I found something new on web page of LIONSTRACS.

AUDIO ELASTIQUE-MIDI-GIGA-VST-ARRANGER
http://www.lionstracs.com/store/informat...6ae8d4cc704d00e

This is really nice great news from LIONSTRACS.

And what are you thing about this new approach?

Here is my personal view on the development
Arrangers/Organs are designed to allow the performer easy set up and operation, with a logical easy to use interface. (If they wanted computer set-ups they would use a computer)
The idea of an Open Arranger/Organ is to give it the capabilities of a computer system, but as far as the user is concerned; the computer is invisible. (Just like a hardware board)
If you’re going for the Workstation/computer market then the Lionstracs approach is fine, but it is not for Arranger/Organ play.
Thumbs up Workstation,
Thumbs down Arranger/Organ

Bill

Hello Bill
The Main Arranger interface will remain the same like before, simple and with the styles patch selector.

Qranger will be the ONLY background arranger player and audio-midi editor.
Only when we recall EDIT key from one style, the Qranger will in focus and then we are able to edit all what we like.

Normally users don't have to open it, they have only to play the styles like a standard embedded keyboards.

The Qranger tool will be used from the styles developers, because they will have one Timeline sequencer system, like Cubase, cakewalk and so on...
All the styles developer will use always one Timeline SEQ for editing the midifiles.

Try yourself IF you can compose one good latino styles under the simple embedded keyboard editor and then let us know IF you really need the help of one PC SEQ.

Same is for the all Demo Song that you will find in one new keyboards, do you think that the manufacture have programmed the demo songs under the keyboard seq??
Try to use the PA800 and PAX2 ( just tested too) and let me know IF you can record one similar demo song how they have made...Impossible!

cheers
Enjoy what you play

Hi



Almost my words - except:
For computer work an 8 inch screen is just too small for me.

Regards
Jørgen

------------------
The Unofficial YAMAHA Keyboard Resource Site

My take on 'elastic' audio vs. MIDI styles has been said before, but essentially boils down to there are usually FAR fewer chord choices from the 'elastic audio' patterns.

An arranger's MIDI engine can derive ANY chord it can recognize, including 'slash' chords, suspensions and inversions, and make the MIDI engine play those chords on ALL the sounds. But 'elastic' audio can ONLY change the tempo or pitch of a recording. It can't change the chord, the suspension, or the inversion, only switch to another recording.

So you have to have, for instance, a recording of EVERY possible guitar chord type, in ALL it's inversions, suspensions AND 'slash' variants for EVERY single variation of every single style that uses a guitar (just about ALL of them). First of all, that's an insane amount of data. But forget that, let's just assume you HAVE a terabyte sized drive or two attached to your arranger...

The REAL problem will be... who's going to MAKE these 'elastic' styles, and sit there and laboriously record the guitar patterns (and THAT'S just for starters!) in dozens upon dozens of chord variants, for EACH of the style's variations, for EACH of the styles? And then make them affordable to buy...

This is one area where the MS is going to be unable to simply COPY some other manufacturer's already proven body of work (and the copyright laws are FAR more rigid for recorded music, which is what these loops are, than for instrument samples) and they are actually going to have to make these themselves, or hand the work to third party developers, that will have a hard time realizing enough profit from what the market will bear for new styles to justify the ENORMOUS time to develop them.

OR.... you will all just have to get used to the fact that you have a vastly smaller pool of chord choices to use in your music.

Not exactly the great leap forward in arranger technology we are all looking for, IMO.

And before Dom gets all worked up about me, again... this criticism applies to ALL arrangers that are looking to 'elastic audio' as the next, greatest thing. Audya and all...

I just feel that, compared to developing more realistic sound sets, and better arranger engines to derive more realistic performances from those sounds, looking to recordings (other than drums and percussion, that don't NEED multiple chord choices) to give us more realism is a choice that only those that play the most basic chords in the first place would happily make.

It's an easy choice for a manufacturer, FAR easier than developing something like a cross between Yamaha's Mega voices and Korg's guitar Mode, for instance. Simply use already existing technology to time-stretch and pitch transpose audio (these have been around for years), and just HOPE that no-one notices you can't play a major ninth with a sharp five any longer...

JMO, yada yada yada...

