Everyone by now must now about the stellar sound quallity of certain VST's. And certain arranger keyboards allready have an option for support of these VST's. (Wersi and Lionstracs)

But what an arranger needs is a dedicated set sounds that everyone has and use those sounds for the accompaniment tracks. If i use non standard sounds i can not share my styles with other people as they might not have the same sounds (VST's) installed. Extra sounds could be added to a style as samples, but extra VST's that need special progams to run are of a whole different order.

So all that leaves for the use of VSt's is mainly solo voices. So as a developer i would not invest in the extra hardware and software costs for VST's.

But............
It would be possible to add an software expansion (paid) to any keyboards that allows to connect to a PC and directly controll a piece of software running on the PC, this piece of software should be a VST host. over a gigabit ethernet cable there can be transported several audio channels and midi channels to and from the PC. And even the VST controll panel could be displayed as a popup on the keyboard (requiring a 1024x768 screensize)

To get a better idea about this technology its allready used on Muse receptor which allows full controll of the VST host and the VSt's of the receptor (Which is actually a computer running a VST host and VST's in a Linux environment) from a remote computer.
This technology we know as UNIWIRE and it uses minor resources compared to a full fledged audio/vst workstation.

So all they need to add to the Arranger is a software mod with the same function as UNIWIRE and work it intoo the User Interface of the arranger. All that they keyboard needs is atleast a 1024x768 resolution touch screen, and those have become relatively cheap over the last years. Sell it as a software addon, so the price of the arranger will be on Normal level and the people that want this addon pay for it.

[[Take note that the Korg M3 allready has a software part running on a remote computer that allows a VST host to use the KORG M3 is it would use any other VST, this is the other way as described above, and espescially has its uses in a studio environment, it would be technically possible to make a piece of software that functions both ways]]

This all has been possible for several years now and it has me wondering why no major Synth company has added such technologoes to their keyboards/synths/arrangers.


All in all this also explains why Lionstracs will never function as a decent arranger as its stellar soundquallity comes from user installed VST's that can't be used in standard styles. Its wise that they have changed their target audiance towards professional workstation users and not anymore OMB arranger people.
The current implementation of Wersi is better, because they have their own sounds and styles (whetter you like them like me or not) and they have the processor power to run op to 5 VST instruments but no effects. This limmitation is why i neer bought a Wersi and decided to start a software arranger.

Software arrangers tough have the same problems as Lionstracs, all setups are so diverse that there is no real usergroups sharing their stuff..(Ask Rikki BEars).. You spend a lot of time creating styles and then there is noboddy to share stuff with, which also leaves out the option to use the great stuff others have created. Sharing these things for me is very important. I liek to create my ownstuff but since i dont have infinite time for this hobby i also really need a lot of stuff that works straight out of the box.

((I hope my grammar isn't to bad, as you all know english is not my native tongue))


[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 02-10-2010).]

Bachus, here are my thoughts, based mostly on observations from this board. They may also only apply to American users.

Arranger users tend to be older than your average synth/WS user and therefore less 'geeky'. They are willing to pay top dollar and therefore want everything to sound great OOTB and with one button push. As a group, they are least likely to delve into the heart of the OS, explore and employ all the features of a machine, embrace new but COMPLEX technology, utilize available software add-ons. I don't think we get less creative as we get older, I just think we get lazier. Of course there are always exceptions (Diki, Rikki) and people like Gary who will thoroughly investigate every operational possibility, but by and large, most arranger players just want to play; and play as simply as possible. If you look at their 'most wanted' features, they will likely be built-in MP3 players, sequencers, harmonizers, etc. All available and accessible with one or two button pushes. Yamaha's drum graphics painted on the outside of the case is a clear indicator of their perception of the need to 'dumb down' the operation of even their high-end products.

Everything you propose and all other approaches (ie. Liontracs) that involve (visible) software interaction, would, IMO, have to be made so transparent and so intuitive that it stayed within the boundaries of current OS's (in terms of simplicity and ease of use). And that would be difficult.

Processes and features such as the ones you describe, will only be implemented when and if younger and more tech-oriented users migrate towards arranger keyboards. Again, JMO.

chas

Since US is not the main market for arranger keyboards. The main market is europe and overhere we have arranger players in all age cattegories.

This makes your statement less valid...

But if the Arranger keyboard market in uerope doesn't want to end up like the US market we need innovative products that are attractive to young and old. So thats why i think they need to add stuff like KARMA, audio styles to arrangers. And thats why i think that VSt support needs to be added to arrangers too.

