I'm sorry I got that impression, then Steve. I thought we discussed why the engineers would be unable to bypass the MMA, and you QUITE definitely stated that unwillingness for any company to change what it was doing and simply insisting that everybody ELSE do it 'their way' would inevitably happen. If that doesn't define 'inertia, unwillingness to change and company rivalry', I don't know what does...

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 09-28-2010).]

Bachus,
I used a CME 76 key MIDI controller.
If you are careful and brave...you can use the Tx or PA2 or whatever rght on it (on the front) then you have to support the rear. I use a on-stage stands 2 tier unit and have modified it to hold the arranger at the rear. The way I had it last time I did this is not secure enough for gigging. You could easily make it more secure.
I used the split on the CME....left for arranger LH...right for any other voice you want. R1,2,3 on te Tx or PA2.
I also had my Kurz MIDIed up so I coud use right split to plat sounds from it...simple enough.

Actually with a Tx I would use a 61 key cotroller and build a base for it unless you use it for gigging...then I would do what I already said but better.

I had some issues with this setup. IF I remember correctly on the T2..LH hold didn't work right...on the PA2 I think the lower worked OK with LH hold..but there was something else that sucked. I would have to set it up again to see the details.

I also had the Roland PK5 pedals in this setup.

I may go back to it. I just moved and can't find half my **** , so it will be a while.

If I went T4 I would absolutely do this...If I go with the new Korg...depends, If I get a 61 then yes...If I get a 76 nope...not needed.

The MIDI setup is trivial.

Lee S.

Thing is, TP, there's a difference between defining a NEW standard, and creating unique codes to do something, something the MMA is completely in charge of, and deciding amongst manufacturers how to standardize the use of EXISTING codes, which is what the arranger manufacturers need to do.

They already use commonplace simple MIDI program changes (or at least, most of them do) and already defined CC codes to achieve remote control of an arranger. BUT THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT!

It's insane! How many of us are ever likely to want to link up TWO Yamaha's, or two Korg's, Roland's, whatever? FAR fewer than those of us that would like to link a Korg to a Roland, or a Yamaha to a Korg, etc., IMO. But as long as those codes are unique to each manufacturer, the whole POINT of the feature is completely lost.

Before MIDI, you could hook up Oberheim gear to Oberheim gear, Sequential Circuits gear to Sequential gear, Roland to Roland, and so on. But the massive increase in keyboard use and buying didn't happen until you could hook up a Roland to a Yamaha, and a Sequential Circuits to an Oberheim, and so on and so forth...

What part of this do the arranger manufacturers not 'get'..?

Vagro,
Maybe you & me are the only ones here to have actually done this..??
It works pretty well with the Yamaha and Korg. Yes, there is a few things I would like...but it is usaeable now.
Diki, the registrations are fine, no it does not have full sound controls like a reguar organ...but it augments the arranger pretty well.


Also the MIDI pedals work for bass and or the arranger functions.

Lee S.

Tom,

Steve is a great guy; knowledgeable and diplomatic, and always shoots straight from the hip.

He has posted here many times to assist with any questions and to clear up any misunderstandings about the Yamaha arrangers, and yes, you're right that it's cool that someone in his position takes the time to visit this forum.

I also think that those who feel it is necessary to misquote his responses, to further their own agenda against Yamaha's policies, be they from posts, or from a phone conversation, are doing, both Steve and this forum, a great disservice.

BTW, have you sorted out the issue with your Tyros?

Ian

We'd get the same response from the MMA as you would with the IEEE-1394 association, TP...

And, I'm sorry, but anyone that excuses the inability to operate two arrangers AS ONE by saying the second one adds in a bunch of extra sounds (but you have to call them up independently) is kind of missing the point. ANY of us can put two different arrangers, or an arranger and a WS, synth, whatever, next to each other and have that... But we also double our housekeeping, calling each one up individually to do what it needs. Imagine calling ONE registration on one arranger, and it calling the right registration up on the other arranger... then the Parts that sound best on one arranger get played, and its' weak Parts get muted, and the same on the other arranger...

Then, when you call for a Fill and want to go to Variation4 on one arranger, the other does the same...

Nirvana..!

As opposed to the current nightmare of trying to get two arrangers to operate as one we currently have.

At the moment, the only semi-viable workaround is to hook a laptop between the two arrangers, and have it translate the Variation calls from one arranger into the codes the other one wants to see, and so on and so forth. To my knowledge, several have tried and no-one succeeded completely. And having to do this over-complicates what ought to be a simple process if only the standardization of the existing codes occurred.

Currently I use a G70 (had it since they first came out), have a second for backup, do primarily (or at least for the last couple of years) live band work, but also duo, single (very occasionally), and a fair amount of session work, too. I am NOT an arranger 'purist' in any sense of the word!

My problem is, playing in live bands so much, I am unwilling to accept many of the sonic compromises that plague single arrangers. IMO, there isn't ONE 'perfect' arranger. You ALWAYS get weak points as well as strong, no matter WHAT you choose. To me, combining two arrangers that each one covers up the weak spots on the other is probably the best of all possible worlds. But it is infuriating to see such a simple thing (the lack of code standardization) make this task virtually impossible.

It's not like the industry has to ADD anything. Simply change what they already have to a common set of codes. And then ALL of us that like the idea of running TWO arrangers instead of just the one (and, if this worked, I am SURE there would be MANY) would run out and buy another arranger on the spot!

Why this doesn't motivate the arranger industry to add this standardization is one of life's great mysteries... Guess they don't WANT my money...

Thank you for all that great Info Diki.

Its obvious that most arrangers are still build to function as a standalone instrument.

Only Korg's PA2X was build with master keyboard functionallity in mind. And even the PA2X is far from ideal in being on the receiving end.

Is it so hard to see that a Wersi Abacus dua pro configuration with or without pedals is something a lot of Yamaha fans would love to see, with assignable instruments to 3 zones on the uppper and 3 zones on the lower keyboard...

Its all about flexibillity... in performance A i want to play the Upper keys as an arranger while having a full lower keyboard available for a piano part...
Or in performabce B having 2 solo insruments on the upper keys and 2 solo instruments on the lower keys.

15 years ago i had a WX2 from GEM that allowed full flexibillity in setting up the keys i could layer 8 sounds over the keyboard every sound having its own range. and then add a splitpoint for the left hand chord recognition on top of that.

But, if that's the case, why have MIDI at all?

Why have features like second keyboard input ability, and then cripple it so?

Why even INCLUDE the codes for remote operation or master keyboard functionality, if they are so barebones as to be effectively useless?

Either drop them, or make them work PROPERLY... Because this halfway hell is pointless, IMO.

Seems we agree on that...