Dom and I have our testy moments, but I realize the promise of his product, which is why I always feel so let down when I hear it being used. You have to understand that the VAST majority of arranger users are looking for basically a turn-key system, and then the more tweaking you can do FROM THAT POINT the better. But, for it to succeed in the market he chose (still not sure why he went the arranger route, given the majority of it's users needs - I would have thought a WS approach for this product would have got him the more adventurous customers it needs ), it needs to at least sound as good as the competition OOTB. Which, sadly to say it doesn't, at least from the demos. And given that you can't find one ANYWHERE, this is the ONLY way you can hear one.

It would be interesting to hear what you feel about this type of keyboard, where doing the voicing of almost everything you use is the responsibility of the user, not the highly talented factory voicers that 'closed' systems enjoy...

In fact, do you actually use an arranger at all for anything (other than providing demos)? How do you see their use, and capabilities?

It would be interesting to hear from you....

Hi Diki - I have used the T2 on many projects outside Style and Demo programming because I am familiar with it and it offers quick solutions when I am constrained by tight deadlines - programming a large Orchestral library voice by voice and articulation by articulation, while gratifying, is also very time consuming especially, as, when you get the opportunity to, say, let an egocentric 2nd Violin Section have it's head for 4 bars this can take an hour to sort out, and I am probably the only one who notices as it is swamped by the voiceover anyway!

Oh and by the way the client calls from Belize at 21.00 and wants a 2 minute track by 23.30 the same day, so for speed it is my default for certain voices and definitely for Guitars and Sketching.

I played live for a while with my wife and in the end I was using a laptop to run Bespoke Cubase Arrangements running a JV1080, T2 and a couple of VSTs in Cubase 5.1. The reason for the 5.1 was that you set up al the VIs in the song then import the arrangement (quickly!)with all the reset data but don't lose the core VST settings I also started automating my Vocals (mainly mute!) as I have a ProMix 01 for live /location work.

I don't have an electric guitar (and am not good enough anyway) and so if there is no budget, I'll program - this usually takes as much time as the whole of the rest of the arrangement(especially if it's acoustic strumming), so I try to make sure there's a budget.

Well it's a different solution. Voicing is a real art - I am fortunate to work with some of the best in the world, and my very limited experience shows it to be very time consuming. However in an X76 scenario I guess you are building the specific blocks you want. It's really the answer for those dissatisfied with OOTB solutions, make your own Soundset, Styles, Audio backing, whatever you want. I use a lot of software and as a PC user struggle at times for processing power. A hardware device is a different animal - I am still using my JV1080 for Bass, sometimes for Rhodes, occasionally for PCM Synth voices form the 80s. Some soft synths cut it, some don't. Using the Polysix emulation in the OASYS was beautiful, but from memory, not REAL. . . but then again, no midi, 32 patches, battery eventually dies while on tour, buy a DW8000, need for a show, buy a Wavestation AD etc

We all love gear, lets face it, and one guy's E80 is another's PA2X is another's Orla, Gem, Wersi (if you're really loaded! :-)) ois another guys XS or Fantom,so who knows.

i have used the yamaha sequencer. There is no way Insider would have have done those demos using the T2 Sequencer Diki. It would have taken him a month :-) If i understand him correctly Insider used external sequencers to sequence the midi files for his demo's?????

If my understanding is correct that is the basic problem with demo's that i hear on the Tyros because it would be very difficult to produce a demo that sounds like the demos on the instrument itself without using external gear.

Insider talked about tweaking a riff on one of the SA sax's . I have no doubt that he could have played it live if he re-recorded it again directly into the keyboard but it would have been very difficult to micro edit that sax using the onboard song player/sequencer.

Hi Spalding - last post before I away to bed.

I consider the interface of Cubase to me the modern equivalent of a Score. I can see the entire arrangement, display controller data and get an immediate overview of what's going on. Of course, I have also written the score too, and it is setup in a way that all those who come after me may look at in the same way, so there is a common language and any changes are all easily accessible.

I have been using the program for a long long time now (coming up for 20 years) and I suppose in some ways it is difficult to break old habits too. Every note and piece of data in a composition can be up for discussion and has to be justifiable - this is how seriously this is taken. The same goes for Style programming, a lot of care is taken to try and make it as good as it can be and it will be picked apart with a fine (digital of course) toothpick.