We have a saying here in holland "Standing still equals going backwards" We need to get what we liked in our old arrangers and improve on that. And add new things to that, some things will be here to stay and others will be just temporary and not as good as hoped and they will disapear again.

But you also have a point, Modern keyboards need to be easy to operate and sound great out of the box. Or as we say easy to learn hard to master with many indepth options for those that want more, and those might use those options to create those styles and sounds you might add to your keyboard by a simple copy paste action.


[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 02-10-2010).]

I totally agree. In the 20 years or so that I've been doing arranger clinics and demos, the main user and/or buyer is as you describe Chas. Older and perhaps a little lazier, yet still very creative..

Still, I do have quite a few users who attend follow-up clinics to learn style editing and also basic voice editing as well, so all is not lost.

Adding VST and other things would have to be made very simple.

BTW, I love the drum icons on the PSR (miss them on the Tyros3)...saves a lot of fuss, as I can never remember which key triggers which drum.

My experience tells me I'm far from alone...especially if one hasn't been playing their arranger very much.

Do you ever edit the drums on your arrangers?

Ian

Never. But then, I use Korg drums .

chas

They are pretty good except for the fills....but of course, you could always get someone to edit them for you.

Ian

I know you've pledged to reform but I'm happy to see that you didn't reform completely. You're way more fun when you're a LITTLE naughty .

chas

I don’t mean to denigrate those who cannot use arrangers for gigging. For those who do not use them, "denigrate" means "to put down.”

I'm only trying to keep up, Chas...you're a tough act to follow, as usual.

Ian

We totally hijacked this thread. Sorry, Bachus, Ian made me do it.

chas

Well i am sure there are enough people that have an opinion about this topic and my ideas..

So lets put this back on rail and ask people to respond on the topic and not on your discusiion

I have a Muse Receptor, as well as TOTL keyboards. I am 69 and just so so with tech matters. I had envisioned replacing my keyboards with a machine that could never be obsolete. I am not stupid, but very uninformed. I never envisioned hauling a pc around with my Receptor. I thought after three years, it would be able to host a sequencer, at least. I saw styles were out unless I used Live Styler or such on a pc. I have fine libraries of samples that I cannot modulate properly for my use.

In short, I can use B4 from NI, and that's it. I gave up.

Hi Bernie
The Receptor is basically a VSTi player, not a controller, therefore controls and applications are minimal because once set-up to your requirements via computer, you just plug it in and control it with your controller. (Think of it along the lines of the Ketron SD2)
To use VSTi as you want (No separate computer) then you only have 3 options, Neko, Lionstracs or Wersi.
The Wersi is the easiest to set-up and use, however the Lionstracs is more flexible, but you do need a reasonable amount of knowledge to set things up as you want. (Basically you have a choice of ease of use or flexibility with a fair amount of work involved)
The Neko is a completely different animal, as it is just a blank keyboard with a computer built in, so you have set everything up from scratch. (However this does mean you can really make it your own)
If your prepared to get down and dirty however, then the Receptor is a cracking VSTi player.
Regards

Bill

well..let me try to explain again how our Linux OS 4.0 is working under the hardware system.
The first step here is to understand the new way how to run multiple ASIO host instead to run VSTi in one host, like the most windows OS system.
How you already know, the Linux with Jack connection Kit, is able to running up unlimited ASIO stand alone application and also IF you want, to run UP VSTi plugins by the FST
( FST is one linux application that open the VSTi interface, create automatically the audio ports and midi ports)
In this way you dont need to use one VstHost server.
here the example: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/komplete/jackasio.jpeg
This are all basic Linux features that normally must be running manually by the Terminal/Console. ( not simple if you are not a linux developer...)
One example konsole command for open one asio host.
Open a terminal and you get: root@mediastation:/home/mediastation#
now you type:
wine /home/mediastation/VST Plugins/NI/B4II/B4II.exe , then press enter, the Organ B4II ASIO host interface will running up by the wine/windows emulator.

