the idea is to make it sound better than the same style. Not necessarily emulate it. So dennis is free to choose whatever sounds he wishes so long as it does not completely alter the style so that no fair comparrisons can be made. IE using a synth bass instead of an accoustic one . The mega guitars can be replaced with any VST that plays the same realism as the the original style in the style. Lets not back away from the comparrison. We are looking at a straight AB comparrison right ?

Hi Spalding
Yes you can change the Acoustic Bass of a Korg style (Or any normal voice) with a better quality Acoustic Bass voice from a VSTi, however you can’t just substitute and ordinary Acoustic Bass (No matter how high the quality) for a Mega Voice Acoustic Bass, as the voice you choose has to have a similar set-up to the Mega Voice.

Most people think Mega Voices are just ordinary voices with a few extras added, however they are NOT, they are specifically engineered for style play on Yamaha instruments. (This is why (Just like SA Voices) you don’t see many Mega Voices released, whereas ordinary voices are aplenty)

Bill

Mmmmmm
Maybe the problem can be different..
Most of the standard arranger have oonly OR at max 8 trcaks patterns.
1) drums
2) percussion
3) bass line
4) chords
5) Chords
6) melody

For resolve the limited tracks on chords/melody, the only way is to develope SA voice ( layered sounds) for getting many sounds system on the same track.

On qranger fortunally we dont have this limitation, unlimited audio-midi tracks for each pattern.
The qranger structure is always based on 3 mode tracks propiety:
1) drums
2) bass
3) melody
this mean that you can create unlimited audio-midi tracks and set under the desidered system propiety.
In this way for example, you can use a normally .gig guitar in one track, then create a new track and use a Noise.gig guitar sounds and mix all together.
Boh...this is just a possibility..
I leave the others to choose how to develope a audio-midi styles, the qranger is full open for make the all what you want.

Mimik is NOT the answer to anyone's desire to sound BETTER than a closed arranger. Simply copying the sounds, so that the styles can finally play correctly is an insane solution. All along, for ever, since DAY 1 of the launch of the MS, it's protagonists have CLAIMED (and as of yet, utterly failed to prove) that the MS will sound BETTER than a closed arranger. The thought that you have to clone a closed arranger to sound better is idiocy at its' most obvious. Only with the greatest attention to detail will the MS ever sound even IDENTICAL, and even James should be ashamed to suggest it. He well knows that sampling a sound that also uses envelopes and LFO, pitch transposition will munchkinize those sounds into something different, and lesser, to be frank.

But the very fact that this Mimik solution is even SUGGESTED by MS users just goes to show how completely incapable of bettering the closed arranger sound with the solution that is obvious in the first place, simply using better quality VSTi's...

Once again, I draw attention to the fact that modern arrangers have gone FAR beyond GM. Non-standard drum maps, extensive variations on the capitol sounds - none of these modern extensions to the old way of doing things is even mentioned by those that think (but so far have failed to provide acceptable example of) replacing a modern arranger's sounds is EASY. Instead they trot out the tired and patently idiotic solution of actually cloning the closed arranger's sounds!

There are probably at least half a dozen GREAT guitar sounds, and possibly more, in any closed arranger, just in the steel guitar section. Suggesting that ONE good steel guitar GM GIGA sound is going to adequately replace ALL of them is absurd. They each have a different sound and function, and the designers of the style took its' sound into account as they made the style. Look, it isn't always easy to substitute one guitar for another even within the SAME soundset of just one arranger. As I keep trying to point out (and no-one apparently has any kind of response for), the sound ITSELF dictates the performance. Any of you out there with any decent chops whatsoever will acknowledge that you play and respond to different patches, even of the same basic sound, quite differently. A change in velocity to filter response, or of sample crossover points, or of basic release or attack envelopes will ALL make you play somewhat differently. This is at the crux of why styles don't translate well. Change the sound, you often need to change the PERFORMANCE, too.

But all that is being suggested is to cobble ONE GIGA sound to replace several, and best of jolly good luck if it matches the intention of the style performer..!

This, gentlemen, at least in MY book, is completely insufficient, and at the root of why pretty much all the style conversions from the MS I have ever heard suck. To be fair, it's the same reason why even closed arrangers (who at least start out with a balanced full soundset) seldom manage to equal the original arranger's style. The sound IS the performance. And cloning a sound to make an acceptable translation is stupid. Why ever would one clone a closed arranger (at considerable effort, I might add) when you could simply buy the closed arranger far less expensively in the first place..?!

I am getting almighty tired of listening to those that don't even USE their MS in arranger mode keep trying to tell us how easy something is to do that it is patently obvious they have yet to try. As I keep asking (and I never get), why don't those of you that SAY it is so easy provide us with example after example, not excuse after excuse...?

Oh, and BTW, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the strength of the Yamaha Mega-voice system was that, along with the basic musical notes of the sound, there are also a lot of non-musical noises. For instance, pick noise, scrapes, body knocks, muted notes, and ways to damp held notes. And the REAL trick with these notes is that, unlike the regular pitched notes, that get transposed around, depending on what chord is played, these sounds DON'T. So you have transposed and untransposed sounds all within the same patch...

So, for them to work properly, the style player itself is supposed to be able to differentiate between the pitched and unpitched sounds, and transpose only within a certain range... has anyone that claims all this is easy even BOTHERED to check whether the MS's style player (or Live styler) will actually play this way? And has anyone bothered to find out whether these GIGA sets use a similar system for triggering alternate, non pitched sounds, or if they use something totally different (for instance, PC#'s or controller codes) are compatible with any style engine?

