diki,

everyone knows that your only problem with the MS are internal styles .you want domenico program styles for people like you who not like converted styles of other brands. that is no reason for people who make styles or can make styles of other brands sound good in MS by good editing functions of qranger and other MS tools. Sorry but you do not know much about style editing especially in MS. I know because you did not know you can with your roland record multiple drumkits in one midi pattern loop recording roland micro edit (sound one=basdrum from drumkit 1 + sound two= x sound from drum kit2 layerd at the same times)vThis is also in other sequencer program such as Cubase and Sonar-....................possible.

but if you do not like the styles of MS you forget the other good things that the MS have. for most user is the ultimate recording station for that price seen yet. you can record anything without used a wire except for mic or other instrument like a real guitar. virtualy everything is connectable. The only program that does well in windows is http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/ where everything virtual contact with each other similar, but you get what the reason is. if you like to use third-party VST in reason is not easy in reason, there for you most rewire reason used in other pragram as Cubase. This sort of thing is just much easier in MS. you can for example use MS keyboard with 2 other midi keyboards conected to the MS midi for controling two different VST simultaneously i mean:

for control of VST 2 So, 3 keyboards live in real time. if you want you can also can lock multiple USB midi keyboards and keyboards in several Reatime use. I mean M MS keybed+ midi 1=VST one+ midi 2=VST 2+ USB1+ VST 3+ USB2 VST 3 USB 3=VST 4 and........... USB7 =VST 8+ USB 8= B4 organ and, everything without latency, is that not great?

Look guys, flame away all you want. I'm not talking about (on this thread) factory demos, which tend to
be all SMF's done by incredibly talented players using the arranger's output only as the starting point for
the song (mind you, in the real world, that's a very legitimate way of using the arranger), but on user
demos, and style demos.

All I have ever done is try to put an honest set of ears onto EVERYTHING I hear. I could care less if a
demo is made on an S910 or an MS. All I do is LISTEN to it, and see if it impresses me. NOT with the
technical specs and 'potential' of the arranger. Just with the MUSIC. Arrangers are SUPPOSED to provide
a large part of that 'music', we input the chords, play a melody or comp (or both!) and the arranger does
the rest. Some of them achieve this, some of them don't. Some of them OUGHT to achieve this, but don't...

I'm sorry if you think that my honest assessment of these demos is driving people away from posting
them. OTOH, I tend to think that perhaps I am causing some potential posters to reevaluate honestly
what they DO think of their work, and perhaps decide to not post what is obviously inferior. I can't
for one minute believe that someone that HAD managed to make style demos far superior to a
closed arranger was so insecure as to not post them just because of what I would say...

And, I'm sorry, James, but I am a musician. NOT a sound designer, NOT a sample set developer, NOT a
computer boffin, impressed by the bleeding edge. The ONLY reason I play arrangers is to make music. The
'potential' of a piece of gear doesn't impress me in the slightest, at least when it is so painfully
demonstrated time after time that no owner out there (let alone the factory employees themselves) IS
capable of achieving that 'potential'.

An F1 car is an AMAZING piece of technology. Potentially, the performance to go faster than
anything else on the road. Problem is, only one in a million have the reflexes and ability to drive it, the
rest of us mortals just crash it, first turn we get to (if we are not pulling doughnuts just trying to drive in a
straight line!). Does that stop the F1 car from being amazing? Depends who is driving it.

The MS has yet to meet its' Michael Shumacher. You think you have the skills, have at it. But I am starting
to get REALLY fed up being told what this thing can and cannot do by someone that hasn't got one, and
who can't point to anyone that DOES and has achieved its' potential. How about just a LITTLE 'proof
of concept'. Or is it just a coincidence that no-one has achieved better than a closed arranger yet? 300+ out
there, no demos yet that demonstrate that any of them have achieved its' potential yet.

You REALLY got to get one of these James. As convinced as how much better than your PA2 it is...

And AFG, the whole POINT I've ever made is, all these style demos are just more proof that, yes, while
it is POSSIBLE to convert styles, it appears all too obvious that, in the hands of those that ARE willing to
post, no-one yet HAS managed to either create styles, or convert styles to the full potential of the
MS. Is it me, or is it crazy to go to the prodigious effort (must be prodigious, or a boatload of people
would have achieved it by now) of all this work, to end up with something inferior to the original?

Maybe some people LIKE tinkering with the technology more than they like making great music. I
am not one of those kinds of players, as you might have gathered Yes, futzing around with the deep
programming of my K2500 is fun now and again, but I wouldn't want to HAVE to do it all the time, just to
be able to go out and do a pick up gig... And, from the resounding yawn the MS got from the arranger
community (c'mon, just a few hundred in four years? Yamaha are NOT quaking in their boots!), I am afraid
I am in the vast majority.

