You are right, i agree with you again, it is a very simple style. This is only Apples to Apples
comparison, honestly there is difference, i hear it right away at the first second...and also
you are right again, Korg's styles can be tweaked, my own sound better then the factory.
But keep in mind...what if we actually tweaked the Style on Goliath? I know for my own taste
Korg would dissapear UNDERWATER many times in front of Goliath. Now, going back to
DNC and GM as i said in the other post, GM wont translate as it is but i can turn only that
track into a MIDI, bring it back to the same style on MediaStation, run it thru a better Guitar
and Voila! As for DNC no talks at all...no need to translated...we can just get a 4-5 Gigs
Strings or any sound from a Big Library with its own DNC and again Voila! Right?
DNC Translated, i think its fair enough. Remember, my point on this is not exact as yours.
Your point is how can it be easier and with no work, mine is how can i sound better then
you (not litereally) meaning, i am after the quality, no matter of time and work (which we
both know its almost the same or less then translating from Korg to Roland). The RH was
there only for whatever reason, a better Piano i guess. Later on i will do a more complicated
Style and i already know the result will be the same as this, same timig of work and result.
Then after that i will do what gets me Horny...tweaking Korg's style but then tweaking it in
Goliath too...YAY! If one only pays a lil attention to the Snare and Toms in the Goliath MP3.



[This message has been edited by Nedim (edited 05-01-2010).]

Well, for me, as a full time gigging player (in addition to the studio work), I'm afraid that time spent translating and tweaking is EVERYTHING. Which is why, to be honest, I actually use very few translations. They are generally more bother, timewise, than they are worth.

Sure, nice simple styles are a snap, but who wants to play nice simple styles? (I got plenty of those!) The more attention and detail put into the style in the first place to leverage the technology of the original keyboard, the very thing that makes you WANT to translate it, is also the very thing that makes the translation so hard to do. Sure, strip out all the hard stuff, translation is easier. But what you end up with is a shadow of its' original glory.

What would be a REAL test of the whole thing (and I know it's a lot to ask for) would be for you to pick perhaps the dozen absolute BEST, most groovy, jaw-droppingly fabulous styles in the PA800, with no regard to whether they are simple or not, and all of quite different sound. Some rock, some jazz, some modern alternative, whatever...

Now translate them into MS styles using VSTi's, and don't rest until they sound BETTER than the originals. Then let us know how long it really took you. That would give us a 'real world' set of figures to estimate for ourselves what translating our favorite style libraries would take.

You see, as I kind of keep pointing out to those that have actually had an MS for quite some while, but still don't feel confidant enough with their work to post any of it, for a working musician, it's no good that the MS COULD sound MUCH better than a closed arranger if it takes so long to actually get it there that you never get around to actually doing it. Some of them have had MS's for YEARS now, and STILL they won't post anything they are proud of, and those that do, well, let's just be charitable, and say better luck next time?

The whole POINT of the MS is to use it live. A lot of us already GOT VSTi rigs to do home and studio work on. But the MS is supposed to be gigged. And, in that case, it has to be able to be set up fast enough that someone steadily gigging actually has enough time to do it! Sooner or later, to convince us skeptics, someone is going to HAVE to show us how fast it can all be done, and not just on the easy styles..!

I wish I had enough time to be able to take my own sweet time getting it ready to gig. But unfortunately (or not!), I would rather be earning money playing, than NOT earning money programming...!

You make your own points too and you are right but whats the fun in just playing without tweaking.
I mean, everything takes time, one can have an MS for year and a half and gig on something else
as most of us usally do till we get it ready, i guess then the time was worth it.
Not necesarilly one has to sit down 6 hours a day to program an MS, do it once in a while.

And hearing lies the difference between having a closed arranger mind and an open arranger mind.
Makes no sense having an open arranger but still having the mindset of a closed arranger user.

A tool is a tool. Doesn't matter if it is closed or open if it doesn't do the JOB.

But if having a closed arranger mind means leaving yourself enough time to actually GIG (and maybe eat and sleep too ) then put me down as one of those...

