Oh, and by the way, Donny.

I am pretty sure we could discuss alternate trigger modes, conditional note triggering, switchable oscillators all night long, and you would blithely pooh-pooh it, and claim that it has NO relevance to your bottom line.

On the other hand... didn't you, until just recently, absolutely adore the S910? Weren't you quite lavish in your praise of those SA voices?

Well, I've got really bad news for you. Those ARE conditional note triggering, alternate trigger mode using, oscillator switching patches! Seems that, perhaps, you DID have a use for all this technical mumbo jumbo it seems obvious you don't understand after all.

As I suggested, how about sticking to threads about money, as it seems obvious you don't really understand what is being discussed here...?

Diki......lol...my talent makes the music no matter what tools I use....I've always said I am not devoted to any brand......just what works and suits my need at the time.....if something new arouses my fancy I will get it.....divisi is Not or CS isn't one of those things.....Sa voices are kool but the other bad navigational features finally made me switch for now anyways.....no big deal.

HI Spalding

The technology you mention stems from the 70s, and has been advanced over the years to make it more realistic with more type of instruments, (It originally only really worked with organ voices) the first to user it was Lowry Organs and they called it AOC (Automatic Organ Computer) to which they held the patent.

Over the years manufactures have advanced it to include exactly what you describe, (Hence the multiple settings in the Auto chording feature) however it has nothing in common with the active real time multi split/layer system used in the Roland AXR card or VSTi (The auto chording feature is fixed) which have algorithms to achieve a far more realistic sound.

If you look at the DVR VSTi that is mentioned in one of the posts you will also see why a hardware arranger has no chance of being able to perform the operation without additional hardware. (Look at the computer specs required just to play the sounds in DVR)

Bill

SA voices are 'kool' (sic), and so would also be divisi voices and stack modes. Just as you probably had no IDEA that conditional voices and sample switching were useful BEFORE Yamaha came out with it, and lo and behold! Suddenly it is 'kool'...

And trust me, a mode like this that automatically made what you normally play and turned it into more accurate, better sounding brass voicings (or string voicing, woodwinds, you name it) is EXACTLY like SA voices, which takes what you normally play, and makes it SOUND better.

Why not put something down AFTER you have heard, tried and used it..? Honestly, I don't think I ever met a 'musician' so determined to deride any possible improvement to his 'tool', despite the evidence that pretty much all other improvements are being used happily..!

You know, I bet we could go back fifteen years (were you using arrangers back then?), use the SZ search, and find you putting down pretty much every newer feature you happily use today. Or were you more open to improvement back then, and it is only recently that your mind has calcified?

Let's see what has happened since then...

Four Variation, six fill arrangers (who could possibly need that many?)
Break/Fills (the stop button works just fine for MY bottom line)
Songbooks (why would I need this when I select everything from the front panel on the fly?)
Multi-pads (this wouldn't help me make any more money)
Harmonizers (what would I use a fake harmony for?)
User programmable OTS settings (the factory ones are just fine)
MP3 players (what's an MP3?)
Lyrics displays (who needs that?)

Come on Donny! Hasn't it occurred to you that you are HAPPILY using new technology every day?

It simply seems you are unable to make the jump from realizing that older 'new' technology is today's commonplace feature, and that today's 'new' technology will be tomorrow's commonplace feature, that you can't imagine doing without.

And didn't you use the S910 happily for what, three YEARS or so, before the need for a better Songbook feature made you need to change? And you had had a PA800 for a while before that, so it's not like you weren't aware of its existence. That's hardly a pressing need if you could happily gig for that length of time (and post incessantly about how great it was) knowing that a better alternative existed.

I remember the last odyssey through almost every arranger available you made, each one in turn the bee's knees, each one dropped after a few months, as you tried something else. Your posts about transferring Songbooks from PA500 to PA800/PA3, your continued interest in BK-5's seems to indicate that you aren't exactly happy with the PA500 (once you hit on the S910, your posts about moving to something different basically stopped dead).

