Irishacts,

I thought Diki liked the PA2x, have I missed something, I know he don't like the Audya, or do he??? Hey, this thread is 3 page going on 17 all about 3 Kbs.

I have been told by the UK Ketron site that OS4 will blow my sockets off, we will wait and see, what to you think AJ, do you wear socks.

Irishacts do you feel on this occasion you are having a job getting through, I sense so!

[This message has been edited by Tony Hughes (edited 11-03-2009).]

I think Diki has what he want's already (the G70) and that's about as far as he's going to go for a long time.



No kidding
I think if I have to repeat myself again I'll just slash my wrists.

Cheers
James

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 11-03-2009).]

James,

if you are going to slash your wrists do it in true Irish style not across but down the length. I binned my G70 2 years back, did I miss something.

Cheers.

Sorry to correct you James, but perhaps you are not that familiar with Roland's (or unable to admit when you are wrong )....

There are MANY patches in the G70 and on SRX cards (that run on the G70 engine) with FAR more going on in the voice parameters than the simple ADR envelopes that the front end allows you access too. Swells, cross-switches, cross fading between oscillators, inverted envelopes, monophonic behavior, retriggering envelopes, the list goes on and on.

What the USER gets at the front end is very simple, just enough to fine tune and perhaps reshape the sound a LITTLE. But, back at the factory, some programmer put all the complex behavior in at the FULL voice engine, and wrote it to ROM. If the G70's engine could not do these things, the patch could not do these things. And, I can assure you they DO...

After all, the G70's sound engine is based on the Fantom. That's a LOT of programming power. It's just that Roland, like most other arranger makers, keep what the USER has access to to more basic editing, thinking (probably rightly) that that is sufficient power without intimidating the user for what he is likely to need. Roland have a pretty large selection of synth leads and pads, then I added an SRX board with a ton more, and for live, I haven't YET found anything I couldn't get 'close enough for live' out of the ROM patches with a little tweaking.

Sure, I want to create something utterly unique, I've got to perhaps go to the K2500 or the Triton or the VSTi's, but on the whole, when playing live, I am not expected to come up with something utterly unique. Cover music doesn't really need that, and I can't remember EVER seeing an original electronica band that used arrangers...

I am as interested in voice tweaking as anyone. I defy you to find a keyboard with a more powerful, more convoluted voice editing system than the K2500 (other than the K2600 ), and I know it pretty backwards and forwards. But somehow, I manage to perform live without that complexity, doing the kind of material I do. Sure, I'm not trying to do Jean Micheal Jarré, or Tomita, or Wendy Carlos or trance, but I can get close enough to any of those to fool the average listener with my presets.

There's about 400 synth pads and leads in the G70 ROM. There's another 200+ on the SRX-07 card (not counting its' 300 odd acoustic sounds). If you can't find what you need out of 600+ high quality synth patches (with ADR and basic LFO and filter offsets), it may be time to reconsider whether an arranger is the right keyboard for you. And get a Kurzweil!

I still don't get why you don't grok the concept that, if it's OK for the Oasys to NOT be an arranger, why isn't it OK for an arranger to NOT be an Oasys? As long as it does the task it is designed for...

Consider me the odd out when it comes to the PA800. Maybe I just got a "good one", even as the original launch. The DNC and all that was good, including additional styles, but I have to say the 800 is the very best board ever produced and it it serves me well (as with the audience too) about 500x per year and more in 2010. I cannot imagine ever playing a different instrument with all it offers - sounds, styles, TC, songbook and many other attributes Everything else pales in comparison - you just have to use your imagination to get the best from it.

Diki... I'm throwing in the towel because conversations with you seem very disconnected lately.

I seem to spend most of my time repeating myself to you or trying to say the exact same things different ways just so you understand, yet you don't or you ignore what I'm saying.

Cheers
James.

All i know off is that i did work for 2 companies (one of them 1 of the big 3) and never
at anytime, Us, as engineers had anything more then the Mortal user had acces to.
The only difference is that i have access to the internal ROM, i can add or delete but as
far editing goes, 110% is the same on any synth.

No offense, James, but I feel somewhat the same way...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we consider the focus of arranger designers should be. Fortunately, I already HAVE several WS's and synths, so when I need sounds more complex than my arranger has, I can still get them. But none of my WS's have any arranger functionality, so forgive me for wanting the manufacturer to concentrate first and foremost on ARRANGER operation and functionality.

There's no such thing as a free lunch... IF arranger manufacturers concentrated a LOT more on opening the sound engine to users, that would be LESS time they spent on making new arranger functions. I can only imagine the howls of protest over on the WS forums if WS development stagnated, while the parent company tried to shoehorn a full arranger engine into it (which few users want).

In a perfect world, there would be no 'either or', but sadly, I don't see how the arranger manufacturers, who are already tightening their belts and slowing down new product development, can develop what you want without it taking away from what the MAJORITY of arranger users want...

In the meantime, you have the PA2, which already does it, and if it comes at the price of arranger functionality (three fills only!), that's OK for you...

Others MIGHT see it differently...

And Nedim... did you work for the WS or sound development teams, or did you come on board at the arranger development team end?

The sample and patch development teams work primarily for the WS division, don't they? And I guarantee THEY have access to the full range of parameters that the WS users do. If an arranger uses a Fantom chip, the sound designers (that make the internal ROM) have access to FAR more than you or the user do.

If a sound has an inverted envelope on it, and you DON'T, it means that SOMEONE did, at some point or another, doesn't it?