The Insider. Just to say...Great Article and very interesting read.

Hi Diki. It is just about preference for me . My brother uses cubase , i use the onboard sequencer. The difference is that where ever i am i am just seconds away from capturing an idea and padding it out on my onboard sequencer into a very detailed production whereas my brother cant. There are very many like me and my brother which is why the manufcaturers continue to make instruments that are capable of dealing with both sets of requirements.

Thats not to say i will never use a software sequencer but for speed and accessibility you just cant beat a hradware sequencer buiolt into the instrument you make music on.

I am with Spalding on this topic..I have always been comfortable with my G1000 on board sequencer and now the G70 sequencer...

For the same reasons as Spalding...Immediate access to anything I want to sequence or edit...correcting sequence problems..eliminating system exclusive problems..all can be quickly done right on board...anywhere..

Maybe an elaborate start to finish project in the studio..the PC has merit, but for everyday..spur of the moment..give me the on board sequencer..
Now I am use to Roland..maybe other brands may or may not fair as well...

Well, I guess I need to qualify what I said about on-board sequencers just a bit...

I DO use the G70's Recorder, which does a grand job of 'capturing' the arranger's complete output with minimal hassle, but usually, unless my editing needs are almost non-existent, I'll bang the SMF quickly, via USB, straight over to Cubase, and do any major surgery there.

My G70 tends to either be at a gig, or at home in front ofd the computer, so it's rare that I am in a composing situation where I DON'T have the computer handy. The G70's sequencer is about as full featured as any on board sequencer can be, but it is still a shadow of the power and ease of Cubase...

However, the Roland's have this section called Makeup Tools, where you can edit sequences and styles, with respect to their headers... Patch, volumes effects, dynamics, and detail editing INSIDE a drum kit (change sounds, dynamics, volumes, effects for each drum sound) that is head and shoulders better than doing it on a computer (most of this is sys-ex, anyway).

So, if the 'capture' doesn't need more than just a remix, and some tweaking to the drum kit, occasionally, the piece doesn't end up in Cubase. But that's a rare thing, as it's next to impossible to edit out any 'glitches' (OK, just difficult and tedious ) in a list editor... MUCH easier in Cubase, IMO...

Ciao,

You mention that you use Cubase SX3 / 4. Do you know if it is possible to make styles using Cubase? If so, how?

There's something about it in the manual but it is very cryptic and nobody I called at Yamaha could help. I now have the T2 and the Pa2x, and on the Pa2x it is so easy. If I could get Cubase to do the same for Yamaha that would be amazing!

Thank you,
Chony

Hi Chony

you would need to speak to a product specialist about that - Cubase is being used to create the midi data only.

Andy

Could you please refer me to one? My email address is cmilecki@yahoo.com.

Without trying to toot my own horn, I make hundreds of ethnic styles and I think if somebody could guide me in this I would be an asset to the Yamaha community...

Thanks,
Chony

[This message has been edited by chony (edited 08-09-2008).]

I certainly wish keyboards had a more inuitive sequencer on board because I am often using the keyboard without a computer attached and it would be nice to be able to make sequence edits in that situation. As it is that is not usually the case and I have to wait until I get home to make those edits. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON an onboard sequencer should'nt be just as intuitive as Cubase or Cakewalk.

Nigel,

I completely agree with you. Why MI manufacturers don't have onboard sequencers that match their computer counterparts is beyond me. It's not like the program would take up much memory so clearly that's not the reasoning for the lack of incorporation. My main beef with most arrangers and workstations is that the manufacturers tout them as "all in one solutions" which isn't the case. How am I supposed to compose, record, and mix within the unit if I don't even have a decent sequencer or recording software built in? If I wanted to hook the arranger/workstation up to my computer I wouldn't have bought the damned thing in the first place. There are many sound modules and synths I can buy to do that for a lot less money.

Wersi has used Cubase as the included sequencing software since the inception of OAS so there's no need for me to use a computer, its all in there. They have also included their own custom sequencing software in OAS 7 which allows the user to do extensive style editing, sequencing, and audio recording. Every manufacturer should offer this type of sequencer in their systems.

I love you guys! I really do!

You honestly expect them to put something as powerful and as graphically intuitive as Cubase in a hardware arranger, squeeze it through a tiny four inch display, and not charge an arm and a leg..?

Retail price on sequencers as intuitive as this run at least $500. THEN, try to work them through a tiny 4" monitor... Yikes! Even a 17" is pushing it...

Look, I'm sorry if I don't understand this, but each and every one of you posting (or even reading) here has a computer easily capable of running at LEAST the MIDI side of the latest Cubase... I simply cannot understand the reluctance to move to Cubase (or something similar) to make sequencing easy. It's no harder than a built-in, in fact, far easier (fewer limitations), and it's already in the house with you...

Trust me... spend as much or as little time on it as you did learning hardware based sequencing, and it will be MUCH easier to achieve better results than any hardware will EVER be...