They actually do sustain, but you can hear a slight glitch, not much but it is there...but I just played a five note chord with a different patch on each note - each sound held, albeit with a slight audible artefact when the next patch was selected.....

What about release tails? Do they keep sounding? I must admit, I tried that trick on the PA3 and the glitches were what I thought was more than 'slight'. Once you are used to totally seamless, I guess the hiccups seem more annoying than if you haven't.

But things are definitely getting better in Korg country. Now bring on the Kronos based PA4!

yeah for the most part they did..DEFINITELY not seamless...The Kronos was brilliant in this task!! The best outside a DAW vsti engine imho

Oh well you know , slight glitch as in the patch didn't totally stop LOL!!!!

It is still totally unacceptable for me were I to do that live ( and you too ) but the PA sorta kinda does not drop notes as such....

Actually Dan is hard at work incorporating a VSTi engine in vArranger...so maybe no sound cutoff might be possible on it...

Although having to be tethered to a laptop on stage ( totally different to using an ipad for charts ) was the ONLY reason I dissed the Motif XS + the Karma 3. It ONLY works when a PC is connected to generate all the midi data.

Same reason I went back to a PA and away from vArranger....just TOO awkward...If I was only playing for a lead singer vArranger had possibilities, but for a solo player/singer pretty awkward, well at least for me anyway...OMMV.

PS: sorry for the digression

Dan's got a herculean task if he thinks he's going to make a VSTi engine in an arranger. Look at how difficult that task proved for Lionstracs. The onboard ROM libraries of even most BOTL arrangers are so extensive, so well sampled, and most importantly, so WELL INTEGRATED they have so far defied software equivalency.

I think Dan's time would be better spent making the software arranger work seamlessly with current TOTL (or MOTL) WS's like the MotifXF, Kronos, etc., and forget about the task of providing a soundsource that honestly stands little chance of bettering even an S910 or BK-5.

I mean, if you want an arranger with that sound quality, you are going to BUY an S910 or BK-5, etc.!

What we are looking for with software arrangers is MUCH better than currently available. And the only place you are going to find that is in a good WS.

If Dan were to concentrate on translation tables between PA3X style sounds (and Tyros4, Ketron Audya, Roland G70/BK-7m etc.) and Kronos ROM sounds (or MotifXF, Fantom-G or Jupiter80) it would be a world-class product. But tie it to naff user soundfonts of underdeveloped VSTi's, it will only ever be an also-ran, IMHO.

Learn from Lionstracs, Dan! Use existing, well thought out sound sources, and leave the VSTi integration to only an add-on afterthought! The Ketron module success shows the way.

Actually using a VSTi with vvArranger will work quite seamlessly..I was doing it

The BIG problem with the MS - well two really, was Linux was a piss-poor OS for running audio apps, (still is!!!) apart form DJ tasks, and Dom wasted ALL that time trying to adapt an engine (the elastique I think it was) to have styles using all audio..As Ketron have found out to their loss it is a LOT harder than you think - you know this...

vArranger is much the same as Karma in that ALL it generates is MIDI data...what you send that midi data to is up to the end user..

I actually had it running okay with the TTS-1 synth loaded up in Sonar (TTS-1 is the Roland Sand Canvas VSTi included with Sonar, and it is 16 part multi-timbral) sound was average, but it worked okay using a software midi router...

If I was sticking with the laptop method, I would set up templates in Sonar with various vst's racked to take the midi data from vArranger...for each of the parts..that is if I was not happy with the Ketron Sd2, or 4.

I had already got this software vst hookup working with the now defunct OSL Rack Project...

But there is no way in the foreseeable future imo that hardware arrangers are going to get replaced by software - it is all just a bit clunky and awkward, achievable, certainly, sounding good, yes -but jst too many hoops to get through.

TTS-1, as you say, is a Sound Canvas VSTi. And not even a last gen one. If you want your arranger to sound like a G600, maybe even a G1000, then OK... it's going to do the job. But who in their right mind is going to run a software arranger on a current gen laptop, and be happy with a soundset that is based on something 15 years old or more?!

I mean, what's the POINT?

You are back with the PA3X now. Honestly, are you going to be happy with an arranger that is FAR less impressive than that?

Look, the whole idea of the software arrangers is it allows you to play multiple style formats. So, you are going to want to import the latest styles. But, with the latest styles comes the task of rearranging EVERY SINGLE STYLE to work with a soundset that is completely different to the one the style was written for. Not only the basic Capitol sound, but the myriads of Variations that often are quite utterly different to the capitol sound. Drumkits with quite different note mappings (Standard MIDI, GS/GM and Yamaha mappings all seem a distant memory), utterly different velocity crossover points between samples, velocity response, etc..

