I prefer onboard editing. Without a sophisticated player in the software, you have to tweak, port back to the arranger to try a full song with it, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Not to mention, many arranger players tend to be on the elderly side and a bit computer phobic. And some of us use Macs (bet you no Mac software!).

The thing is, genesys, if arrangers boil their feature sets down to what the lowest common denominator wants (basically, nothing but good styles), most features on any arranger would disappear. Few edit their sequences. Few use multiple Intros. Few use the Songbooks, hardly anyone ever uses the samplers, many don't use the harmonizers, many stick to just the OTS (no need for live patch selection ), no need for a chord sequencer or track, no need for looping fills, the list goes on and on... Heck, I bet well over half of ALL arrangers dial up a Free Panel setting and never change it... Who needs registrations, anyway!

The point is, while many don't use style editing MUCH, a lot of people use it a LITTLE. But you never know which editing tool you are going to need. Without style event editing, so many simple things that can ruin a conversion or making your own fills are impossible to fix. And those of us that DO do a little style editing need these, even if we don't completely roll our own.

If I were you, to be honest, I would be VERY cautious about broadcasting, for WHATEVER point you want to make, that virtually no-one uses the style editing on their arrangers. Because if the manufacturers start to take that seriously (as you seem to do ), you can be sure they will drop them completely. And then, where will YOU be?

YOU need detail style editing, we ALL need detail style editing, no matter how seldom we use it, or what we use it for. That's ALL they need to know. Trying to cut the rug out from under those of us willing to make some noise over their non-inclusion on the Audya could come back to bite you in the ass. Just be grateful SOMEONE is willing to fight for what you use daily.

Or be prepared to be like me, howling in the wilderness for the return of my Chord Sequencer... Another feature few used, despite it's it's essential nature to those who DID.

I never claimed When I edit/create styles my benchmark was to be “as good as the closed ROM ones” because that statement does not have any meaning, is very subjective and is irrelevant to me. That does not mean my edits are not “good” but my edits are done to fit my style of playing.

I am not saying that the styles from the factory are not good but just that I want something that would work for my style of playing and show.

It is just like taking a commercial midi file. The commercial midi file is not bad but I am sure most of us make changes to the file to fit out particular style of playing. Remember some arrangers even allow you to replace the midi drum track with style drums.

It is the same concept I have with styles.

And yes I do play western and ethnic music.

I am not castigating persons for admitting to not having the skills to edit or create styles to their particular playing style.

One of the things I like to do with my styles is that I have a set of styles that uses the same drum kits and bass guitar so that for a 1/1.5 set it sounds like the same band playing. And yes that is the sound I go for when editing or creating styles. I want to sound like a 4/5 member live band.

I am not saying that everyone should start to create or edit styles (for obvious reasons I would want everyone else to sound like a generic keyboard being played OTB). I am simply saying that just because you can not does not mean other persons can and will.

yes, I will not respond you asap because I already told you that this week and the next week I'm lways ouside my office for demostrate the MS to some new Italian and germany store.

You sent me offline this messages:
dennis dennis (02/06/2009 22.23.34): Dom, a question for when you are back on-line..Can I access the VST's from an external sequencer via MIDI? If so, how is this done?

dennis dennis (02/06/2009 22.54.28): sorry Dom was away from PC...thanks...But I actually want to play several VST's at once like from a midi file.I cannot access them from within the Qranger, so I am trying a different approach..What channels are used? Will these correspond to channels 1-16 on the MS? Can I just assign GM patch numbers from the external sequencer?

dennis dennis (02/06/2009 22.56.18): IE WHAT are the CC 0/32 and patch # to send form teh ext sequencer to select the VST (not the patch within the VST) OR are teh VST's already allocated by the MS to preset midi channels? Like VST host 1 = midi channel 1 VST host 6 = midi channel 6 etc etc ??

and much more old messages that we know..

Dennis, i told you a lot of time, Untill you can not understand well the Jack system and how to work the all ASIO host, make the all experiments that you like BUT at your risk!

If you continue change some configuration or connection or I don't know what, for sure you will also fill of bugs the Jack system too, same can happen on windows OS too.