Once again, I detect all too much theoretical 'it OUGHT to be able to do such and such' but it is obvious from the complete lack of example that once again, theoretical knowledge appears to be sufficient for MS owners. But most of us are not content with theoretical example. If it is so easy, JUST DO IT.

How about we put a moratorium on theoretical responses..? If you can't SHOW us it being done, it's pretty obvious you haven't done it. And therefore, you are in no position whatsoever to tell us that it CAN be done...

Sadly, I doubt the MS fanboys will respect this, though. It's just TOO easy to keep talking about things you know nothing about, isn't it? As long as you never have to SHOW us you know what you are talking about, hey, who's going to call you out?

Well, me... for starters!

Correct Dennis....and, you were not one of those who claimed the Mediastation could play a Tyros2 style better than the Tyros2 itself.

However, I'm glad you wish to at least try and see how well the Mediastation performs this task...at least you are willing to try, rather than be like the others and boast but not back up their claims.

You would think the manufacturer would be leaping at a chance to prove how much better their instrument can play another instrument's style, especially after making these claims many times on this forum.

So, it's going to take an owner, like yourself, to showcase the Mediastation...personally, since you are basically doing a clinicians job, I think you should be compensated in some way, especially if you can get the instrument to sound even reasonably close to a Tyros2.

As Bill said above," The Mega voice type voices have been available in VSTi for over 10 years, and are now much more advanced, “However” due to the makeup of these type of voices it will take a lot longer to convert these styles then MS users think."

And, again, ]"Most people think Mega Voices are just ordinary voices with a few extras added, however they are NOT, they are specifically engineered for style play on Yamaha instruments."

So it appears you have a fairly difficult task ahead of you, although Ensnareyou and Lionstracs, and a few others, seem to think the Mediastation can do the task quite easily.

I must say, I admire your willingness to at least try to show how close the MS can mimic the T2's styles...it is certainly far more effort than any of the others have shown.

If it fails to reproduce a mega-voiced style better than a Tyros2, we can always pick a few non-mega styles, and see how it does with them...if that's okay with you?

I know you are interested in seeing how well your keyboard handles styles, plus, doing these experiments will also let you get to know the instrument much more intimately, so you, personally, have much to gain, and nothing to lose.

Thanks again,

Ian

And that is why just telling an MS user to “make a converted style sound better” by just replacing one sound with another is ridiculous.

Already, the detractors are limiting the examples by saying don’t replace an acoustic bass with a synth bass.
That only underscores the point that “better” is very subjective.


Lets be real, if some MS users put up examples of a Yamaha style played on the MS and it does not meet with approval by the detractors, does any one seriously think that it is a result of the MS not being able to do what it said it can do?
Of course not!

For example, Arrangers are advertised that they can sound like a one man band.
But if some one has a G70 arranger, takes it on a gig, plays using styles and has no timing, presses the fill and intro buttons at the wrong time, plays wrong chords, and otherwise sounds bad, do we then say arrangers could not make someone sound like a one man band?

No. we all know it is the user that would make the arranger sound like a band.

So why does any one think it will be any different with the MS.

In fact there is an additional factor with the MS. The type and quality of the VST or sound source the user uses will greatly affect the style.

Its just like a DAW manufacturer. If Sonar says you can make recordings on their DAW that would be radio ready, and a user creates a recording that is not radio ready, do we say that Sonar can not make a recording that is radio ready? No. we all know it entirely depends on the skill of the user and the sounds that the user uses.

And, if some one wanted to make a style sound {“better” on an MS, they may not use all the style tracks that are in the original style.
A person may feel that with the sounds that they are using on the MS, less sounds on the style part may make them sound “better” when they are playing.

Just because a style may sound “better” does not equate to you sounding “better” playing the style.

You should try telling that to the ones who claimed the Mediastation could easily load in a Tyros2 style, and by replacing (re-voicing) the T2's mega-voiced style tracks with the Mediastation's "superior" VST voices, the style will sound far better than it sounded originally.

The claim, such as the above, has been made on this forum many times, and yet, it has never been backed up...not once.

And, this claim to fame seems also to be promoted by those who don't even own or play a Mediastation.

If the above claim is not true, then it should be retracted, and the Mediastation can go on doing what it does best...playing VST's remarkably well.

Ian

So, a good player on a Casio will sound better than a bad player on an MS. Does that make the Casio or the MS the 'better' arranger..?!

More excuses, and patently absurd ones at that...

Why wouldn't someone substitute an acoustic bass with a synth bass? Hmmmm, let me think about that for a nanosecond! Perhaps because most styles that use acoustic bass are ACOUSTIC styles? Perhaps, in YOUR world, jazz and bigband use synth basses. Back in the REAL world, they (on the whole) don't..!

I'm sorry genesys, but your entire post (and most others about the MS) simply sounds like an advance apologia for how bad these conversions are going to suck... YOU'RE the one telling us this can be done. Where's YOUR music made on the MS? Got any? Got any in style mode? Shy? Making excuses already? Got ANYTHING done on an MS? How long you had it already?

If you can point to the specific claim that the MS manufacturer made a bout style conversion please share.
Not your interpretation but the actual claim.