On the mediastation/groove products we have embedded this all terminal command on 10 available ASIO patch button.
So, when you press for example the ASIO Patch 3, automatically we running the Terminal script for loading the desidered .exe file with Wine.
The script will also create the all audio and midi connection routing on the Jack system.
Of course under the ASIO Patch editor you must first setup wich file.exe to run up: http://www.lionstracs.com/demo/MSgui/asiopatchdemo.jpg

BUT, before running one asio patch, the ASIO host stand alone application must be first installed and setup the audio-midi ports, here one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myN6DlvKcc8

At the end: IF you will have ready on the 10 ASIO patch button/keys, you have first to setup 10 ASIO host.
Each ASIO host must be setting the midi port number as same as the ASIO Patch number.
When you have made this first basic setups, then the OS 4.0 will run all automatically by pressing one key patch.
Already out of the box are installed/setups some multiple asio host and you are also able to ADD more new ASIO/VST stuff.
Untill you don't have understand this new concept, you will be never able to make working a new asio /vst host.
Other this basic feature, on OS 4.0 we have 8 basic slider midi CC controller and when you press the key MIXER, you get another 36 sliders midi controllers: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/2008/MS/midicontroller.jpg


On Wersi is totally different, they have 4 VSTi Slot available, where you can choose from the list the desidered VSTi and play it, but I dont know how much sliders midi CC controller they offer for the realtime control.

On Openlabs is totally again diffferent.
How told Abacus, this is only a PC system asembled in one Keyboard case + some standard midi controllers.
You can run the Reaper and then mapping the midi controlles available, but you still remain ONLY on the Reaper DAW application
When you use the Forte for manage the sounds, the Reaper can not control play together..only one app at once.
All the setups there you must make manually..they dont offer any embedded software like the Wersi or Lionstracs.

Years ago I used to work for a company that built high end Kit Cars (Quantum Sports Cars - google them). These cars were built better than TVR, they were fast, strong, comfortable, safe and the convertible was sooo much fun!. However they only ever attracted 'alternative' buyers. In the end the company folded.

The main problem with a keyboard running an OS such as Linux or Windows (the latter should never be used for live music in my oppinion) is the customers perception based on ignorance, just like the cars we were building in the 90s.

Another company that used Linux is DLQ who make the most authentic clone of a vintage Hammond I have ever played. However it took a while to boot up, and it was not taken seriously by the competition who would make false claims regarding reliability - using peoples ignorance of linux based PC against the KeyB.

Now they have moved to a dedicated computer its a completely different story. And the KeyB is now a serious contender and selling incredibly well.

I don't think any PC based system running plug-ins will ever be as succesfull simply due to lack of understanding.

Educating the buying public is not an easy task!

Hi Bachus,
I thoroughly enjoyed the couple of years or so, I spent on my softsynth/software arranger setup,but, in the end it was the lack of being able to share that made me start to lose interest.
I feel that there needs to be a common soundsource for "style parts" that anybody can use. Not much point in creating or editing styles , that one is willing to share, if they then need to be re-edited by whoever wants to use them. You can't play an xg drum mapped style on a gm drumkit without editing, requires more than a tweak.
The software arranger wasn't the problem, either OMB or Livestyler work ok & the same styles work in either, it's the soundsource for the Style Tracks that causes hassles.
Quite a few of us gave it a go, but one by one we dropped out. I used Soundfonts, they were inexpensive or even free. What I liked about them, was, they could be edited.
Didn't like the piano in a particular soundfont back, I could replace it with another from a different soundfont.
To quote Ian, a Frankensound in this case , not a Frankenstyle.
Interesting to chat about it again.

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bachus:
[B]

Software arrangers tough have the same problems as Lionstracs, all setups are so diverse that there is no real usergroups sharing their stuff..(Ask Rikki BEars).. You spend a lot of time creating styles and then there is noboddy to share stuff with, which also leaves out the option to use the great stuff others have created. Sharing these things for me is very important. I liek to create my ownstuff but since i dont have infinite time for this hobby i also really need a lot of stuff that works straight out of the box.

I can say only VST's are good thing. Also if you use LIVESTYLER it is great.


What ever you will use you can fast change between style and you can play what ever you want.

Exchange is possible. setup need to be done in same way.
You can have severaly keyboards (VSTs) on one system. Here you are limited only with RAM, CPU) HD are so big that is not a problme there anymore only possible problem is piping between SATA HD and motherboard.

So guys I'm for VSTs on arranger.

Enjoy whatever you play.

Rikki, I think you should just give up and go to a software based arranger. I have been using mine for years and need some company....it is so lonely, Oh well!!!

