such a concept, would the die hard Roland or Korg fans buy it? Well, some of the would buy it, but not all.
But things like these are generic Keyboards....they don't have a "distinctive brand" name on them.

Would Yamaha want to sell something below cost (the business sceme with things that act as a base for software is "lose money on the product and earn money on services and software"....like Gilette sells cheap machines and expensive razors, and Sony selling cheap Playstations with expensive software and royalties) that costed a fortune to develop, only to see it used with roland styles and sounds?
Nah, I don't think so.

Each manufacturer doesn’t have to if they don’t want to make their software readable by other brands.

To give a recent example, take the new Roland G70. There have been favorable comments about the build and key feel on the G70 but there have been less than favorable and sometimes contradictory comments on the sounds and styles. Now what if Roland (in this example but could be applicable to any other manufacturer), were to have the G70 just having the 76 key keyboard, with the good build and feel, and a general OS architecture and were to sell that at a reasonable price. Then if the user wants styles of Roland and other arranger features that can only be used on the G70, then the user can buy separately. I bring this up because I can remember when there is a discussion on a new keyboard like the G70, you always get comments like… this keyboard does not have XYZ and on the other hand you hear that … this keyboard should not have XYZ because I don’t need it on an arranger and XYZ carries up the price of the keyboard.

So if you have good key feel and a good build (which is or should be the rudimentary and main feature on a musical keyboard instrument), and allow the user to choose what bells and whistles the user wants and needs on the keyboard then I think users can get more value for their money.

When you think about it, all it is is separating the hardware from the soft ware. So instead of having a Tyros with every conceivable feature on it, costing over $3500 have a real solid hardware and let the user choose the software and features. The same can be said for the flagship arrangers for other brand manufacturers like Korg, Roland Ketron, Gem and who ever else.

Obviously, there will be brand loyalty, but I think this could open up users to get more than one brand. Right now, users that want a flagship arranger have to think that if they are going to get an arranger, because of the high price, they have to think about getting it from only one manufacturer. But with the concept of separating the hardware from software, the user may feel that they may want a second brand. Different brands would specialize in certain things. Also, if the manufacturers decide that it would be more profitable to make their software readable by brands of competitors, then so much the better for the user.

The exact same thing has been and still is going on with hardware computer manufacturers.

I really think all that needs to be done to ascertain the future of keyboards is to consider what Yamaha did when they bought their new software company.

imho the future is open architecture with the user deciding which sound libraries and "styles" to purchase from whom. The more that miss the boat; both mfgrs and consumers, the more will have to play catch up just as when midi was developed and introduced.

As far harware keyboard dependability,well my Tyros is 2 years old and I have had a lot more reliablity issues with it than with my computer.

BTW Frank, I bought the M_audio Keystaion pro88 a couple of months back and I would not part with it.

Danny

[This message has been edited by pianodano (edited 04-19-2005).]

Ha, it's always the same procedure. I feel like I'm talking against walls. The world don't want to be saved...

Do anyone know the spell "never change a running system"?
I'm using my Falcon 030 since 1994!!! That's half the time I'm playing guitar now. At half the time of the running Falcon (since 1999) I saw more dieing PCs than the count of other computer systems I had and have ever worked with.

There's no support for it anymore but nevertheless I'm still using Cubase Audio. So why? It simply never crashed and it has more than enough features for working in studio or similar in live acts. And the audio quality is still sufficient.
Imagine! ELEVEN YEARS!!! Long live the Falcon!!!

That's what I call a "stabil system"!!!
The most PCs I saw stopped running not later than two years. The longest life of one PC I lived to see was my old PC80286@12MHz which ran about 8 years before he died. This was never reached by any further PC system I bought after that.

Are these arguments good enough for you, men? If not so tell it me because I have really some more arguments...

Nevertheless I hope you will have the same luck with your PC system like I have with my Falcon!!!

