What's the difference between Ketron's "Launch Pads," Korg's KAOSS pads, and the multipads that have been on Yamaha's for more than a decade? I'm quite familiar with Yamaha's multipads; the others not so much.

I have a very vague idea and would love hear from someone more knowledgeable regarding Ted’s question.

1) Ketron Launch Pad: Powerful sequencer with 6 scenes (variations) that we can to have for each scene: 12 pads per scene with 3 stereo or mono wave with real Time stretching and Midi synchronization, midi file for each pad that we want, part or all style that we want (with chord changes), live guitars (with chord changes), audio drums, audio sliced groove percussions, and more.
Total: 72 Pad,s for just one Launch Pad song and of course completely different each scene with different elements, volume, fx etc. Really powerful!!

2) Korg KAOSS pad: Real-time complex effects processor with real time filtering, radical note-crunching effects of DJ heritage, delay, arpeggios etc.. Completely different than Ketron Launch Pad.

The KAOSS in Korg arrangers are very difficult to understand and use for live play, IMO. I have to google to see how some use this feature. I know it must be there for a reason!

KAOSS is nothing like multipads or clip launching. It’s more of a sort of Karma derivative for note and controller data.

My main issue with real-time tempo and pitch manipulation in hardware arrangers at this time is that they lack the CPU horsepower to do it at the highest level that computers can do it at. It’s pretty easy to make a recording of an arranger transposing a riff down a couple of steps and slowing it down slightly (the hardest thing it can do!), then compare that to a computer using say Melodyne or other high quality pitch and tempo tools. Night and day.

Maybe when arranger CPU’s get a significant boost it’ll be a more useful tool for high quality results. But until then, I still think (as I did during the Audya’s launch) that audio guitar loops aren’t the answer. If you listen to any really high quality VST Guitar Mode, the results are close to indistinguishable from live guitar playing, but with none of a loop collection’s shortcomings… limited chord selection, uneditable patterns, extreme difficulty in making your own custom patterns.

Both virtual acoustic guitars and electrics are now so good in computer form, surely this is the answer rather than limited live loops? The idea that you are supposed to be satisfied with loops only in maj, min and 7th completely misses the point that music uses dims, augs, open 9ths, 7#9’s, sus’s, etc. etc.. Sure, stick to ultra simple songs, that’ll suffice, and impress greatly. But the jarring switch from the loop to a MIDI pattern and samples for anything more than those basic chords defeats the whole concept, IMHO.

Yeah, an SSD and an absolutely huge collection of loops for every possible chord could be done, but it’s a gargantuan endeavor, and that’s just for ONE style. Now, do it for hundreds more!

Let’s take our cues from modern computer production. Drum libraries like BFD are indistinguishable from a real drummer if programmed well, as are guitar mode VSTi’s. And the core behind their patterns is still the MIDI data that arrangers already can play even with this generation of CPU’s. So any chord, any inversion. We are already quite close. Yamaha and Korg both have fairly decent Guitar Modes, not up to computer levels, but close. What they lack is the depth of samples and modeling of the sounds, whether drums or guitars.

Personally, I think this is the way to a real future, not the shortcut of using audio loops with their huge shortcomings when you want to use them for anything other than their limited designed use.

As to clip launching, audio loops, that sort of thing, I really feel hardware arranger design will always trail computers by decades. But the hardware of an arranger can always, even now, be used to control a computer. Yet strangely, arranger manufacturers have almost gone out of their way to deny allowing an arranger’s knobs, sliders, buttons and touchscreen to be fully user defined to control external gear, like a computer.

You put an arranger fully in charge of something like a Mac Mini, wow! I don’t think it’s realistic, quite honestly, that the arranger industry will actually develop computer level drum and guitar VSTi’s, they’ll probably go for the cheapest solution, no matter the shortcomings. But the simplest, cheapest solution is somehow always ignored… Allow an arranger the flexibility to control external gear any way the external gear NEEDS controlling, and the future is already here.

Why are we waiting? 🤔😎🎹

Diki, not to be argumentative but the problem I see with your whole approach/scenario is not with the potential use and utilization of the arranger but with the average arranger user. I think the profile of the average arranger user is of a 70+ yr old male with modest technical skills and little desire to delve deeply into even the simplest of operating systems. Self training and study rarely goes beyond scanning the user manual to find where the power button is. Exploring the sonic possibilities of the instrument beyond what is factory pre-programmed, is rare to non-existant. "I just wanna' play" is the most common theme among this population. One thing and one thing only drives and excites most arranger players (and triggers the infamous 'GAS' attack) and that is 'FACTORY STYLES'. It is the quickest way to satisfy the one thing that Americans treasure most...INSTANT GRATIFICATION (I'm basing this mostly on my own profile ).

Sadly, I've reached a stage where 1.) all arranger styles sound the same to me. 2.) age has made me too impatient to learn anything technical in depth (I know about 5 functions on my $1200 cell phone) 3.) anything I learn and don't consistantly use, I forget in about a week (and am reluctant to re-learn it).

Forgive me if I sound negagive. It's just that I've come to favor naps over studying tech manuals. I still use my BK7m but only as a drum machine (the world's best) for rehearsing (I usually use live drum samples/tracks for recording if live drummer is not available). I have not used anything on it other than the original factory patterns.
I only play organ and Rhodes (SEVEN) these days but I get enough pleasure out of them to keep me involved in music and they're sufficient for the kind of music I enjoy playing the most. Yep, old age has taken it's toll.

chas

Well fortunately for both of us, chas, arranger manufacturers don’t include ONLY what your definition of the ‘average’ arranger user uses, or 90% of what they even currently do would be missing!

Most people don’t drive much over 80mph. Maybe car manufacturers should go back to cars that can’t exceed it? LOL

The definition of the ‘average’ user of just about anything has never driven the market. The goal is to make something that will CREATE more ‘average users’, and churning out the same old, same old guarantees stagnation and contraction of your market, not growth.

Once upon a time, arrangers didn’t have bass inversion recognition. Or Pianist chord recognition. Or auto fills to new Variations. Or storable registrations. Or style expansion. Or multi-velocity drum samples. Or more than two patterns!

The ‘average user’ didn’t use them. Until they were added.

Now they are the barebones feature set of just about any arranger. Just imagine what the ‘average’ arranger user will be doing in ten years time, as long as arranger manufacturers continue to not make them for the ‘average user’!

Just as I'm sure there are some that agree with me. Agreeing with someone doesn't necessarily verify a position. Aren't alternative points of view allowed anymore? If only one view is always right, what's the point of having a discussion? Sounds more like a lecture to me. But hey, probably just my old age talking.

chas

Guess who supports Chas' view?


R.