Hi Frank,
I know, we all deserted you.
I've still got all my soundfonts & software, ready to be reinstated. Unfortunately , currently I don't own a decent computer, my netbook I doubt is capable, & my old laptop & desktop are a bit too dodgy to waste the time loading everything back in, but they're too good to throw out. Can't convince hubby I need a 4th pc. haahaa

Bought a secondhand v machine recently, just have to try & work out how to get it back to factory standard. I'm hoping to maybe run soundfonts thru it, if I can work the darn thing out haahaa. Actually bought it as a vsti add on for my korg, but if it runs fonts, I could get back to my old Clavinova/Soundfont/Arranger setup.

Must admit I haven't checked softhsynths out & what's available in a couple of years or so.
We did have totally different goals though,
you are trying to build the best arranger you can, with really top quality soundsources,etc ,
I on the other hand was trying to put together a very inexpensive setup using soundfonts ( free & commercial), a setup that was very affordable, but could be built on if required.

Great to hear from you again Frank.

best wishes
Rikki

The way I see it, the IDEA of the VSTi arranger is a good one. The problem comes at the front end, in the human interface, in the degree of complexity the system forces you into, rather than the basic idea of it all.

What is needed, IMO, is someone to do ALL the integration for you, to reduce your involvement in the complex technology and integration to the point that it is no more complex (or at least, only a little more complexity) than a current 'closed' arranger. Proponents of the open system often dismiss these as old school relics, but what they ALWAYS ignore is the prodigious effort at the manufacturers to do ALL the tasks you are now going to have to do for yourself. Balancing ALL the sounds, so you can select them without worrying about volume, tone, EQ, power, modulation routing, effects routing and the other myriad things you are going to HAVE to do entirely by yourself. Don't dismiss the sheer skill of these people so lightly. And don't dismiss the need to create styles FOR the sounds. Performance and sound are intrinsically linked... look at how poor most translations are. Ever wonder WHY?

In all my experience of VSTi's, I have yet to find ONE with the polish of a closed arranger or WS's soundset. They ALL have glaring jumps in volume, samples that sound unconnected to the rest, and what I can describe as a 'cobbled-together' approach. Which, given that most of the ARE, is hardly surprising. The Big3 spend a FORTUNE developing these sample sets, squeezing every last kb of ROM into something integrated and coherent. There is FAR less effort in the VSTi world to do this. For a reason...

Few VSTi's are DESIGNED to be the basis of a live instrument, and even fewer (none, really) are designed for the needs of the arranger player. We have a unique set of needs. We don't set every last thing up in advance. Quite a few, to be honest, still prefer to set up one panel registration, then call up their styles and sounds on the fly. This puts ENORMOUS emphasis on how well balanced that sound set is. WS users don't need this. Listen for yourself. Most WS soundsets don't have anywhere NEAR the smoothness of voice substitution that an arranger has. One Rhodes will be quite louder than another. One string sound can be several db quieter than another. You are expected, in WS live operation, to set all this up and balance them for yourself IN ADVANCE.

That's the primary difference, IMO. You can get quite close to a passable 'arranger' experience from a modern, Karma or loop/arp WS as long as you spend an eternity setting it all up. But that AIN'T what most arranger players either want OR need.

So, all in all, I think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of the soft arranger. But a complete disjunction in HOW that concept is implemented. Wersi came the closest, IMO, in integrating the VSTi into the arranger, but even they failed to do the work in making the VSTi's as balanced. IMO, what is needed is a licensing arrangement with some of the major VSTi soundset companies, Colossus, things like that, they should be balanced by the SAME skilled people that do the ROM sets, and THEN sold to us (at a nice profit!) already set up for us. Essentially, we don't deal with the geek stuff at all. We concentrate on doing what we already do.

Just make music...

If I WANTED to put the amount of work into making music that a soft arranger FORCES you to do, I would use a TOTL WS, and sound amazing. What I want to do is put in virtually NO effort, and sound NEARLY as amazing. And, I'm sorry, but I believe I represent the majority (the vast majority!) of arranger players worldwide. This choice, to use WS's with samplers, arpeggiators and great sounds, albeit at a cost of much advance preparation, and the arranger way, that sounds MAYBE a hair less good but is very easy to do, has ALREADY been made by all of us, quite some time ago. We aren't going to change our minds now and go BACK to the complexity and advance work that WS's make you do, to get sounds that are, in all fairness, sometimes little better than what we already have (my G70 piano is on many radio played tracks and no-one has said I need to use a VSTi!), and are terribly balanced OOTB.

BUT.... if someone wakes up and does the work for us, and gives us an arranger experience using VSTi's that doesn't radically change our workload or workflow, the world will beat a path to his door.

