Not true...

the whole Wersi software structure is build for 2 manuals and pedals, and since the Abacus runs the exact same software as the more expensive organs, i would agree with technically calling it a mini organ..

When the Tyros 2 was like €3500 the Abacus in most basic configuration cost about €5000... thats about equall to 1 tyros upgrade..

However, the point is that upgrading both hardware and adding super new cool software features and sounds also costs a lot of money with Wersi..

In the end i think that both ways are just as expensive..



But the abacus is cetainly a lot more then just an arranger keyboard.

Here is the User Manual for the Abacus. User Manual

As you can see it also covers the Vegas & Verona, all of which are organs with arranger features, not the other way round, therefore the Abacus has to be compared with an organ price not an arranger price (Which will always be significantly cheaper).

OAS 7 Program and OAA manuals can also be downloaded from here which you will see covers all the models in the organ range, including the Abacus.

Bill

Easy enough to put a second manual and a set of pedals on any TOTL, or MOTL arranger, and still have a full functioning organ for a fraction of the price of a Wersi, Bill.

But then compare that with an Abacus Duo with pedals, and ask yourself why it is at least $6000 more than that..?

To me, at least, the only reason for a soft arranger is to be able to play non-native styles to whatever you already have. In fact, I think Dan really ought to concentrate on that end of things, make templates that allow the arranger codes from each main arranger manufacturer to control it, and have it as an ADD-ON to someone who already has a decent arranger, but wants to up some up the basic sounds to VSTi's, and play non-native styles without having to jump through hoops.

But you are still up against it unless all you want to do is play old legacy styles. Yamaha's Mega voice system, and SA voices in styles, Korg's Guitar Mode and NTT's, these are what make modern Yamaha's and Korg's so great. If the latest stuff from the latest arrangers doesn't have either the software player to play them, or the soundset that responds the same way, newer styles are just going to fare really poorly.

I really don't know why this hoary old arguments keep getting trotted out every year or two. Nothing has changed. Soft arrangers and VSTi's trail the latest arranger technology (as soon as something is made 'soft', the arranger makers put something newer on their keyboards, usually sooner!) and probably always will.

Until someone posts demos of a product that you can buy, open the box, and start playing IMMEDIATELY and sound as good as a TOTL arranger, it's always going to be an also ran. If it involves buying something three or four times as expensive, you might as well forget it!

I have always said an OAS 7 instrument is not an OOTB solution; it is designed for those that want more. (Plus most organ players hate the limitations arrangers put on your playing, but are happy to add them as an addition too)

As to price then Wersi is the same price as all the other organs out there, so is certainly not overpriced. (Unless you consider every manufactures organ to be overpriced)

Your suggestion of a way for Dan to move forward is excellent, and must admit I hadn’t thought of using it as an addition too, rather a standalone. (See how positive things can be when you don’t put obstacles in the way)

Roland do not use any fancy voices or tricks in their styles, yet they make mincemeat of the other manufactures styles, which just goes to show you don’t need fancy voices to make it sound great.

Regards

Bill

A side aspect, for what it matters: for me, a true open-arranger will only make sense in the software environment - a computer, a controller and the virtual arranger and instruments.

Not really... if you build your totl arranger inside the keyboard, and have a websop like the appstore, it allows people to add the module they want to the arranger..

On top of this, an appstore approach is good for having controll over the stabbility of the system..

The windows based systems we have known for decades will soon belong to the past, as allowing people to ruin their software is a non wanted feature these days..

Actually, yes, I DO consider ALL organs to be horribly overpriced. But that's only to be expected when the overall size of the market is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of what it was in the sixties and seventies. Economy of scale, and all that.

It's why I'm concerned that arrangers aren't really being made to resonate with the needs of the younger (under 30) players nowadays. As the arranger players dwindle and pass on, all that will be left is hugely expensive boutique arrangers, just like that's all that's left of the home organ market, which used to be strong in ALL price ranges back in the day.

The truth is, you could put something together (you can't really call the OAS as a non-OOTB solution if you want to charge that much for it!) that easily equals a TOTL Wersi with a combination of master controller, arranger, WS and software and STILL save about $10,000! If the $20,000+ Wersi still takes a boatload of effort to sound that great, the cheaper alternative doesn't need much more effort, and who exactly is well heeled enough to think that ponying up an extra $10,000 is worth the LITTLE extra it takes to cobble modern kit together to achieve the same thing?

