Well to be blunt Diki...and apologies in advance...

Now you are just talking silly!! And trying to relate it all to truly NON "real world" applications...

I mean really 50 kits!!!! You use 50 differnet kits on one night of playing maybe 45 songs!! Pffffttttt!!! ......

Whether you are trying to justify the corner you painted yourself into or because you are really just being silly I don't know...but m8, get a grip

I must admit that while having multiple kits to choose from is nice ... it is not essential. When I play in a band with a live drummer he plays with the one kit all night long and that works fine.

I'm talking about the fact that the STYLES use these kits! If you don't have the equivalent of the kits in memory, some of those styles are going to sound dead funny. The more percussion sounds in memory, the more the layout and the sound is going to be messed up when you don't have it. Not to mention, piccolo snares vs. fat, dead 70's ones, etc., etc.. Unless you are willing to re-voice every style you have, having an equivalent of the ROM style is going to be needed.

C'mon, guys! I don't hear anyone complaining 'there's TOO MANY kits in my PA3X (Tyros, whatever)!'. In fact many of these kits are what make the difference between a humdrum style and something that either approaches the record 'sound' or rocks in its own right. And now, to bring them over to a computer/VSTi system, you want even LESS?

I'm sorry but I see this as a giant step backwards...

Maybe, if having just a couple of GREAT kits is all you guys need, how about letting Korg, or Yamaha and Roland know this? Think of how good they could make their drumkits if all the memory for 40-50+ kits was used to make just one or two GOOD ones!

Mind you, think about how boring having ALL the styles just use this tiny few would make them.

Dennis, I think the ability to play the arranger styles using vsti/ au will make its way in the future. It would be good if its all inside the keyboard with a big touchscreen and easy fluid workflow... In doing so would be venturing into the open sounds available, away from the manufacturer proprietary waverom samples. It can get a little too complex for those who prefer playing easy out of the box rather than program it to sound good for the vsti we own.

I experimented using vArranger with its midi out on virtual midi port(loop midi) I had a fully loaded Sample tank vsti running in standalone mode receiving Midi on this port. It did take effort to test each style, map the instruments of choice, save the combi and get slightly above average results albeit with a lot of effort. But it does give you the option of choosing the sounds of your choice much beyond the 1000 voices found on the hardware arrangers.. I am no Midi expert but I think with all these different articulation features(SA , DNC, SN , Vce), to get the various styles sound good would be tricky. I may be wrong here but it does seem complex.

If every arranger manufacturer had a good sound map to map the SN to SA or DNC to Vce voices etc... then it will be good for the consumer ..

Sorry for the long post here...

Happy Holidays every one and hope you have a musical and fun filled 2013

Yes the thing people need to do is get right away from the whole GM patches and banks mindset.

Arrangers all follow the GM standards of patches and banks BUT have all the sounds under "ONE" Rom set of sounds...IE all 1000 or so are all neatly lined up in patch lists and upper banks.

With the VSTi concept...all you need IS 128 patch slots....think about it:

Bass VST = 128 Bass sounds
Guitar VST = 128 different guitar sounds
Strings VST same
Brasss VST same and etc etc etc etc

Now all of these are simply selected by the easiest of all MIDI selection the Patch Change. No need to worry about additional "higher bank" programming, or re-setting all of this data if you change synths with their "pre-arranged" order of sounds...

You simply assign ONE patch change in your style for the part and it gets transmitted to the VST. Change you arranger at any time, and assuming it uses the same channels for the arranger parts) no editing is necessary. Even if it uses different channels it is a snap to edit this on the VSTi host.

Now this needs a VSTi Rack (Cantabile, Forte or one of several other choices out there) which has all of the VSTi's already racked up and responding to the appropriate MIDI channel of the style part..

Select a new style that is using bass number 48 for example from the Bass VST, and it changes to that bass, the same process follows for all the other style parts...

Now, all the Arranger makers need to do, is embed a VSTi multi host into the OS systems, the ability to stream from the HDD (or load into RAM for the smaller VST's) and a decent frequency CPU...as I said earlier a dual core of about 3ghz would be plenty..

And there it is....imagine having not just 5, or 10 variations of an instrument, but 128 variations of ONE instrument, with each and every one totally configurable...

Yes it could get expensive as you need one VSTi for each instrument group, but there are a LOT of inexpensive but great sounding (much better than the sounds on an arranger) VSTis out there..

The instruments I outlined in an earlier post that I had already setup using this system, cost in total about $600...that is for Bass, Drums, Guitars x 2, Synth and Strings/Brass...that coupled to the fact you ONLY need an arranger board capable of transmitting style midi data and you could use a $300 arranger board!!! But is would absolutely KILL (in sound quality terms) any current arranger out there.

Obviously using an older arranger (or even a new one) would require the use of a laptop...but the point I am making is that it can be done now, or if Arranger makers added the software and hardware needed...well the sky is the limit.

And NONE of the hardware/software needed is all that costly to incorporate...no matter WHAT the makers claim!!!!

Dennis

Simply setting up an appropriate sound to play the MIDI call from the style is only, once again, the FIRST step... There is a fair bit of difference between the velocity curves on different manufacturer's arrangers, not to mention default basic volume. So THAT then needs tweaking.