Just this task alone is quite a task (look how long and how slow EMC are in responding to style conversion software for newer arrangers with newer soundsets). And now you want Don to consider the task of creating a Soundfont or VSTi based soundset that is not only going to cover ONE manufacturer, but ALL of them, and do it seamlessly?

I don't believe it can be done. Dom certainly couldn't. I have never heard a VSTi yet that, when sent a proper Roland GS SMF, or a Yamaha XG file, ends up sounding BETTER than its hardware equivalent. And Lord help you if it contains some of the more obscure Variation sounds or those lesser used drumkits..!

But the task of creating an look-up table to convert every single PC/00/32 code for a Roland sound, or Yamaha sound, or Korg sound, and pull up the closest equivalent in a Kronos or MoXF is FAR less difficult. The sounds have already been created, they've been balanced and effected, eq'd etc.. The hardware WS is utterly impervious to polyphony over-run ( a major issue in recreating dense styles in software alone) and if certain PC Variation sounds aren't close, it is a WS after all... not that hard to program something closer.

It's all well and good getting an SD2 or 4 to recreate Ketron styles identically to an SD1. But isn't it far more exciting to contemplate the vArranger running into the Kronos or MoXF, and finally have that mind-meld of the arranger and the WS/Arp/Loop player/Karma generator, and move beyond simple recreation of legacy arrangers and move towards creation of something utterly new and unheard as of yet..? But with all the reliability of TOTL hardware based synths?

Just as Kay's Karma software can push a Motif into utterly new capabilities, vArranger engineered to trigger existing TOTL WS's would add yet another degree of capability to a keyboard utterly incapable of doing this for itself. And would take FAR less effort on Dan's behalf than trying to put together some naff VSTi soundfont that would struggle to achieve better than 15 year old sound quality.

Just my opinion... but backed up by experience of watching Dom's project go down the toilet.

Yeah I already SAID the sound was average in my post or did you miss that
The whole point was to tell you it can be done...not how GOOD it was going to sound...

The thing you are forgetting is it is ONLY midi data...make of style has no bearing whatsoever...

I had styles running using BFG drums, Broomstick Bass and Guitar Rig from NI....I could use ANY style from any maker as long as the style playing software could interpret the midi data... this was with other software. I only used vArranger with the TTS just to confirm the connections. I went back to a PA3 soon after that, so I did not develop it any further...

As for them not sounding better you obviously have not heard then using specialist instrument vst's which totally sh@t over ANYTHING Roland can produce!!!!

And yes I KNOW the VSTs are going to cost more than the sound banks on a G70, and ergo are theoretically out of reach of most as you would need to buy about 8 really good ones, but they will give a brilliant sound result.

You keep referring to Dom and the MS....vArranger is SO far away from that it is not funny...The MS downfall was trying to operate it as an audio only arranger...that was why the midi data side fell down so much..in planning and development midi was the poor (distant) cousin. Had Dom concentrated on midi only data but using vst's as the sound engine it would have worked quite well.

Still would not have sold many, as it is Linux, but it would have worked.

You say it can't be done...don't you read...I already wrote above I have DONE it, and was DOING it...it ain't rocket science you know

If you want a point by point on how to do it just ask...but really m8, I thought you were more with it than this....

vArranger already runs perfectly, styles from Roland, Yamaha and Ketron......what more do you want!!! And all using the SD2 as the sound source. Dan has done a brilliant job...

Dan is the person who is driving the push to use vsti's as the sound source so he can keep it all in one contained system, no external hardware of a sound generating nature is needed...remember, and I will say it again....vArranger is ONLY midi data!!!!No audio...

Rather than trying to find negative jibes at his efforts you of all people should be actively trying to be more positive about where he is taking it!!!!

If I wanted to I could run vArranger into a Kronos...it would be a doddle!!

Look that's enough from me on this. You have your opinion and you clearly don't seem to want to move off it, lest you appear wrong perhaps, or for whatever reason I cannot fathom..no offence meant.

Anyway that's me done...

I have no problem with the fact that it can be done... I am well aware of that. The only point I was trying to make (perhaps we both missed each other's?) is that it is a herculean task to create a soundset that accepts styles form a variety of manufacturers, and doesn't go crazy when faced with the bewildering variety of PC/00/32 codes for the ever expanding world of sounds modern arrangers contain. Whether this is done by the user or by the software creator, it is still an AWFUL lot of work.

That vArranger runs styles perfectly from Roland, Ketron, Yamaha is only true if running them INTO a Ketron SD2.... if not, you have much to do to convert them so that they use the best sounds, hit the right vel-switch spots for kits, etc., etc..

