|
|
|
|
|
|
#371641 - 09/05/13 02:12 PM
Re: LINKING THE YAMAHA PSR ARRANGER TO THE KORG MICRO
[Re: john smies]
|
Registered: 04/25/05
Posts: 14282
Loc: NW Florida
|
Posted this on the other thread, but it bears repeating... "Just in reference to the above, if you do want to link two arrangers, PLEASE contact your manufacturers of choice and beg, plead, cajole and DEMAND that they standardize the way you select Style Divisions and transposition.
While it is feasible from one arranger to select Keyboard sounds from another, there is still no standardization about syncing the two and having BOTH arranger sections play at the same time. Imagine a Korg's drums and bass, and a Yamaha's guitar Parts! Best of both worlds. Imagine how many different permutations of styles you could get selecting the bass from one, drums from another, then same style, reverse the Parts, etc., etc..
But currently, each arranger, unless of the same manufacturer as the master, completely ignores all Variation and Fill, Intro and Ending commands. So you can't run one from the other.
If enough of us show that this is a popular feature, odds are they will get together and come to an agreement about what codes to use. But only if we TELL THEM!"
_________________________
An arranger is just a tool. What matters is what you build with it..!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#371671 - 09/06/13 09:52 AM
Re: LINKING THE YAMAHA PSR ARRANGER TO THE KORG MICRO
[Re: john smies]
|
Registered: 04/25/05
Posts: 14282
Loc: NW Florida
|
I'm not sure why what I suggest is in any way complicated or hard to understand, except to perhaps someone looking for any reason to NOT understand it..!
Essentially, if you join two arrangers together with MIDI, the natural reason to do so would be for them to work together as one. At least, that's how I see it. Restricting inter-arranger communication to merely playing one's sounds with the master keyboard seems so short sighted. Why bother with an arranger as the secondary sound source at all if that is the case? Plenty of great modules, rack workstations, even laptops running VSTi's, if all you want is a selection of different Tones to play in the RH section of your arranger.
No... you link two arrangers together with MIDI, the first thing that springs to mind is, how about running BOTH arranger sections together at the same time? Then, call up two similar styles (heck, two dissimilar styles if you want to get creative!) and then, by using Performance mute track controls, decide which Part gets played by which arranger. Pick and choose the best of each, and you end up with a style that overcomes the limitations and restrictions of the other. The best Roland or Korg drums, the best Mega Voice Yamaha guitar Parts, the horn lines from one, the string lines from another...
Merely by using mutes to silence the Parts we don't want to hear. Quite simple, actually. And you CAN do this quite easily now. You simply set the slave arranger's chord recognition input to the channel of the master's chord recognition area. Then you sync the clocks together (set the slave to MIDI clock, easily done) and set the slave to Start when the master does. Nothing complicated at all. Maybe you should try it, John...
The problem, though, is that there is no common MIDI commands to select Variations and Fills, Intros and Endings between different manufacturers. So, you start your 'super style' and both of them happily play the arranger parts you have set, but the minute you select another Variation on one, the other one blindly ignores that. Ask for a fill on the master keyboard, and the slave ignores it completely.
This is not complicated stuff... no more complicated than say starting one arranger, and having the other one start up in sync with it. Any two arrangers can do this very easily, because the MIDI codes for clock sync and Start/Stop are standardized. ALL arrangers and WS's, all MIDI gear follows a common protocol. Nobody even THINKS about it, because it simply WORKS!
But the arranger manufacturers have all decided that they will select Style Divisions using DIFFERENT codes, and none of them even allow the user to change those. So Roland and Korg select Divisions using PC#/32/00 codes, but DIFFERENT ones, and Yamaha use sys-ex!
All I wrote about was putting pressure on the manufacturers to standardize which codes do what. Then, when you select Variation 3 on the master arranger, it would trigger the Variation 3 on the other. Nothing complicated, nothing arcane, and nothing the user would even have to THINK about, any more than he thinks about when he presses Start on one, they both start (if set to).
But the end result is an Über-arranger, with exponentially greater potential than just one by itself. Without any baffling increase in complexity.
We are seeing just how powerful some of the MOTL arrangers are, and even little things like the KMA. But until those codes get standardized, they will never work together FULLY, and linking them with MIDI relegates the slave arranger to simply being a dumb sound module for the master arranger. What a waste of potential..!
One simple agreement by the manufacturers, and our musical possibilities explode. Back in the early 80's Roland had one communication protocol, Oberheim had another, Sequential Circuits another... nothing talked to anything other than the modules made by the same manufacturer. Then they got together, and hashed out MIDI. The rest is history. There was an explosion in the keyboard industry, everyone made more money, and a decade of synth powered pop music dominated the charts. All because a few manufacturers standardized their codes.
I truly believe, were the Big 3 to do the same now with Division codes, we would see the same explosion in arranger capability. We take simple MIDI communication for granted these days, John. But it didn't always used to be like that. To those unwilling to envision the future, even the idea of MIDI seemed too complicated. But were the manufacturers to standardize the Division codes, linking two arrangers so they work as one would be no more complicated than what you are suggesting... the mere playing of one's sounds from the others keyboard. In fact, to many here, even doing this can be quite complicated! You, however seem to find it easy, and I am sure you would find it equally easy to have two arrangers work as one...
But ONLY if the manufacturers standardize. And that is up to US to show them the demand for it.
_________________________
An arranger is just a tool. What matters is what you build with it..!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#371721 - 09/07/13 04:28 AM
Re: LINKING THE YAMAHA PSR ARRANGER TO THE KORG MICRO
[Re: john smies]
|
Member
Registered: 11/18/12
Posts: 142
Loc: Australia
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#371829 - 09/10/13 06:13 AM
Re: LINKING THE YAMAHA PSR ARRANGER TO THE KORG MICRO
[Re: john smies]
|
Senior Member
Registered: 09/21/02
Posts: 5520
Loc: Port Charlotte,FL,USA
|
Good job, John. Very well presented.
I am having a good time getting my duo of the S910 and Korg Micro ready for performance. While the operation is simple enough, I have made some discoveries. First, keep the synchro button off on both machines. This is a no brainer, but many of my registrations include "Synchro Start", and,of course, both arrangers fired up at once.
My solution was to make three registrations on the Yamaha, with 8 programs each, with accomp off. This way, when I want to play the Korg, I chose the appropriate reg on the S910. This gives me 8 choices of sounds on the bottom, and 4 OTS on top. Conversely, when I am playing the 910, I merely hit a registration on the bottom.
Life is good
_________________________
pa4X 76 ,SX900, Audya 76,Yamaha S970 , vArranger, Hammond SK1, Ketron SD40, Centerpoint Space Station, Bose compact
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|