Then take the fact that the velocity crossover points of samples used in drum sounds (the point at which a snare might move from stick tips to rim and skin, e.g.) and try to set your VSTi drum kit so the accent point matches (for each and every sound in the kit), and it's easy to see what a herculean task this is... Then multiply this against sounds like saxes, which may go from smooth to a growl at some random velocity point, or a guitar that adds a hammer-on somewhere on the velocity scale (but there is NO standardized x-over point!) and things get complicated.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the few that try to do all this, and I would SURE like to hear some of the results (along with an honest assessment of how long it took to tweak it that good) but I just think that the difficulties of this needs stressing before someone like Tony Hughes starts to think he might be able to do it! Not sure I could listen to a good couple of years of him complaining about it!

This is for experts ONLY!

One of the issues with Variations of Capitol sounds nowadays is, quite often they have very little to do with the Capitol sound. In with acoustic guitars are mandolins. In with strings are orchestras. Unless you have the arranger you are setting up for, you aren't going to be able to hear what the style was SUPPOSED to sound like. Especially the myriad different synth sounds in the upper banks. All utterly different from one manufacturer to another other than the Capitol sound and a few of the earliest legacy Variations.

So what sound do you end up picking? Sure, you could get a patchlist, but that's not going to help you a whole lot when you get to some of the names!

Now multiply that work for as many arrangers as you want to be able to play their styles on, and you start to see what you could be up against. Not for the faint of heart!

No it's not...stop trying to make mountains where none exist Diki...I really get tired of so-called experts trying to make out like it is all rocket science..

Get your head OUT of the standard midi patch a bank setups...Remember you have 128 different variations of ONE instrument for each VSTi....you are still trying to use a single synth patch ROM that contains ALL instruments...no a bank of 128 dedicated to one instrument...

You may need to justify your arguments to yourself, but they don't cut it with me...

All I am going to reiterate is I got it working rather nicely (not to mention relatively easily) using styles from Roland Korg and Ketron. Granted some midi data needed editing (octaves and in a few cases drum note mapping, although this is the case even with using standard arrangers now with converting style data. (I avoid Yamaha styles because of all the other crap they stick in them)

I had no issues with snares transitioning from sticks to flams to rims - it is all in the midi data setup...it is after all only midi data setup if one REALLY wants to get that picky....nothing new or flash in all of that.

It took me a while to get away from the "standard" midi setups too, but once you "get" the whole process it really is rather easy and in my view simpler....as I said before one does not have to worry much about trying to access upper banks of data.

ALL you need remember (and even this can be setup in re-usable templates on sequencer apps) is what VSTi is assigned to what channel...after that just pick a number using the default bog standard mid patch selection from 0-127 (1-128) and there you are you have 128 different guitar setups to choose from, or drums or basses or whatever....

Anyway, that is enough of an explanation. I am not getting involved in any more discussion here...I think most folks here who can think laterally and out of the box can figure it out...it really is NOT rocket science....

Ciao

Given how hard some find even operating their hardware arrangers, and converting styles successfully from one manufacturer to another, I am afraid you may be overestimating the ease of it all...

After all, a rocket scientist doesn't think that rocket science is hard at all! I think you understate your abilities, Dennis.

I completely understand about your use of VSTi's variations. But what I'm simply pointing out is that, however many or few VSTi variations you set up, the determining factor is how many you NEED, to be able to play each manufacturers styles with the minimum of tweaking. After all, many of us here, particularly the hardcore style users (not the SMF crowd) have thousands of styles. Hand tweaking them ALL will be daunting at best. Probably to the point (like many have already done) of giving up.

There are 1,759 distinct sounds in a Tyros 4 and 44 drumkits and SFX kits.

There are 1,100 sounds in a PA3X, and 90 drum kits.

I'm not saying you don't have enough bank room in a VSTi for all these. I'm just saying that CREATING them is the herculean task.

It's either that, or hand tweaking each and every one of your thousands of styles. Whichever of these is the greater task, even the smaller task is no easy feat.

HI Dennis

Just get Native Instruments Komplete and it will keep you going for a long time without having to worry about sorting out various VSTi. (I use the elements version in my Abacus and it is easy to setup a multi, then I do all the work from the on-board VST edit screen, you don’t even need to open up the host or plug-in once the multi is loaded in)

Also the more VSTi you have loaded the more you may run in to trouble, hence its best to keep the number to the minimum required. (The reason Wersi limit their on-board host to a maximum of 4 VSTi (Although if you are a professional and know what you are doing there are ways round this) is because most arranger/organ players would get confused with too many on the go)


HI Diki

You are correct in what you say; however you are assuming users want to make the style sound exactly the same as the original, which is a bit pointless, as if you want that you might as well buy the original.

Most players just want the general style (Korg owners may want the Yamaha Bolero style for example) so that they can tune it too their own keyboard sounds and tastes. (Thus it’s not as complicated as it seems)

Remember using a VST sound in a Yamaha style is no different to using a Korg sound in a Yamaha style, and I don’t see many owners complaining that they have to change things around when they use converted styles. (Henni absolutely thrives on it)

Bill