Diki,

I dont think Anatek is making them anymore, but there's one by Midi Solutions. I don't see why it wouldn't work with the Motif XS. The one from Midi Solutions is a little expensive though. The converter box costs $169 at MusiciansFriend.

Squeak

Tony.....OMB artists come in all flavors....making & creating music is all about the whole genre circle around the world which included ALL TYPES of music...
I would hope Yamaha knows that....I know one thing without what I mentioned I would never consider purchasing a Motif because it would never fill my needs.

It would probably work fine, but then the question becomes which parameters are going to be available for you to control with it in real time that will make a difference in a sax or horn voice. The way Yamaha has it's internal voices set up, without the VL 150 board, I wouldn't really need or necessarily want to use a breathe controller for these voices, though it is a cool way to add an additional controller for synth voices. In the T2 for example, if when you want to turn on the articulation in an articulation voice, you only need an on / off switch to access the articulation part. The articulations do not appear to have a variable control, at least not one that you can access in real time with a variable controller ( eg 1-127 ).

It's quite likely that like in the T2 and ES, the XS breathe sounds are one sample element of a multisampled voice. The only way it would matter to me is if I could control the velocity or volume of the individual breathe sample in real time. I am guessing you could probably do this by sending a sysex message from outside of the board, but in this case you would need a computer and the appropriate software to do so. That's more than a little impractical for live play.

If the step recorder is gone, does that mean the Remix tool is gone as well ? If so.. that's too bad... I didn't use the step recorder function very much, but the Remix tool inside of it was quite cool for mashing up the different drum and bass patterns. At Motifator, Yamaha has justified the step sequencer's removal by pointing out ( correctly ) that pattern sequencing is much easier to do in an external app. The patterns in the ES were just a repeat of what the arps can produce.. But... Getting an exact match with the output of the arps from the ES in an app like FL, that is normally setup to step record one or a few measures at time isn't always easy. The timing is always off a few clicks, meaning I always had to edit the recorded data to have it fit inside of a single ( or set ) of measures. It's finicky, kind of in the same way that recording styles or multipads in a PSR or the Tyros is. If you've ever done it, you know what I mean ... If you are off even by a click or two, your pattern is messsed up until you edit it.

As far as the XS blurring the line a bit between workstation and arranger, that's all good, but I agree with Robert G in that I think each caters to a completely different market and type of player, and I think that's probably a good thing.


AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 04-28-2007).]

that grand piano is awesome!!!!!!

DNJ the motif series will never carry merengue or tangos on it.It is aimed at a completely different market. It has some arranger functions but it is definately not an aranger. The arranger functions are designed to help musicians create in studio and not for live OMB performance alhough it could be adapted in some instances to do this for certain songs. Yamaha understand marketing and would not cannabalise sales from one very successful product range to another.There is more than enough choice available through established arranger keyboard lines, the psr series and tyros series. And i am confident that most OMB players dont even use 60% of the functions on their existing arrangers in terms of sound creation synthesis and sampling. So what the hell are they going to do with a full blown dedicated synth sampler with lots of funk,dance orientated arps????

So judging by your reply Spalding.....
the mesh between arrangers & synths is so very far away if at all in the future. I would hope not ...but in reality that is what is happening a little missing here & a little missing there so close but yet so far makes the pocket emptier...its a never ending game with us the poor consumer stuck in the middle as usual.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Spalding1:
not at all DNJ. The gap btween arrangers and synths is almost indistinguishable but the gap between the types of customer that would buy an isntrument that is associated with old men in working mens clubs is immense . Thats wht the XS will never carry tango's waltzes,fox trot, two steps etc

Yamaha have taken great care to distance the XS from its arranger range of products. It has some arranger functions but you wont find the word arranger on their marketing literature. That why they use words like "arps" which is synth talk for styles . They call them "intelligent" because they follow your chords. So what have arrangers been doing for the last 15 years ????

They market the XS to a different customer where "coolness" matters. Fox trots etc are definately not cool and if yamaha were to include these "arps" they would decimate not just the XS sales but quite posibly the motif range too as the marketing brand would be damaged.[/QUOTE]

I have bought an arranger keyboard like the pax DESPITE the fact tht it has fox trots etc on it. They are not styles that i would use in public just because there is no call for them in the circles and venues that i play. I have looked beyond the "old man/nursing home " immage of typical arrangers and have seen the capabilities and the way that an arranger assists me in what i do which is mainly
gospel music arranging. Korg, Yamaha, Etc would be confused by a customer like me !!!


[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 04-29-2007).]

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 04-29-2007).]

Well...Spalding I cant agree with you or any manufacturer that wants to go their way of rejection to their train of thought that certain styles are not hip, cool, or have the nursing home adult music status that's all BS to me. Just because you dont have a need for these types of music there are millions that do around the world.....all styles of music should be included in automated arranger instruments & workstations or at least give the player the ability to purchase plug-in cards that reflect a certain style family so thta they may pursue their objective musically....purists, one way thinkers, & naysayers are the things I stay away from ......playing music is for everyone & will always be.

DNJ its not about the music. Its about selling products and maximising profits. The manufacturers dont decide what music is cool, the market does. And the market that the XS and motif range is aimed at says that fox trots,waltzes and twosteps are not cool. You may not like it but all busineses operate under the same principles.If they dont pay attention to what the market wants they simply wont survive. Maybe some day the synth market may develope an interest in the older styles again but i doubt it. If korg were to design an instrument like what i have but replace fox trots merengue ,tangos with more contemporary styles that would just suit me fine. If there were enough people out there like me to make a profit for korg then they would make it so.

Anyway there is enough choice out there to satisfy everyone but not everyone wants the same packageing. Thats why there are so many products being sold that meet either real or percieved needs. Its not personal.Its just business.

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 04-29-2007).]

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 04-29-2007).]

But what we are primarily arguing about here is CONTENT, not capabilities. It appears to me that either type of keyboard is capable of doing a fair job at the other's forte, but the manufacturers concentrate the style (or arp) development on the primary market for each tool.

Hardly surprising, given the enormous cost of style and arp development (must be expensive, or why are third party styles so rare and expensive?), but it seems to me that some kind of software style to arp, or arp to style converter could go a long way towards eventually bridging the content gap.

I have long wished for the majors to get their workstation arp developers to work on a set of full styles for arrangers. While there is definitely SOME shortcomings in the usual arranger sound-set for modern styles, these guys are used to working with what they get (sound development usually comes before style or arp development), and I am sure they could come up with some innovative new styles for the arrangers we have.

And likewise, some of the best style developers could increase their earnings by making arps of more conventional styles for the XS users.

But only the market will prove if there is sufficient people interested to make it profitable. I believe, eventually, some form of copy protection will have to be developed for arps and styles to stop the rampant 'swapping' and trading that goes on. Then, when profits aren't being scavenged by piracy, more talented programmers will be willing to put the time and skill into developing what we want...