There are people that like to tinker with cars, build them from scratch, love kit cars, and making the car is the entire purpose. Then there are people trying to GET SOMEWHERE...!

I get the impression that the open arranger mind is like the guy who is more concerned with building the car than driving it.

An open arranger is not that much different to a closed arranger as it relates to customizing it to your needs. Except that the open arranger gives you more options.


Some one may be able to take a converted style to a G70 use make-up tools and get a good sounding style in less than 15 minutes.
Another person could do the same thing and take 30 minutes and not have a good sounding result.

It all depends on the person.

Now it does not appear that if you play using styles 100% taking the MS from the box straight to the gig is not the intended use.


Even if you play using styles, I am sure everyone does something to customize a new arranger to their unique playing style and gig requirements.


Whether closed or open, one should be spending a few hours customizing the keyboard to his or her needs initially.
From there, whether to use an open or closed arranger depends on the skill level of the user.

You might be almost correct there...

But its more like this

Building the car
Driving the car
Finetuning the car
Driving the car
Improving the car
Driving the car
Improving the car
Driving the car
Updating the car
Driving the car...

Open arranger people do drive, and maybe even a lot. But they also like to play with the mechanics of their toy car.

But if you are dependant on your car for your work, constantly breking things down in your car to rebuild them might not be a good idea... You need atleast 2 cars to do this. As your first car should allways be fully operational.

I myself belong to the people (>90% of arranger players do) that don't gig, but just play at home, and for us it doesn't really matter if a keyboard is not working for 2 days (and a lot of time invested) as long as it improves continually.


But for for professional players and others dependent on their instruments, you really made a point there. Those people can't afford to play around to much with new feautures and need to have a working system every night...

So either they need 2 open Mediastations or Dom needs to implement a backup system that lets you store the whole system including all VSt's ans setting on an immage on an external hard disk... When things go wrong, you could allways store back the image, which should work rather quick for a USB3 device even if there are 100's of GB's data.

If Dom can implement this on MEdiastation, you might have helped to improve Mediastation and other open keyboards with your wise remark

Thanks Diki for the constructive remarks

Probably less than 5% of arranger keyboards are used for gigging, the other 95% are used purely in the home or a home studio, and for these users (The majority) the amount of time required to set a keyboard up, has little relevance.

Bill

Thing is, of the 95% of arranger not used for gigging, probably 95% of THOSE are used by people with insufficient technical skill to DO all the extensive tweaking, translating, setting up VSTi libraries, etc., etc. an open arranger NEEDS. Heck, a fairly high % get used by people who can barely PLAY, let alone know a damn thing about programming.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it... Just because you have the TIME doesn't say a damn thing about whether you have the skill. For one reason or another, the VAST majority of arranger players don't have what it takes to use an open arranger. Thing is, as always, if one of the manufacterers took the time, got off his fat arse, whatever, and set the damn thing up so that at least OOTB it bettered the closed arranger, it would sell like hotcakes. But rather than provide TOTL sounds and styles, they are sold as 'kitcars' and you build it yourself. As I have been saying forever, 99.999% of people just want to BUY a car to drive around. They DON'T want to have to build it first.

Just face the facts, guys. You are a TINY, tiny minority of arranger players, somehow thinking that your way of doing things is commoner than it is...

You've acknowledged that gigging arranger users are in the minority. Now take the next step...

Here is the thing. If 99.99 percent of “arranger” players can not operate an electronic musical instruments and require everything to be made for them exactly how they need it OOTB, then an open arranger is not for them period.
And, not even a closed arranger is for them because I don’t know that a closed arranger meets everyone of the 99.99 percent of that population.

The open arranger/workstation is the next progressive step in keyboard technology. You want arrangers to attract more younger persons. You want arrangers to handle more modern music? Then an open arranger is the logical step to accomplishing those task.
Modern players are accustomed to using Loop based programs, VSTs and mixing and matching thing. That is the market for open arrangers. Or and by the way, to beauty of an open arranger is that it is not just an open arranger.

An open Arranger/workstation gives the user the chance to have a Motif xs and a T3 in one.