Diki...don't worry that musician like you will never use one audio system if they continue use one G-70 that can play only midi events. ( and then in the background they all use one laptop for play some Mp3 and so on..)

I really have understand that you don't like the MS too and I dont care at all untill we continue get new orders.

About your last post, I think you have to looking around what for more audio tools are available: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/gui2007/os2/melodyne.jpg http://vielklang.zplane.de/

this is JUST one of ,any others possibility and more the time pass, more new audio application will born and specialized for this new field too.

So..IF we are in the wrong way to explore this new audio field, then mean that this all other are more stupid like me?? http://zplane.de/showPage.php?SPRACHE=UK&PAGE=references

Or is some body else there that don't understand nothing in audio technology?

Anyway listen:
Qranger is only one Timeline marker pointer pattern SEQ tool, able to record/play just some stupid basic midi styles to the complex audio-midi styles for different other musician like you.

WHO told you that we have to make ONLY audio elastique styles?? the doctor??
We can also record some stupid line of midi tracks and add just some audio groove loops.

All depend on the style developer fantasy what for tracks to add in the style that he like to develope.

Like under yamaha arranger, they record only the Major chord and then the arranger engine wil create the all possible chords variation.
This will be the same under the Qranger: IF only 1 track MAJ is recorder, ( Maj is the Mandatary chord) the qranger will also create the all others chords.

For me, just one track mandatary is the most stupid way, because all will be created virtually and NOT so real. Roland use 4 mandatary chords to make more realistic the other chords.
Under Qranger you can setup how may mandatary chords you like have for each style.

Qranger can be also one DJ audio patterns playes, where for each pattern you can play one part of the CD song ( under Major chord) and when you press the Minor OR 7th, OR... all what you like.. you get play the all new CD song pattern.

Like or NOT like, but the future will be under audio and NOT under midi.

Just wait, maybe when exit the tyros 55 double quad core, with USB 4.0, wireless RAM sampler and 79 Keys ( not 76...to old system) then you all there will be happy.
I'm enjoy what is available today but I think you there are to much dreaming....

cheers

Hi Jorgen
in some view I agree too, 8.4" inch and 800x600 is not the max, but still the MS can use the external TFT 17", 19, 21 and plasma.

More bigger display in one keyboard then seem like a truck, no body wil have it.

Anyway, better one TFT 800x600 than like the other that continue use 320x240 OR much less and NO colors..
Under MS you continue request the MAX as possible that also one normally PC can NOT do in realtime what the MS is able to manage...
And in the other way, all ther econtinue pay a LOT of money ( more than the MS ) and they continue cray...USB 1.0, 64Mb , 80 minute for loading the sampler, 16 bit audio like one CD player ( Ipod 150% Sound MUCH better that this all keyboards...)

We wil se what happen in the next future...
cheers

Yes??
are you sure that your G-70 and T2 ( one chord available) are able to play this chords too?
Totally sure?? can you prove it?



[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 10-29-2007).]

of course they can, and so can mine (sd1+) dom you must understand that trying to change a recorded audio sample is like trying to take the eggs out of a cake when it's baked, impossible, unless its at the molecular level..The only way audio can play that chord is to record that chord. Just the same as the way current arrangers play that chord is that that chord has been pre-programmed via midi data, which is much MUCH easier, quicker and cheaper than the equivalent audio recording required. for a further example, all that is required to change the basic Cmaj chord in a midi system to a C7 is to simply add the b7 note in the mid file, job's done. In an audio file you have to either record a brand new chord, OR record the b7 note by itself and them merge the 2 recordings, to my thinking that is double the work.Add to that, if using Diki's guitar example, the various neck positions, and even the neck positions used by bass players, means a mountain of work for just one style..Further in the midi system all modern arrangers have very intelligent NTT's (note transposition tables) which effectively take care of various inversions and variations, and I do not think audio arrangers are anywhere near this. I may be proven wrong, but not before 2045..In my view the new "audio arrangers" vis-a-vis audya, will actually use a combination of audio+midi to accomplish their aims.Which is essentially what Ketron for example are doing with their Midjay Range, from which I really think a lot of the audya engine is going to derive, with a few more bells and whistles.
Dennis

Gaug9 plays fine on G70, and I am pretty sure it plays correct on a MS too..

The audio arranger is all new to me..