Each individual requires different features in a board, therefore I thought it would be a good idea for members to say exactly what they want in a board, (Include why if you wish) and then see what other members suggest would suit that person. (With the number of different boards out there, it would be impossible to know every feature of them, but owners will)

Here are my requirements

1. The capabilities to use external sounds. (This is because I was using VSTi and other samples long before I had an arranger, (I was using a computer based system) and once you have used them, you never want to be without them)

2. All the advantages of an auto accompaniment, with individual control in an easy to use and integrated package. (Song specific (all singing and dancing) styles are a no, no)

3. Can be situated in the lounge without upsetting domestic harmony

4. Can be played by others without requiring technical expertise (Switch on and play)

Look forward to suggestions and others requirements

Bill

I want is a keyboard that I can make my own, something 100% personal to me so much that if you buy one too, yours will sound nothing like my one unless you can somehow figure out what software I'm using on it and clone my work.

It also must function flawlessly.

Regards
James

Bill. My request relates to Styles. What I would like to see in an arranger.
To get rid of the repetitious loop of styles Band In a Box use a system that picks style parts from a Data Base of the style selected. This varies depending on how long you hold a chord for and also how many chord changes in a bar.
Should work well in an arranger keyboard to make the style more life like.

Minimal weight, 88 weighted keys and a decent sounding stareo grand piano and I'll play it all night.

If it's an arranger keyboard you're talking about, then I'd want the weight less than 30 lbs, great piano, organ, guitar, strings and sax sounds, exceptional 3rd party support, built in speakers, 5 octave light action keybed, easy to use/learn rock solid reliable OS, a nice basic built in 16 track sequencer with audio to USB capability, and, last but certainly not least, great accompaniment styles with easy editing.

I don't need sampling, or sample importation...just basic sound editing will do fine.

Mmmmm...so far, I've just described my PSR-S910.

1. Decent sounds and styles
2. Intuitive UI that allows on-the-fly changes in live performance
3. Um, that's it

more a wishlist than a requirement

*under 30 lbs
*solid build quality and keybed
*easy to use OS
*minimal pages in edit mode
*More dedicated knobs and buttons
*state of the art storage USB2, SDHC, etc.
*large touchscreen
*built in PC/Mac editing software
*more global editing settings
*performance sequencer is good enough for me
*Don't need 1000 sounds, just great piano, organ, strings, wind and brass. Don't need 50 EP's, give me two or three good ones. Only one page/screen per instrument sound.
*Don't need sampling
*

Hi Bill,
basically a korg, with yamaha styles/ ketron drums/& the addition of Diki's G70 style makeup tools to complete the PA's already good style editing/creation functions.
best wishes
Rikki


[QUOTE]Originally posted by abacus:
[B]

It's a more complex question than it first seems. "What do you require in a keyboard?"

I guess the simple answer would be 'Everything!'

The trouble starts when you don't realize that you could need your keyboard to do several completely contradictory tasks. For live, solo stuff, you need one thing. For studio work and pro production, you need another. For dance production, something else, for retro acts and recording, something else again.

Live, you need the ultimate ease of use even perhaps at the cost of the quality of the sounds (an awful lot of detail gets lost in a band or busy solo situation). You need an OS geared towards instant recall of any setup, seamless changes from one setup to another, conveniences like lyric readers, songbook lists, easy patch selection and fast on the fly mixing of setups you create on the spot.

In the studio, there's more time. More detail in editing voices, setups, effects, routings, etc. are required. 'Close enough' isn't a phrase that should used much! Versatility, flexibility, customizability, a degree of 'openness' even if it is just a sampler or loop player, and a VERY comprehensive set of controls make for a powerful studio tool. But they are the very things that work against you if you play out live, unless you do a highly choreographed show that never asks you to do something you haven't already prepared for.

Then there's the 'open' keyboard issue... Most people know my opinion of those... if you aren't at the top of your game, you are setting yourself up for a frustrating time getting as good an overall sound and degree of usefulness as a closed one. Whether studio OR live, but especially live...

Retro keyboards, the accuracy of the emulation is the main criterion, followed by ease of live use, again.

All different keyboards, with different focus. Expecting any one to cover everything with the same ease is unrealistic. This is possibly one of my issues with open keyboard supporters. Yes, theoretically, one good open keyboard OUGHT to be able to do it all. Sadly, IMO, they haven't made one yet that does. No doubt eventually, it can be done. But until then...

I like specialists. Got great WS's and a decent VSTi rig for studio, got a great live keyboard for live. There's a certain amount of crossover (mainly towards studio use) but each are better at one thing than the other. And I'm happy with that. Maybe, a ways in the future, someone is going to make something that IS the master of all trades, but so far, I haven't found it..!