BTW, I don't think my suggestion to Dan is any more likely to help him than my opinion about the completely soft arranger is likely to hurt him! He seems bent on his own path, just as Dom was. If the idea of controlling a software arranger by using a hardware arranger (and its sounds) so that you can play non-native styles OOTB hasn't occurred to him yet, I'm pretty sure he hasn't thought things through..! It would sure be a HECK of a lot less work than a soft standalone version, if he wants to sound as good as a hardware one.

Personally, I think the hybrid method would be optimal. The soft arranger PLAYER gets controlled by the hardware arranger, uses its sounds for the most, but also allows you to substitute SOME of them with a few well chosen VSTi's for particular needs. But doing the entire thing in software is a HUGE undertaking, that even Dom (with his vaster resources) couldn't achieve.

I would like to see Dan go down this road, I think it's the more practical solution, but he has to find his own path. And my opinion, for good or bad, isn't really going to change anything. It certainly didn't with Dom! He found his OWN roadblocks, I didn't create them!

Diki, some vArranger users are using vArranger to play all kind of styles with their existing arranger or workstation.

I have a mapping automatically done for many configurations.

It's not compatible with 100% of the styles, some will not sound good, but it is a workable solution, and can sound good for many styles, including new styles.

I am playing some yamaha styles on my Roland BK5, and it sounds great.

I usually improve the mapping every time a user report me a style who does not sound good, and this profit to many styles and to many people.

People can change the sounds of each track of the style, to use their synth instrument list (INS)

You can also decide for each track, witch midi synth will play it. up to 3 synth. can be hardware or software or VST or SoundFonts...

But.... this is a little bit for people who knows what they are doing.

I have today more demands for a 100% software arranger.

Most of people want something 100% software, plug & play.

And this is why I bend to this direction

I was like you not so happy with the software route, and started with the Ketron SD2, but after I see that it can be enough stable, fast and can sound very good, this changed my mind, and trust that I have something to do in this way.

So ... yes you can use vArranger with your BK9, and also software synth...

ps : I don't say that you have to buy vArranger. Probably not, as I am reading you

From my experience, some people are really enjoying the experience, and some are definitely not for software arrangers.

I never convince anyone to buy vArranger.

People are coming to me with their need, and I say, Yes, it's for you, or No it's not for you

I've got nothing against the vArranger system, but personally, I'm looking for a pretty mature OOTB solution, something that basically, I connect to my BK-9, and the BK-9 controls the vArranger with no work on my behalf, and the vArranger plays my BK-9, and utilizes the BEST sounds, best kits, and does all the tweaking in the background.

Add to that, I'd really prefer it to be on a tactile surface, to make running it a snap, live (I honestly hate working with a laptop in a live environment) and would obviously prefer it be the iPad, as that is what Roland have decided on for their OWN apps for the BK-9. But any tactile surface device would be OK. Obviously, this limits the VSTi aspect quite a bit, but read on...

I heard some of the Ketron SD-2 vArranger demos, and thought they worked very well, but to be fair, you were playing Ketron styles into a Ketron! Not really what most of us are looking for. I imagine that the largest market would be someone with a PSR S950 wanting to play Roland and Korg styles, or someone with a BK-5 or -9, wanting to play Yamaha styles and Korg styles, with none of the conversion hassles and oddities that plague converted styles.

Add to that, obviously, I'm looking for something that allows me to play MODERN Korg and Yamaha styles, not just the legacy ones without the Mega Voices, and other modern features.

TBH, rather than a half baked 'do-it-all' scenario, if you want to develop any VSTi sounds to help it out, probably the FIRST place you need to start is VSTi equivalents of the Mega Voice, SA voice and things like Korg and Yamaha's guitar specific NTT's, so that vArranger can play the Parts that other manufacturer's sounds CAN'T. Then move on from there.

But, although the majority of your requests for your software is a 'do-it-all' solution, you do have to perhaps start to realize that few if any of them have any IDEA just how complicated and difficult what they want is. I'm sure, if more of them realized just what they are asking for, and how unlikely it is that you can pull it off and end up with something that that even equals a modern hardware arranger, let alone better it, and more of them might see the practicality of what I'm suggesting, for the time being.

Despite what some others are saying here, I am in NO WAY trying to throw roadblocks in your way, merely articulating a description of the 'roadblocks' that already exist, and perhaps suggest alternatives that I think are more easily achievable.

Perhaps, once the basic stuff is perfected, and made as easy to use and instant as the OOTB solutions in a keyboard arranger, then you would be in a better position to tackle the Everest of arrangers, the TOTALLY soft arranger from head to toe?

Diki, do you have any recording of your music?