Good points Diki, and too true when you really get down to it.

The Roland rep is more than likely on a "need to know" basis and is telling the truth as HE knows it.

Donny if you read this, don't worry about a reply to my question, Diki's post has brought the reality back to my thoughts.

For all I know it is BS from me, via a third party!!

Cheers
Dennis

Ahhhh...I never thought of the GW7 until George mentioned it...so the GW8 is more likely the next generation of the former.

That makes sense.

So as I see it, there is still real no confirmation there will be a G70 replacement.

No doubt the E-series will continue, and perhaps as Cassp has said, there may be an E-65...that wouldn't be too far fetched as they already have the basic layout, tone generator and style engine...they just have to upgrade it a bit.

T'would be nice to see a G90 (or whatever it will be called)...no need of Korg getting all of the 76 note crowd, limited as it may be.

And Diki would be able to spend all that loot he's hoarding away (well, he's not spending it on gear!) on a cool new arranger.

Ian

I've always thought yamaha was so popular because they had great entry level boards.
My first arranger was a psr 540 since then I've always bought another yamaha.
Maybe Roland is now starting to think that way, give 'em a great inexpensive keyboard to start on and build brand loyalty.

[This message has been edited by mikeathome1 (edited 06-12-2008).]

And there is NO confirmation there won't be a new G-series, either.

But the rumor mill grinds on, doesn't it, Ian Still, it gives you a break from justifying Yamaha's bottom-line business model, doesn't it?

Actually, I am very happy to see this product... I have always thought that Roland make great arrangers, once they don't have to worry about the sound source itself (not their strong point, IMO). Most of the really popular Roland's were based on one or another model of the Sound Canvas series, which was voiced and used samples developed by the main Roland division, who are not short of resources or money (unlike most arranger divisions, at least compared to the main divisions!). So, IMO, they were voiced VERY consistently, and homogeneously (so all the sounds fitted together with no further work) and provided a consistent sound set for the arranger gurus to work with.

Not so in the G70 and E50/60/80 (and the previous V/VA series), which don't have a complete sound-set based around any other single Roland product, but rather a cobbled together set from several different sources. This has proved problematic, if not solvable. You certainly CAN balance all the sounds, and very well indeed, by using the voice editing and 3 band parametric EQ, but it doesn't come OOTB like that, which the old Sound Canvas based arrangers DID...

So, moving the arranger line (at least the lower end, to start) over to the Sonic Cell would seem like a step back towards what made Roland's great in the first place. A well balanced soundset developed by the main Roland division, and then used by the arranger division, who now only have to concentrate on operational features, rather than voicing the damn thing...

Time will tell.

In the meantime, hopefully I've got LOTS of time to save up for anything significantly better than my G70 It hasn't been made yet by ANYBODY, so no rush. At this rate, maybe I'll just get a Scala and four roadies to haul it for me

Actually, Diki, my friend, I really do hope there is a G70 replacement.

As I said earlier, "Competition always improves the breed."

If it does well, then maybe Yamaha will make a 76'er....then again....maybe not.

I hope you don't have to waste money on a Scala (you'll need a white suit, too) and roadies(not a bad idea if they are like the ones Fran hires), although I'm sure you'll still have enough veeta left over in your stash to get a new "G".

Besides...it would get awfully boring around here if all we had to do was lavish praise on the Tyros3.

Ian

George is right...the lack of a keypad is why the GW-7 I bought from him is unused. It's also why I am reluctant to buy from any source than a local dealer again, without thoroughly checking out and knowing the product before I order (my bad). There were none in this area, and I took a shot based on recommendations, but it has not worked out.

That's my fault and no one elses.

Russ



[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 06-13-2008).]

Well, I suppose, especially as Roland specifically brand this one as more of a WS than arranger (gotta love those marketing dweebs, don'tcha? ) that a more WS-like method of choosing patches is likely. I hate to break it to you, but quite a large number of WS's have no keypad either.

I guess it's an approach thing... With WS's, you primarily set everything you need up in advance. Splits, patches, levels, effects, etc.. On the whole, WS's are far harder to run on-the-fly, but usually make up for it with vastly greater flexibility than arrangers. So here we have an odd duck... Neither fish nor fowl (or some kind of flying fish ). An arranger with a WS OS, or a WS with some arranger capabilities... Your pick.

I've been using arrangers, even in regular band situations for a long time now for precisely this reason. Most of the TOTL WS (I've got K2500 and a Triton, as well as some older WSs) suck royally when it comes to making a tone change on the fly. Simply calling up a sound, with it's associated effects, levels, pan, and position on the keyboard in the middle of a song is just not practical in the heat of battle, unless it is a simple one patch across the whole keyboard. I rarely play like that.

So the arranger has been of great use in roles you would normally use a WS for, simply because of the flexibility. I can do pickup gigs on the G70, and dial every tone up before the intro is over, and fast edit during the song to something that would take a WS user until the next song to even get close!

So, if you are a 'run it on the fly' kind of arranger player, the 'Free Panel' type, this GW series does not seem a good match. But if you are from more of a WS background, and want something with an arranger-like capability, you may be far more likely to enjoy it...

It certainly seems to point to the need (and many keyboards could benefit from this) for someone to make a MIDI keypad, programmable to send any PC#/CC00/32 with a simple maybe three digit code...

But be warned. With modern TOTL arrangers having THOUSANDS of patches, the old numeric keypad isn't quite the shortcut to patch selection it used to be. Simply remembering all you favorite patches' four digit number is quite a task! My personal favorite system is on the Triton and K2500, where you can gather all your favorite patches and combis all on one screen (or two or three!), no matter WHERE they reside in memory, or what type of patch they are, and select them from there. Simple and customizable.

Just what the doctor ordered!

A bit confused here. Where does this GW-8 fit? Where is it on the "level-scale" compared to E-09, E-50, E-60, G-70, E-80?

Bart, the GW-8 is an entry level...placing it with the E-09..although I would take a GW over an E-09..
The E-50 has more advanced SMF/chord read/lyrics/sequence edits/ and better get around ..than the GW-7 for sure..and I would think..than the GW-8 too..

I don't know about that, Fran... Obviously, we've got to hear one up close and personal, but although the arranger features ARE probably a bit more basic than the E50, it's Sonic Cell engine may prove to be of better overall quality, and it's audio playback features are on no Roland arranger short of the E80 V2 ($3k more!).

I don't think any direct comparison is fair, because of it's hybrid WS/arranger nature, but for someone doing more than just arranger playing, this one may be at least equivalent to an E50, and may better it in some regards... If all you want is a bare bones arranger, with some audio capability and WS type control, this may be a great product...