As a sequence to what I wrote last week about the Korg Micro Arranger being an ideal add-on keyboard to an existing arranger keyboard, in particular any Yamaha keyboard I have tried to visualize what I mean.
This is a simple and most practical solution which leaves you with 8 RH sounds at the touch of a button and two completely independent accopaniments TO BE PLAYED ON THE LOWER KEYBOARD simply depending on which start button you engage.
http://youtu.be/0j5xPNoARsc

regards
John

P.S. Diki's comments about intertwining the two arrangers is in itself a valid one but way too complicated for daily use, let alone giggin on stage. With the KMA being such a cheap and forceful arranger, this is an ideal set up imho.
And of course it works well in any two keyboard set up, I should think, behold mine....

P.P.S. I apoligize for the imperfections and poor voice but it has been an while............

john,
Just actually discovered this post. I'am in the process of setting up my KMA and S950 to see what results I get. Might do some recordings and a video but it will be next week because I'am gig busy all this week.

Deane

John:

You should also be able to set it so you can play any RH part from the bottom keyboard. That's what I do with my Tyros/Motif mix. If all the the Motif lead parts are off then I select a Tyros RH voice. Or I turn off the Tyros RH voices and select a Motif Voice. Or I can layer them. All this while the LH plays either a Tyros Style or a Motif Performance. Of course mixing parts from the Style and Performance can also be done but the syncing can be difficult. In any case I play everything from the bottom keyboard ( Motif ).

The reason it is so complicated at the moment is the very thing I brought up... They do not communicate anything about which Variation, Fill, Intro or Ending you select to each other.

So, you can get them to start, you can get them play together, you can select what sound you want on the master keyboard.

But... Once you have them both running, you will have to do all the Variation and Fill selections on BOTH arrangers by hand. Hardly optimal! This is where I would like all that consider this ability would be useful to contact the manufacturers and start making noise to have them all standardize the Style Division codes.

If this were done, the rest is pretty simple... A Performance allows you to mute each individual style Part (or you can set their volumes to zero), so by simply pairing Performances on the Master and Slave arranger, you easily decide which one plays the drums, the bass, the guitars, horns, strings etc..

All you would do is select both Performances, then run the master arranger normally... and everything else simply just happens. Simple, easy, powerful beyond belief!

Please contact your manufacturers. This would be easy for them to do, but they are only going to do it if sufficient people show there is a demand for it. Or they will continue to cripple our arrangers as they have for decades.

I know Joe, but that would be a waste of the RH sounds on the lower keyboard. In this thread I started on the assumption that a KMA is an add-on and that you certainly want to miss out on the RH sounds of your main arranger keyboard. Even I do not want to miss out on the RH PA800 sounds.

Deane,
Looking forward to that mate, who knows Donny might have second thoughts !!

Diki,
Not all that many get down tho this, the basic MIDI connection, let alone what you propose. I played around with those combinations many moons ago but let it go for being too complex but most of all too impractical.
Still waiting though for some of your musical postings !

regards,
John

Once again, I simply point out that the reason it was impractical was the refusal to standardize the codes for Style Divisions.

Just as it would be impractical to do what you suggest here if the manufacturers hadn't standardized how you call up sounds, or how you send note information, etc., etc..

All it takes is an agreement, and things become simple.

I firmly believe the manufacturers do not want real communication between various brands. We might find a combination we love, and then we wouldn't be in the market for their periodic "upgrades".
DonM

I fully concur with what Don says here.
Incidentally, a friend of mine remarked that I have created the impression of wanting to promote the Korg Micro Arranger. Well that is only half true. I wish Yamaha, and more in particular Ketron and Roland would release mini arrangers like that and at those budget prices. I would get them without another thought !
And let's not forget that the KMA is a full fledged replica of the PA50 and more or less the PA80. All I am saying here is that it pays to consider adding such a lot of sounds and styles for such a comparitively small amount of money. By doing what I suggest as regards MIDI connecting the acc. section you also circumnavigate the use of the smaller keys. ( not that all that many find fault with those).
So rather than appealing to the companies to synchronise everything as Diki would want ( and which is unlikely to happen) I would say, get out some mini arranger keyboards or sound modules. ( Yamaha ,Ketron, Roland)

regards,
John

Talking of modules.. Dan`s vArranger sofwtare could be combined with multiple sound modules MIDIed using say Midi Sport 4X4 midi interface. For the more complex features wanted here, Dan could take these into consideration for versions coming up if not available now. I feel these can be done by expert programmers like Dan. And more importantly, he listens to his customers.

And yes I agree that manufacturers should bring out arranger modules and more so with a touch option ...

Then why put MIDI on at all? This is the kind of thinking we had before MIDI came out... Why would any keyboard manufacturer allow his gear to talk to gear from another manufacturer? Surely that would impact his sales?

But the manufacturers realized that, if they communicated over a common protocol, people with a Yamaha would buy a Roland, and people with a Roland would buy a Yamaha... and sales doubled (because Yamaha people weren't going to buy ANOTHER Yamaha, they already got one!). Actually, they much more than doubled.

The thing is, most of us have ONE arranger. The fact that it is so hard, complicated, and sometimes downright impossible to run two at the same time means we usually only play one at a time. So most of us BUY one at a time. But make it easy to run TWO at a time (or three), and sales would explode.

The manufacturers ALREADY scavenge sales from their TOTL by making incredibly capable, good sounding MOTL arrangers... The extra sales of more MOTL (or BOTL) arrangers we would all be buying if they actually worked together well would MORE than compensate for the few TOTL sales lost. And, TBH, I would imagine that there are many that would happily buy more than one TOTL arranger to use together IF THEY BLOODY WORKED TOGETHER!

The idea that this would do anything but explode arranger sales is ridiculous. We already saw what open communication did for synth sales.