Perhaps you and I have different criteria, Diki...I'm very happy with the PSR-S910 as both a "live" arranger, and a recording instrument.

If I wanted a piano (that felt like a piano), or organ (same deal), I'd get them...perhaps a CP-300, and maybe an XK-1, but for my arranger needs, emphasis on the "my", the S910 is the ideal instrument.

I suppose it depends on what you have planned for it...I just want a nice sounding, easy to transport arranger, that will also let me make a CD of my playing, to use as a promo, or even to sell.

I can do it very nicely with the S910.


[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-25-2009).]

Ian, I am glad your arranger does just what you want it to do. My G70 does what I want it to do... I just don't ask it to do EVERYTHING

Thing is, I guess it depends at what level you are recording at. My label clients expect a better overall sound than any arranger can get by itself (otherwise I'd be only too happy to use the one thing!). Yes, I've used my G70 on quite a few projects, but I've also HAD to use other things, the Kurzweil, Tritons, Nord's, REAL B3 and Steinway, many VSTi's, whatever I need to record with.

SOME things in the G70 are good enough, some aren't. There's a lot to like about the S910, but I'm pretty sure that, for my use, I'd have to say the same thing for it, too...

Well, my friend, my idea (or goal) is that my clients (or listeners) hear the same thing on the CD that they hear when I'm playing "live".

That's why the S910 works for me.

It's a great "live" arranger, that just happens to make recording very easy.

If there was a better keyboard for my arranger needs, I'd have it in a flash....but, I'm content...can't ask for much more than that from an instrument.

NUMPAD NUMPAD NUMPAD! I hate selecting sounds on the s-900.
First, pick a category, which is one set of buttons, then, select which page of sounds, which is another set of buttons, then, select which sound on that page, which is yet a 3rd set of buttons. Makes me crazy. Same with the styles. Wish there was a numpad like my XP-80 has and everything is nice and handy using only 1 set of buttons which is as handy and familiar as a calclulator or phone.
Then, I want nord's piano, E-piano, and organ sounds. Yamaha's Super articulation sounds, Roland's SRX-01 drums. And the basses from the SRJV expansion board, and the banjos, dobros, and steel guitars from the SRJV country board. Korg's styles, but Ketron's latin styles. That would be a good start.

Great suggestion, Rory...I haven't seen number pads on a higher end arranger (at least any brands that I'm familiar with) in quite a while; the last one I remember was the Yamaha PSR-SQ-16.

There's a reason, or reasons why they aren't used much anymore on arrangers...perhaps it is cost, or perhaps they weren't popular enough?

Number pads are more accessible for the visually impaired, am I correct?

Having registration memories has helped a bit, I suppose.

S910 is close to perfect for my needs sound wise...... for now......great improvements over the S900...

would like only a FEW MORE THINGS.....

MFD to save all information including transpose

Larger RAM memory

FRONT USB access

Independent simultaneous STYLE/SMF/MP3 play

8 OTS buttons

All rear inputs/outputs on one side ......right or left

1. Reliability
2. Dependability
3. Functionality
4. versatility
5. Local Serviceability
6. System Stability
7. Great Sounds (all voices & Styles)
8. Reasonable price
9. Light Weight
10.Sunlight Viewable Display and Buttons

All of the above make me a happy camper.

Cheers,

Gary

We work as a duo so I want my keyboard's harmonizer with two XLR inputs such that it'll take two vocalists and have the ability to switch between them. That is, vocalist one is singing lead while vocalist two is singing harmony. Then, at the press of a button, flip of a switch, or touch of a screen, vocalist two is now singing lead and vocalist one is now singing harmony.

I guess you could say numpads are accessible for blind people, but man, aren't they accessible for sighted people as well? I mean, you really like using 3 different sets of buttons to get 1 sound? If I have to press 3 buttons, I'd rather it be 065, 114, etc, nice and handy all in one spot.

A direct link with my rusty brainsells where it automaticly does what I want while I'm playing.

That's all.

Fred

Hey Fred, I think that's called practice. Plus, it's free .

chas

New Roland GW-8 and I think the Prelude allows numeric patch AND registration and style selection.

Seems like SOMEONE is listening, at least...

124, have you considered that extra XLR inputs, preamps, and all the processing they would need (two EQ's, two compressors, gates, etc.) would add considerably to the cost. How about a simple crossover switch, to route one of two mikes to the arranger input, and one to the board? Cost maybe twenty dollars, does exactly the same thing?

Thing is, they could EASILY make an arranger that would satisfy all of us musically. Trouble is, by the time you add ALL of what we need, not one single person here could afford it!

