I think my point was, chas’s position could have been taken at any time in the past. ‘Average users’ have always existed, from the very first arranger onwards. And every daydream about what could be useful or musical, or just plain fun but didn’t yet exist could have been dismissed with the same apathy.

But each one of us now owns an amazing arranger that exists because no manufacturer said ‘Let’s not bother getting better…. The ‘average user’ won’t use it!’

Chas uses his as a drum machine. Once upon a time, the ‘average user’ didn’t use drum machines. Once upon a time, arrangers had drum pattern that would make Chas throw up!

Personally, though I have no expectation that anything I’d find useful will definitely get added to arrangers, I think I’d rather be on the side of progress than stagnation. Apparently, I won’t get much thanks for it, but make no mistake, you are all playing amazing machines (even if not using 10% of what they can do!) that are the result of people like myself that look to improving the breed.

You’re welcome! 😂🎹😎

WOW!!! your greatness is only exceeded by your humility . Diki, you've got me all wrong. I'm not opposed to any type of technological progress (okay, I'll pass on sex robots), I'm just saying that the 'average' arranger player (as I've come to know them over the years) is NOT going use his arranger to control a computer to produce his music, no matter how many assignable switches and buttons you put on it or how compatible you make it to Windows 13 Super Pro. Now if that fabulous sound that's embedded in that fabulous style can be accessed with one button push (thanks to YOUR relentless 'dogging' of the manufacturers), then yes, the average user will use it (even upgrade his 3-month old model to get it).

My point is, the "average arranger player' will use new technology BUT ONLY IF IT'S EASY TO USE. Arranger to 'average arranger-player brain to computer to audio interface to external sound system --- I don't think so. But just my opinion. I love discussions....where all opinions are valued.

chas

Completely agree, Chas… it’s amazing how the ’average user’ has got used to using advanced features like articulated sounds (SA2 & SN sounds) bass inversion recognition and multipads because the manufacturers did a good job of making them completely transparent to the user. You just play..!

I could foresee, if manufacturers ever decide to give us definable sliders, controls etc, or USB control of computers, that control templates for different software and hardware could be provided or downloadable from users. For instance, a Genos template for a PA4X with full integration of the two wouldn’t scare off the casual user, as long as it just WORKS.

Likewise a template to control Garage Band or Mainstage VSTI’s from an SX900 might not intimidate our ‘average user’ if integrated well. But don’t get me wrong, I would be as happy with a nice spoon fed system as the next average user! I don’t mind rolling up my sleeves and getting under the hood when I HAVE to, but when complex tasks are made easy by good OS design, I am a happy man!

But usually, there’s a period when new feature introduction involves a fair bit of head scratching (Korg’s KAOSS stuff comes to mind!) but usually the next gen keyboard gives the design team a chance to simplify and refine it so it isn’t scary for our average user. Like I said, compared to early arrangers, our average user is doing all kinds of things that would have seemed daunting initially. Good design can help with almost anything!

Agreed. Actually I never disagreed with your MAIN premise...except for my perception of most (but not all) arranger players as a bunch of lazy ol' farts who would give up their first-born before giving up their car's GPS/navigation system (I'm standing in front of a mirror as I say this ) and would NEVER buy a manual shift car even if it had 50% better performance than it's automatic counterpart.

Seriously though, I think this gap between arranger technology and computer technology is deliberate on the part of the manufacturers. It's always been that way and will always be that way as long as that approach can produce some kind of marketing edge. I don't know how that works but obviously THEY do. Of course this only works because we are willing to accept such scant and meager improvements before plopping down a wad of cash for the next 'latest/greatest'. Truth is, I've heard performances on the T5 that were as good or better than anything I've heard on the Genos. Same with the PA3x vs PA4x. So as usual, Paul is right; "It ain't the keyboard, it's the keyboardist" (of course a great keyboard helps ).

chas

I don't really blame the arranger manufacturers. It's a tiny, tiny niche market, you can't expect them to innovate as fast as the trillion dollar computer industry. That things have even got this far is quite an achievement!

But progress has always crept along. I just think it's our job to push them in the right direction, and that often takes having a good realistic look between what CAN be done, and what can be done AFFORDABLY.

No, I don't honestly expect a VSTi level guitar mode plug-in. But allowing user definable MIDI output for each and every slider, button and knob on an arranger's front panel is the most basic, simplest thing the laziest manufacturer in the world could add!

It's a simple look-up table. No hardware, no new ports, no new buttons, no new styles, no new sounds, no new audio capabilities, no new effects. Just 'When button B is pressed, send xyz MIDI code on this Channel' or 'When slider A is moved, send this sysex'. Then a lookup table for what needs to be sent.

That's eight year old level programming!

I dunno 'bout you, but if I were an arranger manufacturer and half my customers wanted a MUCH better Guitar Mode, and the other half didn't mind hooking up a laptop with one cable, running a VSTi of a top level guitar mode program and all I had to do was make sure my sliders sent any damn MIDI the VSTi wanted to see, I know which would be more cost effective!

But it's never been about 'cost-effectiveness. Why would a manufacturer care about that when he can get you to pay $2 for $1 worth of technology. Also, as far as the computer industry being light years ahead of the tiny niche market of the arranger keyboard, we have to remember that the computer industry, or more specifically, the 'chip' and OS development industry, is there mainly to serve OTHER industries. So, I don't believe there is a functional technology lag between the 'computer industry' and the industries they serve. I think the latest computer technology is almost immediately available to the R&D dept's of most major manufacturers. I still think that the technology lag of which you speak is deliberate and driven by market considerations (and to a lesser degree, R&D time).

The scenario you present of multiple assignments to all the basic buttons, sliders, and switches to enable them to send specific midi messages would still require the arranger player to try and remember the secondary function of these controllers, and to still have to go arranger to computer....for the infamous 'average arranger player', that ain't happening....AND THE MANUFACTURERS KNOW THAT. Which, with all the wisdom gained from @ 50yrs of making and selling arrangers, they won't do it.

But, that's just my take on it and I make no claim to being right.

chas

Sadly, the CPU’s in arrangers have virtually zero to do with the CPU’s in computers. They are custom designed RISC chips optimized for a specific purpose, which goes a long way to explaining why arranger manufacturers lag so very, very far behind computer tech. It costs so much to develop these RISC CPU’s that it’s often nearly two decades before there’s any complete redesign.

The same goes for the motherboards and I/O technology. Open up any arranger, you’ll see next to nothing that looks anything like the inside of your computer or laptop…