Bravo Jorgen
Down-to-earth and mature sense will always take first place....
cheers

------------------
Eddie from Rotherham
Skype:eddiefromrotherham
www.yamahakeyboards.info



[This message has been edited by eddiefromrotherham (edited 07-05-2008).]

That's all I want, myself.... THE WALK

We're all fed up of 'THE TALK'

The difference between what I post and what Dom posts is that I'm not telling everyone that 'I'm the future, all the rest of you are obsolete'. Were I to do so, I would deserve the raspberries I would so likely get! Most of what I've posted has been simple little live recordings of my acoustic duo. They are not studio quality performances, they are not edited, they are simple documents about what my duo, and my G70 sound like.

Unlike Dom's demos, which, for a major manufacturer, SHOULD be highly polished, studio productions to show his product off at it's best. It's what ALL his competition does, it is the game that is played. Except, he don't play it.
All he does is TALK. It's a novel marketing technique, but, at least for me, completely unpersuasive.

You want to know what really gets my goat, and why I tend to respond to Dom's comments (and HIS frequent hijacking tactics)?

Because he is the only arranger manufacturer and designer that posts here at all. Yamaha don't come here to smack down all their competition. Korg don't come here to ridicule Roland. Wersi do not post to flame Ketron. But Dom does... He CLAIMS that everything else is obsolete, compared to his product, yet mysteriously, that NEVER translates to any kind of demo that backs him up.

Maybe it's just me... But SOMEBODY needs to stand up and say what everybody is thinking...

"The Emperor has no clothes!"

Quit insulting your customers, Dom. We are not stupid. Until you can provide demos that sound better than your competition, why waste your time (and ours) with endless braggadocio? None of us are ever going to be able to go down to our local stores and play one. Perhaps this is what is confusing you? You get to play them all the time. Perhaps you KNOW that it can sound better than the demos.... But none of us do, or ever will, based on how hard they are to find to demo ourselves. So, you have to understand that the web demos are the ONLY source of unbiased review available.

Go and listen to them again... If this was the ONLY thing you knew about this arranger (forget your entire personal experience), what it sounds like in these demos, would YOU buy one? There's a reason few of us have an MS on this forum. And, whether you want to admit it or not, those demos are that reason, pure and simple. Tech specs don't mean bupkes.. What sells arrangers are demos. Demos that ROCK! Demos that blow us away. Demos that make us go "I GOT TO HAVE ONE OF THESE!"

WALK THE WALK....

Hi ,
like AJ ,I think it certainly sounds interesting, but I tend to think also, you'd have to have some sort of control over it or you could end up with inappropriate phrases popping up during your song.

With BIAB recording , you just hit the play button again, & it comes up with a slightly different version, or a style can be modified to make it more suitable, or you can edit the song,
but in realtime arranger playing, you wouldn't a phrase that doesn't suit, pop up out of the blue.
Be interesting to see how they implement it.

Yamaha could possibly do with a bit more variety in their style tracks. The 16 tracks they use must be a bit limiting, compared to some of the other brands.

Thanks Jorgen for an interesting article.
best wishes
Rikki



[This message has been edited by rikkisbears (edited 07-05-2008).]

Rikki

Well I have now read the description several times; and tried to draw some boxes and lines to illustrate the function. It sure is hard ;-) and I am not sure I have caught all the details yet.

I get the same initial understanding as you; but I wish there were some kind of diagram. This would be easier - at least for me - to understand.

It would really be interesting if some kind of intelligent variation/modifications were possible. Maybe some ideas from algoritmic composing are included.

However the variation must be realistic compared to the style type; e.g different variation pattern/posibilities in swing and in 2beat.

The MIDI data (which are the main content of styles) are static; always the same pattern. This means that the variation must be in the hardware Operating System.

Today the MIDI data are - in a small scale - changed by the collaboration between the style CASM data and the operating system.
- The chord pattern in the MIDI file is transformed to the chord you play.
- You can have different patterns depending on the chord type played.
- Handling of chord changes etc.

That's all. The basic MIDI pattern IS the same. But this might change now.

From a style programmers and a style software programmers view this will be a new challenge. How is this implemented?

If the MIDI format still is the basics of a style; you can communicate from the style file to the hardware through SysEx commands in the style file.

And you can communicate to each model seperately; e.g. a SysEx message to Tyros 2 telling a Tyros 2 how to variate this specific style; and another SysEx message to S-900 telling a S-900 2 how to variate this specific style; etc.

Wish I had some Yamaha specifications; but... keep dreaming.

