All I've been trying to do is inject a sense of reality into this discussion. No-one, to anyone's knowledge, managed to turn the MS into something integrated and superior in overall sound and versatility to a T3/PA2 etc..
DESPITE the 'potential'.
I'm not putting these things down, just trying to put a little dose of smelling salts under your noses. I mean, in the studio, I use all the same tools that are gathered together in the Groove, loop players, soft synths, soft samplers. Been doing it for YEARS (since VSTi's were invented and before). And if I've learned ONE thing from the whole process, it's that getting a realtime integrated musical performance out of the process is a VERY difficult task. It isn't ANYTHING like stepping up to a closed WS or arranger. Simply the task of balancing the sounds to each other, EQ-ing them, making sure the same sonic space surrounds them is hard enough on ONE tune. Creating a balanced sound set that you can use to quickly compose and record a variety of musics is really, really difficult.
It's why I prefer that the TOTL VSTi's come pre-installed and balanced, and demonstration content provided before I consider that something that comes open is going to be any LESS work than what I already have... And I see little point in any system that is MORE difficult than what I already use.
I've long ago decided that, for live gigging, most TOTL arrangers are already the ideal keyboard. Few customers can tell the difference between my G70 B3 emulation and B4 in a live setting, few can tell the difference between the G70 piano and a VSTi one, why complicate my life doing something the hard way, when the easy way already exists..?
The thing isn't that this should be a discussion (how long has this same one been going on for?
)... it should be those with 'open' arrangers (especially for here) and WS's SHOWING us how 'easy' all this is. We already know how easy it is on a TOTL arranger. Rather than READING about it, I should be LISTENING to the open proponents' music, done on open keyboards. I mean, no shortage of closed arranger demos. I'm sorry but only a tiny number of 'open' demos posted here have impressed me at all, whereas a MUCH larger number of closed ones have.
I STILL don't want to be TOLD how easy a closed system is, I want to be SHOWN. And I know how good an open system can sound in the hands of an expert. I'd just like some acknowledgment of just exactly HOW good you are going to have to be before you don't need those amazing voice creators, soundset creators and content creators that create integrated WS's and arrangers that most of us already use and rely on.
Let us not forget, also that even a lot of so called 'closed' WS's and arrangers have samplers. That can play sliced audio loops, too. My take all along has been, WHY do I HAVE to forgo these integrated soundsets and content, to get an 'open' system. Isn't the answer a combination of BOTH...? It's only laziness or lack of money, because any open system COULD have a great onboard set to get you started. But it seems that no-one realizes the sales potential of something that STARTS OUT as something like a MoXS or PA2X, and then ADDS the open stuff. Seems like you shouldn't have to make the choice.
I want both. Does this make me a bad person?