I have been involved in some projects and worked close to some of the manufactures in off to became aware that to make an arranger module, first they have to based in a keyboard they either already have or is on the process, the second, they have to design it to fit the footprint of the motherboard of the keyboard, as an example, take a look at the SD5 keyboard and the SD3 module, is not small by any means, is the same dimensions on the control panel area to fit the motherboard size.

Perhaps in other pass times, Manufacturers like Roland (RA series), Korg (with the I series) , Wersi, Bohm and GEM made modules that not necessarily had a keyboard counterpart, like the RA90-95, the 800 was based on one of the upper models on the E series from the late 90’s and so on, the GEM Genesis module was based on it’s keyboard counterpart, etc.
One of the current exceptions is the Midjay and Midjay Plus, SD2&4.

In a marker that is “highly special” like the module arrangers, is not profitable for most of the factories to make a module, whatsoever, there still a market for them, and I am glad that Ketron has made modules since it’s beginning, with the then Solton MS5, MS40, X4, XD3, etc. and now the Ketron SD3. SD4, SD2 and Midjays, for those for fellow musicians that their main instrument is a Guitar, accordion, etc. and even for studio use, where sometimes space is an issue.
As simple as it seems, it cost a lot of money to have this done, and the most important fact is that module sales are marginal in comparison to their keyboard counterparts, what makes it not profitable.

That is my take on that, I used to gig with my Yamaha Electone EL90 (Japanese version open) and I midi that to an RA95 Roland, I really like that combination, since the Electone was midi and I found the way to get the most of both, it was a blast to play, later I changed the RA95 for the Solton X1 HD, was even better yet.


------------------
mdorantes

I have to agree, despite how many feel about Ketron. Many of our guitar and accordions friends would have to carry around keyboards. I wish other companies would also carry modules of their arrangers but they know what they can sell or not sell.

I'm surprised that Yamaha didn't keep going with the QY Series. The QY700 was by miles a head of it's time. I have one myself in the Studio in mint condition.

A little more development on them and you would have had one hell of a mean sequencer with arranger built in.

Regards
James

The arranger module market is a tiny piece of the already small arranger pie...so why would a manufacturer go to the trouble/expense of developing one, just to get a portion of an already small segment?

It may be more likely to see accordions sold with arranger units built in...Roland's V-Accordion would be a great candidate.

There must be some way to get the innards of the GW-8 or McPrelude into one of those units?

James, the QY-700 was the ultimate end product of Yamaha's QY "Walkstation" line.

I very nearly bought one when Yamaha was clearing out the warehouse at year's end....back then I was using a cut down Clavinova CLP-300 and an Roland RA module.

I decided to go with 61 keys and forgo the piano altogether (most gigs were becoming more arranger based), especially when the PSR-8000 came out.

Still, the QY-700 was a quite a smart concept...wonder where they could have taken it, especially with today's technology?

I don't quite follow what this thread is about … are we saying that a manufacturer is considering producing a module based on a top of the line arranger? Or, is it that based on your observations, a Korg PA2X, Roland E series, Yamaha T-3 or Audya based module will never happen because the manufacturers can’t make enough money making and selling them?
Ciao,
Jerry

Your primary problem with a TOTL arranger module is that the physical buttons themselves are a LARGE part of how we play the thing, and they need to be as close to the keyboard as is humanly possible. No remote keyboard offers enough buttons or flexibility of programming them, and no arranger has remote codes for ALL the functions you are going to need...

Modules used to be great when they were fairly simple beasts (used an RA-90 for quite a while), but as laden with controls that are needed for their operation and touch screens that can't be obscured by other gear as modern WS's are, I just can't see how it would physically be possible to get the two close enough together to work well.

I think, on the whole, we are pi$$ing into the wind on this one What MIGHT be more worth our time, and might actually be responded to if enough of us got a hold of our manufacturer reps and dealers, would be to DEMAND that full MIDI implementation be restored to arranger operation, and a unified, cross-manufacturer set of MIDI codes for arranger operation.

This would simply be a matter of software, and wouldn't require the manufacturer to tool up for an entirely new (and VERY niche) product. If the arranger can't be made into a module, that can be controlled by a WS, why not control a WS module (or another arranger) from the arranger you are playing? Pretty much all the WS's have rack module versions. It doesn't really matter WHAT MIDI keyboard you are playing on, as long as it can send any MIDI code you want it to...

But full MIDI functionality MUST be implemented for this to work. I have long said that, rather than hold my breath waiting for the PERFECT arranger to come out, it already (at least for me) exists if I could merely MIDI two current arrangers together. No reason why I couldn't add a WS module to the mix too... But while MIDI transmission and reception are as barebones as most manufacturers make them, this is a pipe dream.

C'mon, Yamaha, Korg, Roland, Ketron... it's ONLY code, no hardware changes needed in the slightest. Every knob, button and slider should be able to send a user defined MIDI code, and every function of operation should have a user defined code. Make it an 'expert' setting that normally hides from view if you don't want to frighten the 'home' users.. But you'll sell a BOATLOAD more gear if two can talk to each other. Otherwise, we GOTS to use just the one

Your choice. We are waiting, with our wallets ready...