The whole point you've been trying to make is, sure, the MS can play Yamaha styles. Big wup! Until it plays
them BETTER than a Yamaha, what's the POINT? If you want a few VSTi RH sounds, a Muse, a
V-Machine, a laptop, all of these do the job. But until the MS actually DOES do the job better than a
Yamaha, not 'does the job IF you are a GREAT style composer, editor, technician, computer guru, etc.'
which from all the evidence we have heard, no-one IS, why recommend something that makes doing
what 99.999% of all arranger users actually do a total PITA?

I have no agenda, no axe to grind. I am just trying to keep a few fanboys honest. The day someone posts
some style demos from the MS that makes me go 'Holy cr*p! That is MUCH better than a T3!' (and I will
if they do), you will never hear word one from me again. Other than to post my own MS demos up...

But until I hear it, until someone is honest enough to say how LONG it took them to get it to sound like
that, I still don't CARE what else the MS does. If I need a VSTi WS, you can bet I'll be looking at the MS
VERY closely. But if I want an arranger, it's going to have to be better than what the closed ones do. Dom
has already axed all arranger development, so best of luck getting Bass Inversions out of it, not to mention
all the plethora of other things that caused Miden to give up on it.

The MS as an arranger is dead in the eyes of its' creator. And I sure as hell didn't kill it... What's left to
blame? Because it sure looks like you are looking for SOMETHING to blame for its' failure.

Ok every time you find something that you want to find. Yes you are right styles that I made with sounds from closed keyboards I will not post any more.
That was point of this topic.
Also I wanted to show you that i can make same sound as you are have on G70. With my last demo that you did not received. But I will not post it any more, because you will not like to listen your keyboard on other machine.

I will post things that I like to do with my MS. But please - this are totally different things that you want to listen from MS.


New songs will be on SZ when I will have time to make them.

Diki I can not convince you and nobody else. You are right - you can have your opinion, like I have mine.

BR ENJOY WHAT EVER YOU PLAY.

[This message has been edited by Magica Alfa (edited 01-26-2010).]

One thing that people had problems understanding about the MS is that integration was and still is the selling point of the MS.

When I hear people say that they have a lap top, VSTs, a workstation and arranger so why do I need an MS, they really do not understand the point of the MS.


And I am sorry, the demos did show the full potential of the MS. You had users making the MS work for their use.
You may not understand it or like it but it is the user the one to be satisfied.

And, the point of making or modifying a style is not to sound like the manufacturer. If one wanted to do that they should use the manufacturer’s styles.

If arranger features are being taken off of the MS, its not the concept but Marketing, Marketing Marketing.
The MS just did not have a good PR and Marketing strategy.

I never said it is supposed to sound LIKE the original. I said it's supposed to sound BETTER... So far,
no-one's even achieved 'like'.

And about integration... It is a piece of CAKE to integrate a laptop or V-Machine to a closed arranger,
compared to making the MS's arranger section the equal or better of the closed ones. Yes, you have the
parts better integrated than separate systems. But when the arranger section of the MS is such a dog,
you are taking one step forward, and a giant leap backwards at the same time. For people who don't
really CARE what the arranger section sounds like, works like or how much work it entails to better (or
even equal) a closed arranger, you are good to go. But for the vast majority of arranger players that all
they want to do is add some good RH VSTi voices to their already very good closed arranger, I would think
that the MS will be nothing short of a nightmare.

All I have been hearing are bad dreams, anyway...

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 01-26-2010).]

Diki, if you actually listen to what is being said you won't have to repeat yourself all the time.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. You come straight out and say that you don't want to know the technical aspects, yet they hold the answer to the questions you ask.

How on earth do you expect the demo posted to sound better than the original keyboard when the style and sounds used are sampled and extracted from the original keyboard.




lol... Yeah right.
Lionstracs products and OPEN Labs products are the ““““ONLY”””” systems that offer full control over the VSTi. A V-Machine requires banks and patches to be setup though a PC application called VFX. You then sync the V-Machine with the PC which gives you those banks and presets as sounds on the move away from the PC. To get everything running on the V-Machine and VFX in the first place, you need Wizard files. So you won't be running anything SM Pro Audio didn't write a Wizard file for. I love my V-Machine and I would have nothing but good things to say about it, but it's not the “Free all your VSTis” SMPro advertise it as.

Muse Research is the same kind of system. You can only run what applications compatibility has been added for.

So Open Labs and Liosntracs products are the only products in existences right now that give you true and 100% access to the plugin with no need for wizard files or compatibility to be added.

Throwing a laptop into the equation still means you have no custom OS that integrates everything, or dedicated systems / controllers.

If only you would step back and actually take into consideration everything presented to you. Dream on I guess.