The new kernel that you get, fixed the all serial dream chip issue too and the MS play perfect without any xruns too: http://www.lionstracs.com/demo/xrunsOS32.jpg

Till yesterday your MS was working and now will not booting the sounds...smell some strange, are you sure that is the MS OS the issue and not some your setups??

Fran told you the same, reinstall the OS 3.2+new kernel and the MS will start to work as before, simple.

this video demo shown tha the MS is working fine with a ton of connections: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FyARYMHX6o

This simple demo also shown that the MS is able to play the all night without crash, it mean stable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-6Mo2Gbk64

Booting the MS and use ONLY the MS OS and you can play hours without stop and restart system.
At home make the all experiments that you like and if you brocken the system, just CD>KEEP DATA...

Woh! I have always supported style editing on arrangers. I would always support advances that manufacturers would make in that respect. That is why I think the MS is leading in that area Unlike some persons who would keep criticizing the MS for having detail style editing. When persons tell the MS to not have these wonderful tools, other manufacturers like Yamaha, Roland and Korg would say “we do not have to have editing tools on our arrangers because arranger players can not and will not use them” and they would reference threads on synthzone on the MS.


That is the contradiction I was referring to. Criticizing the MS for having detail style editing while at the same time castigating the Audya for not having detail style editing.

1. The configuration is EXACTLY as you have it from the OS 3.2 PLUS the patch installed.

2. The MS form day one has had software issues that youi refuse to see, alwasy saying its someone else fault. This is NOT alwasy the case. You should perhaps give people the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing them of doing things.

3. You are always saying how connected you are wiht your Iphone and other communication devices, so why shouldn't someone expect some sort of response, even if its to say youar busy and will get back to it, within sya 24 hours.

4. As you well know and we have discussed at length you use a TCP protocol for most of the operations on the MS, it certainly is NOT usual MIDI..This is why we ask as we do not want to be accused of changing things without knowing about them. ITs why I ask you plenty of times about the MIDI/TCP mapping. God know there is NONE of this stuff available apart form in your head.

Its also what makes creating GOOD midi styles so difficult when you give us no access to NTT tables, or midi note wrap points. THey are but 2 issues withe the lack of midi specifications provided by Lionstracs.

There are no printed (or PDF) documents relating to Patch lists, and MIDI control data, any Remapping from TCP to mid, so you wonder why people have questions.
5. I repeat I have not changed ANYTHING to do with JACK...You told me very early to leave it alone and I have done so.

6. I have re-applied the patch and it is now working again, however it dose not fill me with confidence for the next job. I have been lucky to now that I have had no serious breaches when using it live, but the evidence points to it happening sometime.


Finally, that is the longest response I ahve got form you ever Dom, why does it take this sort of action to get assistance from you.

Vagro had the same, no replies to emails.
You see had you replied we would not be here. Are you sure YOU have not got it stuffed up and heve my address on a spam list??

You know Dom, I have been very patient and undertsanding of your situation and that you are pretty much running everything over there. But there comes a point when it does become overwhelming.

I have been one of the Media Stations biggest fans on SZ, I have many positive comments and overall its a good keyboard, but methinks you are listening too much to people giving you their interpretation of exactly what I am saying.

Anyway, at least you responded so thank you.

I must have missed something... who criticized the MS for HAVING great editing tools? Plenty of people criticizing it for NOT having great styles. Different thing, there... As of yet, I still haven't heard anyone manage to convert styles from other manufacturers to be better sounding that the closed arranger thay came for. Heck, half of the excitement comes from FINALLY, the MS can play Live-Styler software and an wanky XG soundfont, and sound better than it already does. Despite the MS having the great editing tools, I fail to find anyone that has managed to convert styles for disparate VSTi's and make them work. Putting together a collection of VSTi's that all work and sound together as a whole soundset (as closed arrangers' soundsets are) is a formidable task (if it isn't, where are all the examples of it?).

Next, I am sorry, but editing a style so that it uses the same drumkit and bass player is NOT detail style editing. This is simple header stuff that even the Audya can do (or will, because SD-1 could do that) already. We are talking about tools that allow you to change ONE NOTE. Say a conversion ends up with a major variation that plays a minor chord (it happens! ). You can't do anything to the header to fix this. But, if you have event editing, you can go in and change all the minor thirds to major ones.