I think, the better you play, the less you require. When you reach the top of the heap, all you'll need is a good piano (Oscar Peterson, Bruce Horsby, Harry Connick, Jr., Elton John, etc., etc.). I don't think there is a single world-class keyboardist that owes his/her success to the number of gadgets on their keyboards. Learn to use what you have. Example: while nearly everyone complains about the poor quality of the on-board harmonizer in the Yamaha, Dan gets unanimous praise for his harmony work on his PSR3000. And 124 got kudos for his tasty accompaniment (Jambalaya) on his WWII-era I30 .

Now when's that hybrid T4/Audya2/Mediastation XXX, coming out? Damn, I can hardly wait.

chas

Sorry, chas... the better you get, the MORE you need.

Most of us are content to have a decent arranger back us up. Oscar, Harry, Elton, those guys require the finest players in the world to back them up..! Not one of them would even DREAM of playing out with an arranger

Oh, and don't even get me started about whether they would be fine with a PSR piano patch, or whether their contract stipulates a freshly tuned Steinway, or Baldwin, or Bluthner!

Even if they DO choose to play just the ONE sound, that one sound is at the highest level you can buy, accompanied by the best that money can buy...

My response was based upon my understanding of the post, "what do you require in a keyboard?", not, "WHO do you require to back you up?". I think if the original question were posed to any of those guys, you'd get answers like, 'key feel', responsiveness, tone, probably even looks. In any case, since there are no absolute truths in this world, I'll just continue to think that my response was valid for me.

chas

Now, if they'd only listened a tad harder, and allowed the owner the use of those nifty numeric and patch registrations to gain access to style assembly...it can't be that hard to implement in the OS...unless it was designed never to have that feature.

Style assembly would make the GW-8/Prelude very tempting, and an even bigger bang for the buck.

And...while we're at it...why haven't the GW-8 and Prelude got a chord sequencer.

Someone (not mentioning any names, but his name begins with Diki ) has been asking this for quite some time now...seems like that request has fallen on deaf ears...well, at least for the time being.

Then again, sometimes they are listening, and the answer is no.

Wouldn't it be incongruous to see Casio implement a chord sequencer on their next arranger? They did have this feature on one of their earlier arrangers.

I've also heard a fairly reliable rumour that Casio is working on the equivalent to Yamaha's SA, and Korg's DNC.

Maybe we'll all get a surprise.




[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-27-2009).]

How could a Chord Sequencer have ANY value (or numeric patch entry, etc.)?

Yamaha don't implement ANY of those, and they are the ne plus ultra of arrangers, aren't they?

Trust me... if it ain't on a Yamaha, you are a fool to need it...

the PA1x has a touch screen number pad that comes up as an option when you are either working in the sequencer, sound editing or effects editing. Its really cool.

Even though you sometimes have the proclivity to be a tad sarcastic , I must agree with much of your above statements..

I actually did use the chord sequencer (it was on my old E-70), but not a lot....I can see it's value, nevertheless.

Methinks it fell by the wayside because:

1. There wasn't enough interest to warrant keeping it.

2. Part (or maybe, all) of the reason for #1 was, no doubt, the SMF Player...most performers, and entertainers (certainly not real players ) figured, why not just go the extra step, and play Karaoke style over the entire song?...sometimes human nature has a tendency to select the easier path.

The reason I mention Casio's possible new direction, is that their local rep has purchased several old synthesizers from me, and is sort of a "go have a coffee(or tea, in my case) with buddy", and, he has let a few things slip out (perhaps unknowingly...or even scarier, perhaps not) about some sort of "Enhanced Sample System" or ESS...ahhh...maybe it was just the coffee...it was a Tim Horten's Triple Triple which is strong enough to burn the heart out of a small horse, but, like booze, has been known to loosen a person's tongue occasionally. Sometimes the tongue will actually fall out.

Are you getting a lot of use out of your second G-70...is it set up more permanently (studio?)and the other is the roving instrument?

One's home, one stays in the case Life is good!

The thing about the CS is that I always considered it the EASIEST solution to the problem. Either finding an appropriate sequence for a song (for the 'entertainers') or actually making one, either from scratch or from arranger play, seems MUCH more work than simply hitting REC while you play the head, and hitting PLAY when you needed to use both hands...

Making a sequence, especially back then when there weren't any onboard sequencers with Marker capability always left you with that 'play once and never deviate' system, so alien to arranger users who can go anywhere, play and medley anything at the drop of a hat...

I happen to feel that probably at least 50% of ANY arranger's features are probably unused or underused by most players. Roland simply made the mistake of actually LISTENING to their idiot customer base, rather than sticking doggedly to what they KNEW was a unique and game changing feature...

After all, they stuck doggedly to MANY idiotic 'features' LONG after other keyboards moved on... only one drum track, no multipads, un-synched SMF and arranger play, no sampler, no Mega or SA voices

Why they chose the CS to axe while keeping these things eludes me!