James

The day YOU take this seriously enough to USE ONE, I will take it seriously. Honestly, James, how can you
keep spouting this stuff when you have no idea how hard it is to do?

It's simple. I'll keep it to small words. The day that I hear stuff done by real users on an MS that blows
away the T3, PA2X, etc., that will be the day I start to believe it all. NOT the day anyone tells me it OUGHT
to sound better. The day it DOES.

Point me to where this is, James. AFG. Bueller.. Bueller... Bueller..... . . . .

Just to put your mind at rest, and to save you repeating yourself as much as I have to, let me agree
with you. The MS OUGHT to sound MUCH better than anything else out there. It OUGHT to blow every
closed arranger away. Its' capabilities and potential are light years ahead of anything else out there.

Now point me to someone that HAS achieved that potential. Save yourself the tedium of answering with
the same points over and over until you can...

And, to answer your point about the V-Machine, Musebox, etc., you see, with a closed arranger AND a
VSTi player, all you generally need are some decent RH sounds, you don't even NEED to try and integrate
the closed arranger's style section. It ALREADY sounds better than anyone has achieved with a soft
system. THAT was the point I was making. Your PA2 has all the MIDI it needs to send the bank and PC#'s
to call up what you need, IF all you need are a few decent RH sounds. Heck, it's what you are using now,
isn't it (what ARE you controlling the V-Machine from?)?

It just seems absurdly obvious that few if any (I sure haven't heard anyone yet) are capable of unleashing
the potential in the MS. Certainly no-one at the factory can, and no user I've heard yet can. We both
have VERY high expectations from this thing. But you appear happier that no-one has achieved it than I do.

Just as I wouldn't want to take an F1 car into town to pick up groceries, I wouldn't want an MS to do
arranger gigs on. Not when it's about a million times easier to jump into an Accord...

Don't TELL me I'm wrong. PROVE to me I'm wrong.

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 01-26-2010).]

One of the reasons why some people just don’t get the value of the MS is that they are applying the wrong standard to the arranger section of the MS.

The standard is not whether it “sounds” better than a T3/PA2xpro, (what ever that means because that is very very subjective) but it is whether the user can customize the arranger section to his or her playing style and gigging market.
And once you customize the arranger section to your needs, then you can integrate other sections of the MS to work seamlessly on your gig.

There is a reason why it is called a “Media Station”.

Really it is for those who incorporate covers and originals, styles, mp3s, midi files, audio, video and midi on their gig.
Integration can not be overstated when we talk about the MS.

So that some people can understand the concept of Integration, take for example some one who use to use a keyboard and a drum machine. Now, instead of having both a keyboard and a drum machine, they can have it all in one with some more features in the form of an arranger.

Lets say he got a T3. Do you think that person is going to go back to the keyboard and drum machine because the Yamaha T3 drums suck?

Quite true. As yet, though, who has posted anything where they DID customize it to their style and market, unless, of course, you mean lousy style and undemanding gigging audience? You see, that tiny phrase 'once you customize the arranger section to your needs' is the crux of the whole thing. It appears that no-one has done this yet, at least not to my obviously undemanding tastes (after all, I'm fairly happy with a G70 ). No doubt PA2 or T3 users would put an even HIGHER standard on that arranger section!

And, if no-one has achieved it, what chance is there that it is actually easy to do? Slim to none, IMO...



Well, firstly, if the guy bought a T3, he presumably thought the drums DIDN'T suck! At least, not enough to not use. But if he did, he would have got a PA2 or a Roland or an Audya. All good closed arrangers. But the MS's arranger section is a joke. Even its' 'features'. No Bass Inversions... they missing on YOUR arranger? Didn't think so...

I said it earlier, I'll say it again. Is the value of integration worth putting up with a very inferior arranger section? No other arranger from ANYBODY makes you come up with the content, sounds and integration yourself.

Personally, I don't believe it is. Unfortunately, the majority of those that believe this integration IS worth the effort haven't actually BOUGHT one, and tried to quantify that effort for themselves, and seem bent over backwards making excuses for those that HAVE tried to do it, and failed (by any reasonable degree of expectation) to achieve results superior to a closed arranger.

So I ask again... What is the easiest way to integrate a few VSTi RH sounds with a good arranger section? Personally, I don't believe the MS is the way to go... But I am CONVINCED that, if the MS arranger section had STARTED out as good as a PA2 or T3, and THEN all the other goodies were integrated, it would have dominated the arranger market and everybody else would be scrambling to copy it.

And they certainly aren't doing that!

DIKI THE ARRANGER EXPERT


Bass Inversions


You know very well Live-styler. I thing you are expert on it.

But I'm really sorry if you do not know that there is

BASS CHORD

There are a lot functions connected to the buttons and you can use more things as you can thing about.