Well, I have to think and read this more.

Jørgen


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

Megavoices are professionally played Midi loops which get additional variations when notes outside their range are played, but not heard by the user.
I would guess that something similar will occur with the arranger style system mentioned in the patent.
To achieve this it would not need any specialised hardware, as it could all be done in software, and while it could not be added to existing hardware boards due to the current limited amount of Flash Rom that is onboard, this will change in the future as Flash Rom gets larger and cheaper.
Patents are designed for lawyers and designers, so don’t expect it to give any description for the person in the street to be able to understand it. (At least not until it is pre-production)
Regards

Bill

Hi Jorgen,
to be quite honest, I've only had a brief look. I was going more off the comments that a couple of members made as to what it was all about. ( I am familiar with BIAB, though)

Is it possible that they're just changing the style structure to more closely resemble how some of the other keyboards handle styles??
ie Ketron & ( I think Roland) have up to 3 sets of style tracks, 1 for maj, 1 for min, 1 for 7ths, to add variety. Korg uses up to 6 sets of tracks .

If they end up creating a really complicated system, may also become too complex for users to create styles which would be a pity.

The days of being able to convert current styles seem to be dissapearing.
EMC currently can't read korg PA800/PA2x styles (guessing, but Guitar Mode function may have had something to do with it).
Ketron Audya's audio loops will possibly be another big challenge for EMC.
If Yamaha ends up changing it's style structure, earlier Yamaha models may no longer be able to read styles from brand new models.
That has always been one of the great features with Yamaha, nearly any Yammie keyboard could read any Yammie style with a bit of editing, via programs like your own.

Anyway, be fascinated to hear what you manage to work out. Some of the technical jargon is way over my head. haahaa

best wishes
rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jørgen Sørensen:
[B]Rikki

Hi Rikki
The changes in style formats that you mention is not new to Wersi owners, as when OAS 5 was introduced none of the styles could be played correctly on earlier versions. (Also earlier styles had to be converted (Facilities that were included within OAS 5) to play correctly on OAS 5)
When the OAA was introduced this also had a completely new format that cannot even be recognised by standard OAS instruments. (Not even OAS 7)
As to the Major Minor chord sets you mention, from how I understand it reading the manuals, the OAA has 16 sets for each part of the style (Currently up to 18) i.e. each fill, break, variation etc (Part) can have their own setup, and can be edited using the style edit functions onboard, (It also gives greater control when converting Midi files to styles)
Still, so long as arranger technology moves forward it can only be a good thing.
Regarding converting the latest PA800 styles then this also applies to Wersi which also cannot convert them; however we are promised that it will be implemented in the not too distant future. (The Wersi style converter, like the Korg style converter is based on EMC Styleworks, and so the conversions should also become generally available)
The future looks bright

Bill

Hi

The implementation of the described features must require a change in the style format. Something must trigger the right changes in accompaniment.

In an earlier of my posts I suggested that sending a SysEx event could trigger the hardware operating system to create variations according to music/style type.

This triggering could also be achieved by changes in the CASM format - or by introducing a new chunk (section) in the style file. Anyway the features require some changes somewhere.

A major problem for style creators and for style software programmers (like myself) will be how we can utilize these features.

Until now Yamaha have never revealed the internal formats and functions of the operating systems. This has done it very hard to write software, as all formats and functions have had to be revealed be reverse-engineering. Which means a lot of try and error. And no guarantee for finding all features; and for the correctness of your findings.

Maybe this is an attempt to make it imposible for anybody else - than Yamaha - to create styles. Who knows? And what about backwards compatibility?

Jørgen

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

Does anybody else think that this new "arranger" keyboard may in fact be an arranger "module" instead?

This invention is by a couple of Japanese dudes who have the backing of the largest piano and keyboard manufacturer in the world i.e. Yammie! So R&D should not be a problem in my opinion and which also leads me to believe that we may see this beast to the marketplace in a couple years or less.

Think about it?? If Yamaha is unwilling to bring a 76 key totl arranger to market their next best option would be to bring this all encompassing arranger technology to the masses in the form of a Rackmount or Tabletop arranger 'module'?!?!?

Food for thought anyway.

I would be the first in line to buy it so they will at least recoup some of their R&D back. I'm sure others will follow suit as well. In other words, it would no doubt be a hot seller from day one and Yamaha would again make beaucoup $$$$ on another arranger product, albeit, this time an arranger "module" product.

Best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 07-06-2008).]

Or they may just incorporate it in the 61 note Tyros 4 or whatever replaces the forthcoming Tyros 3