PS... Regarding my comment about a universally better keyboard. I was referring to that from the end users point of view. There's no such thing as a keyboard that suites everyone.

But those KORG's are bloody fantastic and more advanced than every other arrange. Everyone should buy one.

so Diki,
you will be happy to be able to load JUST 2 super-solo sounds and have your RAM full?
and if you want to load another you MUST replace one of the existing sounds?

a $5,000 keyboard should come standard with AT LEAST 1GB Ram, and if not, it should BE EXPANDABLE



[This message has been edited by leezone (edited 11-01-2009).]

All I guess I was trying to point out was that, IF you are doing music that primarily revolves around convoluted synth programming, a synth is likely the best tool.

No offense, but I NEVER hear any of you guys bitch about the fact that the M3, or the Triton, or MoXS ISN'T an arranger as well... Somehow, what IT does, and its' focus is entirely OK, but the arranger sucks for not having all of their capabilities?

Oh, you'll say... WS users don't NEED arranger capabilities. They are focused on different musical genres, and their players on the whole, don't NEED or even want standard arranger functionality.

And that is my point... MOST arranger users don't need or want the advanced WS features, either. The product is focused on what it needs to be an easy to use gigging machine, or a simple accompaniment device for those with limited playing skills. Anything that confuses or distracts the arranger from that focus diminishes the product, just as any serious effort to make the WS an arranger is going to distract from it being the best WS it can be.

Personally, I'd rather have seen a dozen fills, four break/fills and six Variations as the basis for a new Korg arranger than a powerhouse sampler or detail voice editing (BTW, both Roland and Yamaha voice designers have access to FAR more voice programming capabilities than the user - as long as THEY can use them, they are still there, aren't they? It's not like the voice engine is as barebones as the arrangers controls make them seem).

Personally, I simply think that more variation in what the ARRANGER engine can do, as opposed to the voice engine, makes a bigger difference to how musical our performances are, IF you are actually using the arranger as an arranger. Maybe if you are trying to shoehorn a WS out of it, you might feel differently, but what is weird is that MOST of those crying out for 'more editing!' already HAVE very excellent WS's. When you have an Oasys, why do you NEED your PA2 to do the same thing..? Let it concentrate on doing what the Oasys CAN'T do...

But honestly, if you aren't constantly bitching on the WS forums that the WS isn't an arranger, you don't have much credibility to come to the arranger forum, and bitch that it isn't a full WS WS's have no problem with not being an arranger. And arrangers shouldn't have to defend themselves for not being a WS...

Yes Diki but SOUNDS EDITING is not WORKSTATION's job only or capability,
its is SYNTH's job to do so to which ARRANGERS belong too. I know something
about synths too, thats how i make my living so lets stop with the ARRANGER
does this and WORKSTATION does this...do you really know what defines an
arranger and what defines a workstation???
Workstation=Synth+Sequencer (yeah i know, KARMA, ARP and all that)
Arranger=Synth+Styler (o yeah? what about songbook and pads?)
And again, they both need SoundEditing and FX processor.

Look at the bigger picture Diki.

If you DO NOT have any intentions of programming so much as a single sound you still benefit from having the more advanced sound engine because the sound designers at KORG would have created the factory sounds with it.

Everything the keyboard produces comes from the Sound Engine and if it's a super advanced one that has the likes of DNC and so on, then it will automatically sound bloody fantastic.

Regards
James

Its like saying...the ingredients dont matter, only how good the cake is what matters...
how good can it be if the ingredients suck??? In this case the Engine is one of them.

But that's the point I made, James... even though the USER may not have access to these more advanced voice editing capabilities, the factory programmer for Yamaha or Roland DOES...

And I think that you both put too much emphasis on the 'Synth' aspect of the arranger. In all fairness, arrangers in the most part have been primarily ROMplers rather than full on synths. Korg IS the only game in this area, and kudos to them for it, but I hardly think it's fair to criticize the rest for not being this niche product, any more than it's fair to criticize the Korg for not having integrated audio loops, or Mega voices, or a full on CX-3 Hammond sim...

By the time you put EVERYTHING you could possibly want in an arranger, none of us could afford it!

WS's are designed for what the MAJORITY of users want in it, which is why you'll probably never see a full on arranger engine in there. And arrangers are designed for what the MAJORITY of arrangers users want in it, which is why it is rare to see full on WS capabilities, either.

BOTH of you are sound designers and style creators first and foremost, rather than entertainers or gigging pros, from what I gather. That makes you VERY different from the majority of arranger users. Expecting the arranger industry to follow your needs rather than that of the majority is an exercise in futility... Trust me on this one! There's PLENTY that I'd like to see in an arranger (Chord Sequencer, full MIDI codes to name just a few!) that seems to get basically a yawn from most here...

Join the club...

Yes, and perhaps the biggest yawn is coming from Roland...they not only had no interest in giving you the Chord Sequencer and full MIDI codes....they stopped making arrangers altogether...well, almost if you count the GW-8 and McPrelude.

I wonder if Fran bought a second G70? I think Donny said he bought an E-80.

Should look at a few more for spare parts down the road.

I had a Roland Pro-E pass through here with the Super Card...mint...it had the chord sequencer, it was called Arranger Loop, if I recall correctly.

Could you midi your G70 into a Pro-E somehow, and utilize the chord sequencer?

Just curious.

BTW, Diki...I would have kept the Pro-E, as I love that sound the arrangers from that era made....warm and smooth, and the styles weren't too bad at all; some were still very usable, but the instrument would not read ON BASS chords, and it would not recognize chords like C7b9.

It wasn't especially generous with keys either...37, I believe, made more with left hand only in mind, of course.

But for those rather essential (for me) features it lacked, I would have kept it...even had a nice case and pedal.

You have been really off your game the last few days Diki and I'm finding I have to repeat everything to you.

There is “““NO””” back-door access to the engine that Roland and Yamaha sound designers have that the end user can't access. What you are presented with to edit is all you and the sound designers have to work with.

Regards
James.