So tweaking the riff was a decision based on "I like the performance so that's a keeper". However to drop in beats 13.2.4.40 - 13.3.1.00 is a bit of a challenge, so I wrote it in because it made it sound that little bit better - I already liked the rest of it, I just wanted a bit of Icing too. Maybe I am the only one who knows it's there, well obviously you know now, too.

For the purists, apologies, just tryin' to do my job. . . .

i wasnt knocking you brother. I just know how cumbersome the yamaha sequencer is and it killed many great ideas that i had because i could not develope them in the way that i wanted to as the inspiration came to me ....at the instrument itself. I dont work with external sequencers , dont have the space and inclination. Thats why Yamaha did not get my money last time and korg did. I can take my ideas and produce them right there at the keyboard. If yamaha were to upgrade the T3 with a decent sequencer they would be have a good chance of toppling my PA1X .....nah perhaps not !! good night fella.

Andy,

Would you mind telling me how you learned to emulate all the instruments so they don't sound unnatural when played from a keyboard? Or did you simply have each instrumentalist go over the characteristics of their own instrument and take each instrument one by one. I'm eventually going to do that with a guitarist as a guitar can be played in so many ways.

Example of what I mean: to play like a violinist, I learned to set the vibrato to come in with aftertouch, bend the notes with the pitch wheel, and (I used to use) portamento. With the trumpet, I did the same thing for a "spit" effect.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist and would like to have more knowledge than what I've figured out so far. Any suggestions?

Lucky



[This message has been edited by Lucky2Bhere (edited 08-07-2008).]

Sorry, spalding, but you seem to be determined to do things the hard way...

Firstly, no sequencer editing if possible, all played live, no edits, yada yada yada... And now, no use of a computer sequencer, only the built-in ones for you, apparently. Fascinating. Very old school. I guess you use what you get comfortable with, but for the life of me, I can't see how working with a built-in offers any advantages over a computer sequencer, and I can name several editing options available in Cubase that exist in no hardware arranger sequencers, that I use on a daily basis. Groove quantizing, conditional edits, positional edits, amongst many others. Then there is the issue of a completely ungraphical interface...

As my arranger and other keyboards sit around my computer rig, I can't for the life of me think of one good reason to use the crippled, unintuitive and poorly displayed sequencers built into arrangers these days. It's all about speed, and I guarantee I can fly around on Cubase MUCH faster than any hardware one.

Is there some kind of philosophical reason you prefer hardware sequencers, or is it just familiarity, and lack of desire to try newer methods? I USED to use hardware sequencers, but the day I got Cubase, I have never used one since!

Lucky you are already there- you are looking for the solutions that work for you. For me the Violin is all about attack so if I am looking for an emulation that sounds real, swelling in expression and legato/staccato arpeggios and inflections are some traits to look at.

Similarly, guitar-like behaviour as a lead voice may be a 2-handed affair - thinking about what is going on in both hands and resonance of other strings, hand position on the fret board and what might be playable in that position and mute effects all combine
to add to a more interesting solution. (Edit: also think about a guitarist's vibrato - really it is pitchbend up - the modulation wheel is a Whammy bar inflection really, isn't it.)

Megavoice technology was invented to enable more realism. It is clearly not really a playable voice, hence the SA voice Architecture. However as a programming tool, I believe it redefined the hardware arranger behaviour and sound, and so it's something that if you're interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of, is worth spending time
investigating.

I would also recommend looking at some of the conversion tools that come with the T2 as it is possible to take a non Megavoice file and add some spice to it. Some effort was put in to create this ability and it's worth checking out if you have the inclination, as it does a great job mimicing solutions that programmers employ.

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

I did not feel knocked - just slightly bruised :-) - just kidding. You found the priorities that work for you and that is fantastic. I also think that it is marvellous that there is such choice out there. Everybody gets to sample the different takes and ideas that the manufacturers put out there. Everyone votes with their wallet and clearly the diversity of choice can only be a good thing, can't it?

Your loyalty and commitment to your brand of choice is admirable and completely understandable, and I think the inter-brand rivalry is ultimately healthy, rather than negative.

I posted in the first instance, as I too am passionate about what I do and frankly spend a large part of my life doing it. I am not going to say I don't get disheartened if somebody slags off what I've done, and perhaps this is unprofessional of me to even be taking part in this discussion, however I do try my hardest, and when it is liked and appreciated, that is very satisfying and I'll take any knocks to push myself further in the pursuit of the unachievable.

All the best

Andy