Sure, you do all this work (whether to use a different soundsource or VSTi's) and OF COURSE it is going to sound great. The only problem comes when, as so many of us do, you have THOUSANDS of styles. All of which, particularly newer ones, have a huge choice of sounds that they are going to want to call up. I know for a fact that BFD is not going to be able to switch seamlessly from a brush kit to a sticks one and back (which a style might ask for) or Broomstick Bass go from a fretless to a picked bass without loading a new sound (and going dead in the meantime). VSTi's, although they have MUCH better sounds, are not necessarily as flexible in a live situation as a hardware module is (hence the success of the vArranger with the Ketron module, rather than some theoretical VSTi). I have auditioned several 'all in one' VSTi soundsets (like Colossus, for instance) and haven't yet felt that they do a better INTEGRATED job as a hardware source. Many of the sounds are streets ahead of arranger's built in ones, but I haven't yet felt that I could play say a G70 optimized style or sequence into one, and let the PC/00/32 codes do their business and out comes something balanced and ready to go. Let alone a Yamaha style/sequence or Korg, etc..

I think the point you have completely missed in what I have been trying to say is NOT that it can't be done. Or that I have any problems with Dan's software whatsoever. It is just that, for the vast majority of us mere mortals that don't want to spend an eternity setting up a plethora of different VSTi's, and editing each and every style we use to make sure that its PC#'s don't freak the VSTi out, or worry about whether the polyphony needs are going to bring our laptop to its knees mid-gig, the all computer route is a long and hard one. That you are back on a hardware arranger speaks volumes, Dennis...

Perhaps YOU think that setting vArranger up to use the Kronos would be a doddle. I doubt that many here would find it so easy!

My only point to Dan was to suggest that, rather than spend an eternity trying to get vArranger to work well with a VSTi, that he concentrate on making the lookup tables so that it works well with EXISTING TOTL WS's... something with an already built-in sizable user base, and no way to achieve an arranger's ease of use at present. Not to mention the myriad arranger users chomping at the bit (like you and I) to get our hands on something that combines the best of the arranger world AND the WS world.

I am really sorry you got the wrong impression from what I have written. It was not my intention in any way to derail the idea, or put it down in any way. All I have tried to do is point out to Dan that the idea of a VSTi based arranger HAS been tried before (the MS was a MIDI only, VSTi feeding arranger long before Dom took the thing down the 'elastic audio' dead end) and it proved unsuccessful. But leveraging users of EXISTING WS's soundsources would provide him with an already proven sound selection, and an already purchased user base.

As is the case with the SD2, it is a far easier job to use an existing soundsource than it is to design one yourself.

I hope this has cleared up what I have been trying to say. I don't honestly think we are arguing at all. We both just seem to be saying the same thing in different ways!

Peace..!

Interesting comments however:

Kronos is essentially a software player, its synth engines and modules are effectively VSTi (Some are available from Korg to use in any VST Host) which has been fully integrated into a custom OS, (It’s what the Mediastation could have been) however because you can only use the software instruments that Korg provide, it means they have full control of what can or cannot be done by the user. (It’s as integrated as any hardware board)

A fully integrated VSTi in an arranger/organ has been available for 7 years, as all Wersi OAS instruments from 2005 use the Steinberg Hypersonic VSTi as its sound engine. OAS 7 instruments also give you the option to use your own choice of VSTi for additional sounds. (Including use in styles)

The Pegasus Wing is an interesting departure for Wersi (And not just because it is cheaper than other TOTL arrangers out there) as while it still uses the Steinberg Hypersonic VSTi as its sound engine, it lacks user VSTi integration, thus only VSTi supplied by Wersi can be used (Similar to the Kronos)

As Diki said integrating styles from other manufactures is not easy due to all the variables,(Wersi had to program its own equivalent sounds to replicate the Yamaha Mega Voices to get Yamaha styles to work without conversion) however one of the problems is that most hardware boards don’t have the flexibility to allow an easy transition, (e.g. If a Roland Style has a 3 layer bass drum, but a Korg can only accept a 2 layer bass drum then its gets difficult to get the styles to match) however software instruments don’t have this restriction so it becomes easier (Although still difficult) to sort out the conversion.

The Music industry is (As has been mentioned) in a state of flux at present, so it will be interesting to see what the future brings. (Personally I can’t wait)

Bill

I've heard and tried Hypersonic, Bill. I wasn't that impressed with the sound integration or overall quality compared to a TOTL arranger. Are you?

As an adjunct to an already tried and tested soundset (like the Abacus comes with) it is probably quite good. But would you REALLY be happy if all regular Wersi sounds were removed from the Abacus, and you had to rely 100% on just those Hypersonic sounds?

Or am I getting this wrong? Is 100% of tone generation the Hypersonic engine, but Wersi have loaded it with a custom set of sounds?

I am confused...