I think you are right about the futility, and, personally I don't know how well a big corporation like Roland will respond to any demands...what will you threaten them with?

Certainly it won't be, "I won't buy your gear!"

What will you use then?

I'm not trying to be negative, or shoot down your idea, but, let's be realistic....they hold the reins, not us....we just like to think that we do.

Roland realizes that the percentage of people who will hook two arrangers together, will be infinitesimally small, as arrangers are inherently complete instruments...as are workstations.

The wind as your urinal seems likely.

You'd have more luck just finding a tone module to augment your arranger.

But to demand something from Roland (or any one else)? Not going to work.

Just not enough demanders(?) to back it up...most, if not all, arranger players, don't care if they ever add a module.

I know, adding a module to my S910 is the very least of my priorities...just another piece of gear to drag around...that's why I use an arranger...to eliminate the issues I used to have with carrying a drum machine, bass pedals, two (or three) keyboards etc.

I like self contained, and I waited quite a few years to have it...I'm not going backwards by adding more stuff.

That's also why I like my arrangers to have built in speakers.

But, you can try your plan and organize a bunch of arranger players to demand that Roland (or whoever) release the info to you.

I know I'm certainly not going to demand anything from Yamaha.

Don't need to; they read this forum...

Well, the market itself DEMANDS action from the manufacturers. The will of the customer, if the basic premise of supply and demand is true, basically says that whatever the majority want, the majority get... They simply get it faster if they are vocal about it. Look at how Yamaha responded to Roland in the eighties (or early nineties)... Roland were ahead, and Yamaha users DEMANDED (whether tacitly or vocally) that they catch up and surpass them, or wither on the vine.

Yamaha responded.

Korg owners DEMANDED (whether tacitly or vocally) that Korg develop something the equivalent of SA voicing, or users would move to what DID have the feature...

Korg responded.

These guys do their market research. If they read enough about how the majority of arranger power users want better MIDI capability, that is a powerful voice for them to ignore at their peril. The first guy that implements it has a definite advantage. As Yamaha DID with SA. Now Korg have nearly caught up (just waiting for the samples). Did anyone DEMAND it from Korg, or did they simple FEEL the demand? That's splitting hairs.

But personally, when NO-ONE has a particular feature (like user definable arranger codes), if enough users that WOULD like it were vocal on the issue, that's a demand that no arranger manufacturer would ignore. Not if they wanted to get a leg up on the competition, anyway...

What astounds me is the thought that it MIGHT not happen, yet is simply code, and fairly easy to implement code at that. We aren't talking SA technology, or Guitar Modes, this is MIDI 101...

And if the manufacturers, after seeing what happened in the eighties when MIDI was first introduced, and an explosion of synth buying happened because FINALLY we could control two keyboards from the one can't see that exactly the same thing would happen in the arranger world IF they could talk to each other, then capitalism is a fiction.. The goal is to sell as many units as possible. If a feature that would enable that to happen is ignored, the market itself DEMANDS they implement it.

I just happen to feel that we COULD help it along, by telling them that IF they implemented it, we WOULD buy a secondary arranger.

I have completely given up on expecting Roland's best features to be implemented in a Yamaha, and Yamaha's best implemented in a Roland. But if I could link the two and they work as one. I GUARANTEE I would be buying a Yamaha to go along with the Roland.

Heck, if the codes for the arranger WERE standardized, we might actually see the return of the arranger module, because it could be made a LOT cheaper if it weren't for the need to duplicate almost ALL the controls from the keyboard version. I have no idea why anyone expects a module version of a TOTL arranger to be much less expensive than the full version... the only thing it drops is the keyboard and the slightly larger case. All the electronics are still exactly the same, buttons, sliders, knobs, etc.. But if the MIDI codes were comprehensive, it wouldn't need anything much more than a power button and a volume knob! That's a HUGE saving, right there...

But unless we talk about it, unless we make our desires known, there's no DEMAND for it, and probably no action.

It's up to us. Korg users got SA technology. We could get this too, if we want it bad enough. Aren't we TIRED of always having to make SOME kind of compromise between arrangers? Wouldn't we rather have two (two MOTL would probably do!) and have NO compromise?

I know I would...

Well my friend, as I said, Yamaha reads these forums.

Why don't you put up a poll, or a post, that deals with the release of these codes and have the "arranger power users" respond and state in their own words why they want/need access to them.

I'm sure someone from Roland reads SZ as well, and perhaps from Korg, too.

It would be a start, and we have to start somewhere.

Just because I am not interested in carrying/adding more gear, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone...it's only this past decade that MOTL arrangers became good enough to use on a pro gig (for me) instead of TOTL arrangers, and finally I can simplify my kit even more, but perhaps I am in the minority of "arranger power users".

In any case, it would be good to make the manufacturers aware that there are people who want these codes, and there's no better place to start,than here on SZ.

Here the new Expande module.
You can also install the Livestyler..