This is going to be a 'tricky' post, but which are your preferences (if you had to choose ONLY one method, which would it be) ... and why?

Please read through question carefully before answering. Your answers will be carefully reviewed for our next project.

1. SOFTWARE (e.g Protools, Cubase ... etc) or a combination of different software.

2. HARDWARE (e.g Digital recorders & Mixers capable of producing fully mastered sound burned to disk ... etc) or a combination of hardware tools. It is understood that software run these devices, so I hope you understand what we mean here.

Thanks,

AJ

Hi AJ, I am not sure what does this reffer to. If we're talking ALL devices, I don't think it is possible right now to go exclusively either soft or hard-ware.

So, if we're talking ARRANGERS, I'd still choose hardware, because software I believe is not yet right up to the job, eventhough I believe the future belongs to modular software arranger instruments.

If we're talking DAW, software all the way.

So, I'd choose 1. Indeed, the DAWs now offer beside the recording and editing abilities, also a good selection (sometimes huge) of very good sounds. What I haven't seen yet is a proper sofware arranger integrated into a DAW. if you want to come up with something like that - great! You'd be opening a very interesting and challenging direction.

Goodluck with whatever plans you have at Ketron!
Cheers,
Adi

You haven't exactly told us what the TASK is for these tools...

But I tend to agree with Adi here. The software arranger is still a LONG way from rivaling a GOOD hardware one, so hardware here.

And recording is still FAR easier, better and more powerfully intuitive in a DAW.

But don't drop SIMPLE tools for recording from arrangers, please. It pains me that Roland have pretty much done away with ANY form of MIDI recording on pretty much all of their new keyboards, arranger and WS alike. They now expect you to cart around at least a laptop to USB the keyboard to, and transfer the MIDI data to it to record in this secondary tool. This is a TERRIBLE idea!

Who, in their right minds, would prefer this to a simple 'Recorder' that merely recorded the MIDI data, and even if the arranger has no further sequencing capability, allowed you to save this 'capture' as an SMF to transfer to a computer LATER...

You never know when the inspiration hits. But you know that, in all probability, your 'one take' audio recording is going to have maybe a few slight 'flubs'. Surely you would be better off creating an SMF, and editing the few flubs out?

You better have your laptop connected, if you have a modern Roland.

PLEASE do not go down this path!

He is talking both recording and mastering..

In which case, i would go for a full software setup which adds much much more flexibillity. Is more cost effective. And has equall or better performance then a full hardware set-up.

A simple laptop with a good professional audio inteface and the right software should do the trick

If Ketron are considering moving into this already crowded field, I can only hope they reconsider!

Stick to what you do best.

Perhaps your efforts would be better spent in developing a SSHD version of the Audya, so that data streaming and access could be fast enough that you don't NEED to only have a very limited selection of available chords for the audio style Parts?