The MS does not allow you to have great conversions with one small mistake in it. Every conversion has to be built up from the ground up, especially drumkits. And the whole nature of 'open'-ness means that no-one can DESIGN a converter for it, because everyone's MS has a different selection of VSTi's in it. Sound mapping, velocity mapping, EQ mapping, volume and effects mapping. All these things vary dramatically depending on which VSTi's are installed.

No-one at all, from what I've read here, has criticized the MS for having great tools to edit styles (mind you, no-one has praised the ease of their use, compared to the Roland Makeup Tools and Style Composer). They are absolutely indispensable given it's open nature. But PLENTY of people have an issue with the basic style selection and soundset that comes with it. And given that most of us don't create styles from scratch, but edit existing styles and composite them together, having a great selection of styles especially developed for the best of the MS's ROM soundset (not wanky PSR XG soundset) is pretty important.

I'm sorry if English is not your native tongue, but somehow I think you have got your wires crossed if this whole thing has been about you thinking people thought the MS did NOT need editing tools...

Deleted this, as I thought I have probably said enough on this thread and I do not wnat this to go on forever.

[This message has been edited by miden (edited 06-05-2009).]

I guess you did miss something.
First, when I gave the example of creating multiple styles with the same drum and bass sound, I was saying that to give a reason for creating/editing styles and not to say whether I do that with minor or detail editing.


Second, if you go back to a lot of the threads on the MS you would see the call for Dom to put more content on the MS and stop developing all the advance style editing tools.


And again you are still talking in the very abstract language of “Good”, “better,” “best”. All subjective and don’t have any meaning.

And converted styles? That is one of the selling points for Yamaha arrangers that there are lots and lots of converted and third party styles for Yamaha. So there is no problem there at least for most arranger players.

And when you say most of us do not create styles from scratch you should qualify that with here on synthzone.


And I am sorry, but if a style is near perfect OTB for a user, then why would you need detail style editing?

If a manufacturer is going to put all of its RandD in to style content that they know would work near perfect OTB for the synthzone arranger club, then what would be the incentive to develop advance style creation tools?

If manufacturers see that arranger users say that they do not have the skill to use advance features of an arranger, then why should they spend money on those advance features? That is probably why Roland did not put the CS on the G 70.

If you still do not get it let me use another analogy.

Yamaha users are showing that they are content with a cheap plastic 61 key arranger.
Do you think there is any incentive for Yamaha to make a well-built 76 key arranger? No. It is not worth Yamaha’s time and money to do that. They no people would buy the cheap 61 key arranger and a well-built 76 key arranger would not bring them any returns.

Likewise, if manufacturers see that users of arrangers are showing that they do not have the skill to create styles, and edit styles in detail, then why should manufacturers have those features. All they would do is concentrate on subjective additions i.e. making the most perfect styles OTB that they think those same persons want.

Hi
I tend to think it's not the playing skills that people lack ( for style creation), and that it's maybe it's more to do with how to go about it. Manuals are not very clear. Unfortunately a certain amount of initial studying of the manual does have to be done when recording or even editing, ie to work out what notes are allowable, what chord type should be used, figuring out setting of note transposition tables etc. Can be confusing if using a different brand of keyboard. A guitar phrase recorded for a psr wouldn't wouldn't work with a Ketron style, but could be used in a Korg style.

If some of this stuff is not correct, the style is never going to sound right no matter how well a style phrase was recorded.

Over at Korg, there's a number of users that create their own styles using various methods.

best wishes
Rikki

Most manuals aren't too good about style editing....most people learn by trial and error, or have someone show them how to do it.

A lot of my clients want to learn basic style editing...re-voicing, swapping parts around, how to make intros that respond to chords...nothing really hard, but again, the manual isn't always clear....I am kept pretty busy with clinics regarding style editing.

Some people still only use their laptops and PC's for email, Facebook and Twitter, and perhaps a bit of photo editing, but we still have plenty of new features/programs that keep being added, so it will be no different for arrangers,,,new features sell, regardless if everyone uses them.

Yamaha is making style editing available on their lower end arrangers, rather than dropping it...I can't see them dumping a feature whose R&D has been paid for many times over...and one that is still used quite often...I don't think Roland will do anything like that, either.

I suspect the chord sequencer was made redundant for a lot of users when SMF and markers became available on arrangers.

Ian