Diki, be prepared...That day is fast approaching

I will be happy to be the first to suggest you eat your words!! (I mean that in a light-hearted way btw )

Dennis

I have had my knife and fork and plate ready since the very first day...!

Still hungry! And I mean that sincerely. NOTHING would make me happier than to have the open arranger's potential FINALLY realized. I have NEVER posted against the 'concept' of the idea. Merely it's amazingly poor execution, so far.

The trouble is, open arrangers and soundsets are made, generally, by people and companies with only a TINY fraction of the capital that the majors have. And, although it's no problem to make ONE sound sound great by itself, it's another level of complexity and cost entirely to make an entire, pretty comprehensive soundset all work together. Only those with the deepest of pockets can afford to do this, and hardware sales is what is underwriting it. It is completely unrealistic, IMO, to expect quality at a tiny fraction of the cost that it now takes.

While playing BACK the samples has gotten radically cheaper, any laptop can do the job fairly easily, what HASN'T got easier is recording those samples in the first place. They still take formidable equipment, experience and time to do just ONE well, and you KNOW how I feel about turning a bunch of separately recorded sounds into a whole that all work well with each other!

And sorry, but for proof of this, I offer up how there really isn't ONE software soundset available right now (after having been made for 10-15 years or more) that even PRETENDS to be as well integrated as a hardware arranger. The individual sounds may be far superior, but they don't 'play nice' with each other the way a Tyros's or Roland's do...

For what arranger players do on a daily basis, the way that different sounds all interact is FAR more important that how good each individual sound is.

I can't WAIT to eat my words, trust me. But I have a feeling I am going to be hungry for a long time to come.

Diki, if you ate all your words, you'd be bigger than an elephant . How are you, my friend? We haven't communicated in awhile. I was hoping you'd resurface 'cause I'd been getting kind of bored lately.

I'm a little confused though. You say "For what arranger players do on a daily basis, the way that different sounds all interact is FAR more important that how good each individual sound is". That may be true but I don't really understand how. For instance, how does the way an arranger handles a sound set differ from the way a SMF handle a sound set? If I remember correctly, the G1000 had the same sound set as that upgraded Sound Canvass (SC88 or something). The voices in arranger style playing sound good because each voice has been tweaked in each individual style to sound optimal. But most people do the same to SMF's to prepare them for performance. I use sound sources from everything in my studio when making a baking track, Triton, Motif ES, SonicCell, Fantom G7, DM10 drums, VP-770, PA1x pro, Tyros 2 (love their guitars), and even some really old stuff like the Korg 01W module midied to an original SC55 (really phat).

I truly believe that if the basic arranger-specific functionality were there in the basic unit, such as the Mediastation, that a talented style-production team could produce a superior sounding arranger using a superior (as in, superior to what is found in hardware units) sound/sample set tweaked for each individual style. Of course, at that point, we're essentially back to a hardware arranger, since this is their 'formula'. The advantage, of course, would be the greater potential for 'cheap' upgradability. Interesting discussion, as always.

chas

I suppose they expect you to use an external monitor.

That or headphones!
DonM

Dennis... What I'm referring to isn't how each sound individually is good, but how they all work together. Probably the biggest difference between WS users and arranger users is, each composition in SMF form tends to be a work unto itself. It isn't expected to work for other songs, it isn't expected that SOME parts or sounds may stay the same while others get changed out, it isn't expected that we can completely change the overall sound of the song at a whim.

But arrangers DO...

It's this interactivity between the style, and the sounds used by the style, and then the RH sounds that distinguishes the arranger from the WS. It is rare, in most WS's, that you can substitute ANY sound for any other sound, and not have to do some tweaking. It is VERY rare, to be able to take a drum performance that sounds great on one drum kit, and it still sound great on another. It is unusual to be able to substitute one bass sound for another, and it still WORK.

But arranger players do this all the time.

