shhhh.... man where are you from?
Probably you have the latest "Intel Sound Board" along with 24bit-192Khz sampling on your PC (the same that the manufacters of the Motif, Triton and FantomX had to copy !!!...). Or you have the latest CPU from Intel (the one no one has ever heard about yet) right from the building block instead of a 3,2-P4. Or maybe Intel stoped developing chips so you don't have to do "upgrades" every 6 month to keep in-time.
Do you really believe that you have the latest technology on your computer?
Stating that "the (music) manufacturers have to use technology that is several generations behind what you would find on the latest PC" its so stupid that I can hardly believe. Want some examples: search for Yamaha Vocaloid, Roland V-Sinth, Korg Legacy or the Line6 Variax just to mention a few of the most knowed. Or what about Roland GS format beeing licenced by Microsof (find out that on the Windows XP manual). Not to mention the digital S/PDIF signal beeing developed by Sony and Philips. Suddenly, you send all the research and development centers from the most important music manufacters right to your Recycle Bin. At least search for information about Bose beeing present in the Space Shuttle (it will take you closer to "light") and you'll get a very small idea of what music manufacters are doing.
And please ...BE REAL.



[This message has been edited by Minimix (edited 10-04-2004).]

Mini, me thinks youve got the wrong end of the stick entirely and have quoted products out of thin air that dont relate to arrangers, or reality for that matter, and have intentionally taken the topic of course onto a scene that is best left to blip and blop dance soundmakers. If NASA is using BOSE in the shuttle, its probably cause theyre the one of the few organisations that can afford the bloody stuff! LOL

Getting back to arranger keyboards, for want of some more down to earth ideas let's hear them, im all ears?

p.s. are these light-emitting companies still using SIMMS at all?

[This message has been edited by digitalvision (edited 10-04-2004).]

The main computers which control the Space Shuttle date back to the late 1970s. My son's calculator has more computing capacity than the three space shuttle computers combined (used for triple redundancy). Their mass storage consists of 100 KB of non-volatile memory (each). I believe there is a way to reload the memory contents, but this is normally not done in flight.

Nonetheless, they have proven reliability, and their software has been validated with many thousands of hours of testing. Most of all, they are quite adequate for the task they are intended to do. The same can be said about many of the keyboards (or other musical instruments). In fact, I had a turn of the century piano some time ago, which sounded and worked better than most Chinese wonders (no offence intended) which you would buy at a piano store today. Newer does not always mean better.

I believe the arranger keyboards' primary purspose is to provide quality reproductions of the sounds of real instruments. To that end, I find that any of today's high end (and many mid-line) arrangers have achieved near-perfection. Having a complex synth engine would only complicate life of a performer.

Alex you have just proven my point in there being no growth with arrangers. Let us all accept what there is, with no room for ideas or real new products. In fact if this is the thinking that permeates this bbs for arranger keyboards, it is no wonder why the companies keep putting out upgrades.

In all sincerity if you get past my obnoxious attitude LOL some players just might come up with some other ideas, or is this bbs just a sounding board for companies?

Was that a 1999 or 2000 model??

Well, you still don't get it do you? You keep critising everyone on this forum but doing nothing. Have you sugested any New Feature for "those infiltrated guys from the industry that are reading this forum". Instead of picking examples from the air I gave you some really good ones.You just dont see further. For example Roland first released the VA-76 with Variphrase - the same they used after on the top-of-the line (and most aclaimed by every musician that understands technology)) V-Synth. Yamaha is one of the biggest producer of LSI technology- the same they use on their arranger keyboards. If you don't find the diference you're probably playing with a Casiotone. But "on the other end of the stick" at this forum, George started posting about a new keyboard - the G-70. YOU keep "intentionally taking the topic of course onto a scene that is best left to blip and blop". I wonder if you're not one of those "inflitrated guys".

P.S. By the way, Roland, for example, is using DIMMs and RISC processors on their products.


[This message has been edited by Minimix (edited 10-04-2004).]

D'vision:

My post was intended to illustrate that you do not always need the latest and greatest technology to accomplish the necessary tasks. You can read into it whatever you want: that the earth is flat, that JFK was assassinated by the Queen of England, or that 2+2=17.

The majority of the arrangers are indeed repackaging exercises, with the emphasis being made on the user-friendliness, and ease of on-stage operation, as opposed to utilizing the new, unproven, and mostly useless musically, synth technologies - those are primarily used by the pre-sequenced acts. There is nothing wrong with the workstations: if you find them to be useful tools - more power to you.

I have outgrown the synthesizer about 15 years ago, and find that the joy of playing music is best afforded by an arranger keyboard. It is geared to helping one play spontaneously with an accompaniment of a virtual band. If you don't like it, that is fine with me too.

Have the arrangers improved from 10 years ago? - absolutely: the sound quality, the configurablity, storage and playback capabilities are all much better than they used to be. They contain more features useful for single or duo performers, such as audio inputs with effects, and vocal harmonizers. Are they "real" improvements? That is subjective - they may be real to me, but not to you, so let's agree to disagree here.

Are they revolutionary - not by a long shot, nor they have to be, IMHO. You can make an electronic violin, but I doubt that it will be more playable than a Stradivarius (or even a run of the mill $2000 instrument).

Is there room for improvement? I'd say that all of today's high-end instrument have traded off some of the user-friendliness for flexibility. It is the details of each individual implementation which make a difference. A packaging of a high-end keyboard can always incorporate more features.

Would I want to see Karma-like features in an arranger? Perhaps, but in my limited amount of interaction with Karma (tried it in the stores quite a few times), I found it not a terribly useful tool musically.

I am sure some of your ideas are good, but, like you said, they are awfully hard to see behind your obnoxious attitude. Perhaps if you toned it down a bit, your ideas would be taken more seriously.

Digvision.....can you post some of your songs I'd love to hear them..Mp3, Smf perhaps?

WOW ! no digi outs.. boy, I guess Roland really doesnt think its going to be used in studio then..

I guess for now im staying put with One Man Band software and my Motif ES7..
So far its working awsome using the sounds of my ES and sending everythin out via the firewire cable.. all 14 channels at once to cubase Sx... I think that I was just hoping Roland would definitely have covered the digital bases.. but again, who knows, it may just surprise everyone...I have loved roland sounds from the beginning. I used to own a Roland D20 and it was built like a tank. Roland stuff is top notch....But my ES7 and OMB7.1 set up is perfect for now. Lot of work with settings and all, but its worth the sound it produces....

------------------

Musikman I woud also love tp hear your songs also...can you share them with us?