With me at the front...

Hi Diki
Don’t know where you have been for the last few years, but virtually all VSTi makers have either bought out completely new, or have adapted existing engines specifically for live on stage play. (The days of only being suitable for the studio are long gone)

Everyone:

Sound Balance:
Between individual VSTi, then yes there can be imbalances (Usually because they are designed by different sound teams) which is why all hosts give you individual control of each VSTi for volume, EQ, Reverb etc., and once setup (They are saved with the VST configuration) is not a problem.
Will they be as balanced as hardware arrangers?
Yes and No, as each person has their own idea of how they should be balanced, (Apart from the Korg, I find I have to alter the balances of a lot of the other OOTB hardware arrangers to get them anywhere near to what I want)

VSTi Arrangers:
Unfortunately with the demise of most of the high quality GM sound sets (Which dictate a specific balance) then style integration does become a touch more difficult. (Colossus was probably the highest quality with a quality that left the best sounds on hardware arrangers for dead (Fortunately it has been included with Goliath, but it is expensive)

Manufacture integration:
Your correct Wersi was continually working towards VSTi integration (Difficult with limited resources) as witnessed by B4 and VB3, which while you paid extra over the standalone instrument they did become one with the instrument, with no work needed by the user. (Hopefully Wersi will get themselves sorted and continue along these lines adding other VSTi)

Currently only 2 software based instruments are set up OOTB like Hardware boards and these are the Wersi Pegasus Wing keyboard and Apollo Organ. (A first for Wersi as they have never before in their entire 40 year history made an OOTB instrument, always believing that users who are prepared to spend this type of money would not be beginners, but those that want to do their own thing)

Is a software arranger for you?
There are plenty of free and trial software as well as reasonably priced soundcards and controllers out there, so you don’t need a large expenditure to try it out, but if you do go the pure software route then while there is a steep learning curve, it gives you a satisfaction (It’s all you and not somebody else’s work) that a hardware board just cannot provide IMO)

Me:
I have been using software based sound systems since the late 90s, and around 2003 moved over to Wersi OAS (Which got rid of all the cables and boxes, and allowed it into the lounge) and can categorically say that “for me”, there is no hardware board that comes anywhere close .

Is it for everybody?
No, so always try before committing yourself.

BFN

Bill

Thanks for your insight, Bill. It's good to hear from someone actually 'walking the walk' on this issue, even if there are points I still find troubling...

It's in the qualifiers you use that leave me with the most doubt. And, while I know only too well that the ENGINES of most modern VSTi's are better optimized for live play, that doesn't mean that the samples themselves, and their balances especially, are, at least as far as what we expect from an arranger. Even you qualify that, and even add that some arrangers themselves leave you wanting (I agree here, the fluid seamless transitions of the old Sound Canvas days are long gone), so I would only ask you, is there ONE VSTi complete soundset (we won't even TOUCH the issue of what you do when you use multiple soundsets from multiple sources) that covers ALL the bases, that you could use as the single engine of an entire soft arranger that is as well balanced as a Tyros or Roland? To be able to switch, on a whim, from any sax sound to ANY clarinet sound and not have to move a fader, change your touch, or anything?

And yes, I understand that you CAN preset volume offsets, etc., but on a soundset with THOUSANDS of sounds, who really wants to do that, when the manufacturer really ought to have already done it? And, of course, we haven't even touched the issue of EQ and velocity curves, etc.. There's a reason I choose to work with arrangers live, even in live bands. That convenience of calling any sound up, and knowing you aren't going to have to grab the volume knob after you have scared some customer silly! So....

"Will they be as balanced as hardware arrangers? Yes and No" still sounds a lot more like a no than a yes... unless you do all the work.

And unfortunately, I guess, I am not really looking for the satisfaction of knowing it is all you when you play a style. All I'm really concerned about is whether THEY are satisfied, and whether that satisfaction costs me a week of effort, or a few minutes. Currently, they are pretty good with how things are. Could they be better? Of course. Am I willing to multiply the effort probably 100X to get that bit better? Probably not...

My audience would be hard pressed to tell the difference, live, and when in the studio, the arranger isn't really the tool I use for original work (although I'll use the sounds if appropriate), and the issues with sound balances don't apply, and I am as willing to use VSTi's as any other sound source. But live, improvisational arranger play puts tougher stresses on a soundset than any other form of playing, IMO. The day that creators of soundsets as expensive as Goliath etc. realize that sonic balance is as important as anything else (more, IMO), they hardly qualify as sound SETS, more just sound collections. Oh, and BTW, we haven't even TOUCHED the more complicated issue of drumset equivalency.