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

I have a Roland MC500 mk11 seq that I purchased new in 1988 for $1750.00. That was a pile of money back then for such a device. Thanks to Roland, a lot of problems were figured out re:seq way back when there was NO standard platform. I seq'd 100's of songs on it. It still works, but the disk drive is failing. The real problem with it is that it simply cannot handle the modern instruments data stream - sysex wise.

Regarding computers in general, I started working on the univac 1050-11 way back in the late 60's, and have lived and worked on just about every hardware and operating system imagineable. My favorite was Unix/Palo Alto Zenix by Santa Cruz org. But that is all history now. I am by no means a fan of the windows operating system. Needs to be to many things to too many folks. But, if enough tweaking is done and enough junk is taken out of services, it can be a very stabile system for music production.

Personally, when I first received my Tyros 2 years ago, I really thought it was very good as a stand alone instument. But when I began actually trying to use it in the enviroment I intended, it became evident that too many corners were cut in trying to make it all things to all people. As I told Yamaha at the time, I do not care how much it cost, if you say it is the best, it needs to be the best or you have lost me as a customer.

There are many parts of your statements I do agree with and to prove it I have every "modern" keyboard I have purchased since the 70's. But the times have changed because of the ever shinking cost of memory and exponentially faster processors.

I am 53 years old and I feel this is the most exciting time of my life to be a musician. I sit in my studio and critically listen to some of the mixes and I am just floored by the expresiveness and sonic capabilities that are available to us now. Again personally, I have spent well over $100k in my life in the qwest for the "real deal". Well it is available right now and at a modest cost for a professional. But the real deal ain't in no dedicated hardware keyboard currently on the market. Period.

As I said already and many times before,imo the future of professional arranger keyboards is,

A standardized operating system that everyone agrees on (decided by the midi mfgr assoc.) running on hopefully a P4.

Real (as in not junk) keys and keybed.

Numerous assignable knobs, controllers and motorized faders.

Quite possibly drawbars.

At least 4 gig memory, exandable. (now that 64 bit processors have broken the barrier).

A standarized style engine that will play the various programming houses styles using "OUR samples.

The ability to store at least 250 gig of samples. It does not absolutely need sampling ability, but I am sure many would want the ability to record.

Multiple monitor support.

The abilty to interface with the DAW of our choosing via firewire.

Extremely high quality look and feel.

Anyway, that's what this old guy wants. I don't think I am alone.

Regards,

Danny

[This message has been edited by pianodano (edited 04-19-2005).]

[This message has been edited by pianodano (edited 04-19-2005).]

Waaaaah!!! Do you really want to have a radiator in your device?
P4 - a so called high-frequency heating system!
I would better propose the xScale CPU because it consumes a power of less than 1 watt @1.5GHz and it has an internal 64 bit processing AND...it's totally a risc technology.

I would prefer have a small operating system like TOS with a spare but clear and definite desktop (like the K2k's display). This supports an easy and fast processing for musicians like me...

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

I'll take your word for it Sheriff. Anything but Athlon for me. Processor seems slow though. Currently running 3.2 ghz. I am defintely limited by memory though. Time to hang on a 2nd cpu I guess.

Danny



[This message has been edited by pianodano (edited 04-19-2005).]

Hi Sherriff,
I had an Atari ST 1040 running Notator that I bought in about 1987, ( it must have been switched on for an average of 6 hours a day, I was hardly ever off it) it was still working when I gave it away a couple of years. It had been put in an open cardboard box and left collecting dust for a couple of years in the garage ( prior to me giving it away, but it was still working perfectly ).

Still miss it every now & again.

best wishes
Rikki





[This message has been edited by rikkisbears (edited 04-19-2005).]

Sherrif, Rikki, I know what you mean.
I still have a Spectrum 128 somewhere in the house, and it probably still works. Anyone remember these?

Anyway, the beauty of systems like TOS (Tramiel Operating System? I believe it was derived from the Atari boss of the time) are that they are stable, very stable.

Sherrif really nailed it saying that they try to be a thing for all people.

I mean Windows try to be a thing for all people