So perhaps it might be best to drop pronouncing how perfect your current arranger is, and how no other arranger feature could be of any possible use, until you have settled down once again. Or you might be faced with the embarrassment of finding yourself back on an arranger that you currently put down!

My prediction is that you will be on the next PSR as soon as it ships.

Diki, how about sticking to posting about technology and making music because it seems obvious you don't really understand how to engage in civil discussion. This is the second posting of yours that I have read tonight that shows a complete inability to post civily. While you always seem well versed in issues related to music and technology your ability to engage in constructive discussion is totally dismal. Strike 2 !!

Simply because that's the example I gave in this instance.

I covered quite a lot on my post because Dennis asked me to comment on the Roland video from a KORG users point of view. If you want to complicate things, that's no problem at all. I did explain the Pa3X has 24 OSC's which were all independent. So lets go for another example using a crazy 24 Layers.

Set OSC 1, 2, 3 and 4 to work between C3 to C4 at a velocity of 0 to 64. Set OSC 1 to Poly, OSC 2, to Mono Lower, OSC 3 to Mono Last, OSC 4 to Mono Upper.

Now play a chord.

Repeat all the above for OSC's 5, 6, 7 and 8 using different sounds, and assign them to a velocity of 65 to 127.

Now repeat both examples above with different sounds and assign them to C4 to C5 and so on until all 24 OSC's are being used.

Now go back over everything and assign RX and DNC. You now have the mother monster patch of all time. However..... lets keep going. How about some complex EDS sound engine programming with detail LFO Modulation that is controlled by velocity, after touch or even controllers.

Sky is the limit, but for the purpose of my original post. This simply over complicates everything to a point where there is no point in me having explained all this in the first place.

Sometimes saying too much is counter productive.

Regards
James

Thanks heaps James for the original post, and now this follow up one.

I was a bit annoyed at Diki, for dismissing both your reply, and your knowledge on these things. You do NOT get to be a Korg Factory Sound programmer for nothing hey !!

Rather than dismissing it, I think Diki should have realised it WAS a simple and quick explanation to say it can be done, without over-complicating it...if he had given you the respect you deserved, he would have asked you to expand on the answer, rather than try to make a "see, I told you so" type of response.

Thanks for your more detailed description, and I will have a go at that myself. Not necessarily for these big brass sections....you already know I dislike anything but the bare minimum in styles - no, I can imagine some other rather interesting sonic possibilities from this last post of yours

Cheers m8,
Dennis

Why I am singled out for incivility, when Donny REPEATEDLY posts he has absolutely no regard for anyone's opinions beats me. Civility is either enforced evenly on this forum, or it isn't.

And sorry James... yes, the Korg system has monster capabilities. BUT IT CAN'T DO THIS.

Setting a positional oscillator continues to ignore the fact that what I am talking about is COMPLETELY independent of key position AND velocity.

The Korg has amazing capabilities. But you are essentially going 'Don't look over there, look over here'. The examples you post do NOT achieve what the ARX system does. What they DO achieve is great... but it ain't this.

Look... one more go. Six separate sounds. Six notes. Play them ANYWHERE on the keyboard. Not over the C4 boundary (or anywhere else). Not at a specific velocity. ANYWHERE. ANY STRENGTH.

The bottom note will be a bari. The NEXT note up (anywhere) will be a 'bone. The NEXT note higher will be a tenor. The NEXT note higher will be an alto. The NEXT note higher will be an trumpet. and the TOP note will also be a trumpet. Regardless of WHERE you play them, regardless of how HARD you play them...

I am sorry that this so irks everyone. But James' posts have BOTH been long enough to actually detail HOW this can be done on a Korg. But instead, he has spent all that time talking about anything BUT this particular issue. If it can be done (no factory patch does it) why not spend all that time telling us HOW?

BTW, one of my closest friends has a PA3x. We would BOTH be fascinated with a solution to this issue. If it CAN be done on a Korg, trust me, those of us into R&B, jazz and bigband music would LOVE some patches that do this.