As with any issue that I disagree with others on, I am only TOO interested in hearing examples that disprove me. I would be fascinated to hear a style, for instance, being changed live from a rock set to a brush set, and hear how well it remains balanced. I'd also like to hear styles that you have converted to run entirely on VSTi's, or those you have created yourself from scratch using only VSTi's...

Sadly, 'trying before you buy' with a Wersi is an option very few ever get the chance to do, and even fewer on an instrument that has been 'tweaked' for full VSTi use. So hearing others' work is about all we can do.

The thing that puzzles me the most is, if a soft arranger CAN be made to be as good, no, FAR better than a closed one by the simple addition of a good VSTi and a bit of work balancing the sounds, why on EARTH doesn't the factory (with the personnel already trained to do such work) do the work, and convert the styles for it? Especially for Wersi's, the addition of a $500 VSTi is hardly going to put off anyone already prepared to pony up $8k+...

Or is the work a LOT harder than you make out? Something is missing from the picture.

AMEN
AMEN
AMEN
Talk about hitting the nail in the head.

Of the (few) soft synths I have, only Roland made ones have the balanced sound and consistency much sought after in the above post. But they are (and they sound) old. Their age is showing.

The others are much more polished and crisp if you look at their individual sounds one by one, but they don't present a coherent overall package.

I just could not stand the quality (or lack of it) of my arranger's sounds any more, so I send the accompaniment data to the Midi Out port, and let softsynths replace the original sound engine. This worked like an engine overhaul to an old car, and squeezed a few more years out of the Casio. But, should i make the decision to buy a new one, I doubt I will return to that setup any time soon, unless in the meantime I find a way to also substitute the styles in the Casio and use it like a midi keyboard only.

I personly use NI KOMPLETE in combination with KORE as the base of my softsynth and i must say that the different parts of KOMPLETE and the individuall samples are reasonably ballanced.
Basically this package gives me the all in one you'd want as a re-placement of a hardware synth or arranger.

New TCP Network Live-Arranger on OS 4.0 will coming soon...
Qranger still remain the primary DAW arranger, then you can choose the Live-styler module for the Yamaha styles OR the new Live-Arranger for Ketron styles ( native Audya styles too)

Just some days patience...we dont need months for complete this new features...

Is the big Red Button on the top left telling the player what to do? :lol:

only joking

You are derailing my topic, but playing native Audya audio styles as grand news I'll start a new topic for this.

http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/020831.html

[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 02-14-2010).]

So, with this remote computer idea, you go to a gig, and set up both your arranger and your computer? and have to balance 2 different sound sources so that when you trigger the computer parts it isn't the wrong level?

I keep thinking that arrangers will finally get to the point where everything is integrated into the arranger itself, just with better components. Solid state harddrives are starting to become pretty impressive now. So in a few more years, arrangers will run on SSD's, with many gigs worth of audio loops, with some melodyne thrown in there for spontaneous chord inversion changes, and several more gigs worth of lead voices. Every manufacturer will still sample their own voices and make their own styles, so that their styles and soud sets will ball be in balance, and we won't have to try to juggle 100 different products from 100 different manufacturers to all play nice together in a self-cobbled attempt. Cloned styles just won't sound right using VST's. Because those styles were made with a specific soundset in mind, that has its own velocity curves, its own layer split points, its own special effects tied to certain keys or CC controls.

As many problems as Audya has had, I still like their idea better than these open-source software arrangers. There's just no way to make everything play nice and sound good without a lot of work. Running your VST's on a remote computer isn't going to fix that problem, and will make live play even more cumbersome.

The computer will not put out sound, it will put out sounddata over Ethernet, the soundsource of the keyboard will produce audio from this sound data.

So there is only 1 audio source... This is the keyboard. The computer should start as they call it totally scripted, and you would not even neet a screen on stage, just switch it on and controll it from your keyboard...

At home you use a computer screen to setup and edit your sounds on the computer. You should be able to controll the sound parameter during a performance on stage directly from the keyboard, i.e. use a knob on your keyboard to changen for example a filter setting real time.

It can also be done by putting extra computer power inside the keyboard like mediastation and Wersi do, but for those players that dont want, need VSt's it would be a huge throw away of resources and money.

This way you get the best of both worlds.