Now, let's just take RH sounds. I've yet to play a WS where, if you decide 'today, I want to play lead on this harmonica sound, rather than the french horn sound I used yesterday', you can do it without having to tweak levels, at the very least. Often, even similar sounds (say a choice of a dozen Rhodes patches) can be radically different in volume, not to mention 'presence' and EQ. On a WS, no biggie. Things tend to be far more worked out in advance, it is seldom, after crafting a Performance to go with a particular SMF backing, that you go 'I want to substitute string lines for horn lines, today'...

But you do on an arranger.

It's the interchangeability of sounds that marks the arranger. This is the thing that differentiates it from the WS.

Add to that that, it is VERY rare to be able to substitute one sound from one keyboard and have it work well with the style data from another (how BAD most style translations are before some major tweaking demonstrates that) and you start to see the problem once you try to cobble a cohesive soundset out of a myriad of different VSTi's that can still play a myriad of different manufacturer's styles.

We ask SO MUCH of our arrangers, and often have so little appreciation for what is going on under the hood. But the failure of any software soundset to address this degree of balancing (while still remaining as comprehensive as most TOTL arrangers' soundsets are) just MIGHT go to indicate what a huge task this really is.

I really CAN'T wait for this to actually happen, but I have a feeling that, until the majors start to get involved, nobody has any real budget to ensure success. And, even if a major DID, it would still have to be a pretty expensive product to offset the cost of doing it. If you look at one of the areas where the sample companies HAVE tried to make comprehensive, balanced soundsets even for a more limited sound selection, that of orchestral emulation, you are looking at software that costs THOUSANDS of dollars, more than any arranger, even. And that is JUST the orchestral sounds. Imagine the cost when an entire set as comprehensive as a T4's is brought to that level...

Diki, yes this is what I am referring to. This is what my goal is in using this new Groove XR. The marriage between it and the PA2X will be so sweet!!

Imagine the PA2X style engine driving VST instruments, thats one option. Then to have full audio styles available as well. To be able to have access to as many right hand sounds as you put it, and in such high quality and definition, and yes all at the push of a button.

No tweaking. ALL in real time, no dropouts, no glitching.

And really let's face it pretty much ALL of us here at SZ tweak all the styles we use on our arranger keyboards.

From what I read about what folks say that they do with their keyboards, I don't think there is one "standard from the factory" 'board here!!

So I don't see what the difference is in tweaking styles using the Groove XR to be honest, and to make "oh the end user will have to tweak a style" as an argument against using/buying an open arranger doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The way this new OS 5 and more importantly the new Qranger engine will really allow audio styles to shine. The seamless integration of a super-smooth and speedy Linux OS underneath (almost as good as OSX ) will see this rack zoom.

Particularly for those of us who already have arrangers with a decent MIDI spec, Yamaha, Korg, Roland but not as strong....Imagine the possibilities of mixing the Groove and ALL it's VST-Giga capability with a Tyros 4? Or a PA2x...Man what a white-hot combo!!!!

So I do hear what you are saying and I do empathise (remember I HAVE been through the mill as far as Lionstracs keyboards go), but please, PLEASE keep an open mind until after MusikMesse, and don't let any pre-judgement spoil your appreciation of what will be a truly remarkable instrument!!

Dennis

I am FAR from pre-judging things, Dennis. I have always commented on how things are NOW. This got me into a lot of trouble with those that are always looking ahead to how things MIGHT be! Usually, in their heads, MIGHT is usually substituted with WILL...

As always, I look forward to the day when our expectations are actually MET.

But even you, still, after all your go-round with the MS, are telling me how things WILL be. Not how they ARE. I would have thought you might be a little more wary after what was supposed to work turned out not to (as well as you wanted).

Me, I am going to wait until it is a reality before I rejoice!

Diki I am not saying how thing will be...No not at all... I am saying it is how I am anticipating them to be. Of course no-one can say exactly how something in the future will actually turn out.

And of COURSE I am wary...But I am keeping the faith my man!!

Then - after MusikMesse - I will able to tell you how things are maybe even to also show you, how things are.

Dennis

Looking forward to it, Dennis...