Ron,
I meant to say that on the dgx670 you can set a mode in "utility" where the internal speakers can be left on or off when you insert your stereo jack in the back to go to external sound systems. In the DGX660 if you did this, you would have to go to an edit screen and turn the feature on or off but on the DGX670, once you set this it will remain when you power off and turn on again. This was a big improvement. In my store if I left the jack in and someone turned the keyboard off and then on again, it would always be in headphone mode and you would here nothing if you didn't have the external amp turned on. Now, it's no longer a problem. I hope this makes sense!

@George Kaye did you mean to post your response on another thread?

Getting back on-topic... Today I received a marketing message from Roland in my personal email advertising additional styles for the FP-E50. When I clicked the embedded link, it took me to a Roland Cloud page. There, I learned that the FP-E50 seems to have style compatibility with legacy Roland arrangers! This supports my earlier conjecture that it has "real" Roland Operating System DNA. I also wasn't surprised to learn that the downloadable styles for the E-X50 and E-X30 are NOT compatible with other Roland arrangers (probably because they borrow from an entry-level Yamaha OS.)

So in the FP-E50 we have the first new "real" Roland arranger product since 2015. What will Roland Japan do for an encore?

Am I wrong, or did I see that styles in the FP-E50 only have two variations? And one Intro, one ending…

Roland’s styles have had 3-4 Intro/Endings and 4 Variations for well over 20 years. So I think full style compatibility is not exactly what’s happening. I wonder, will you be able to select which two of the four Variations play, or will it be always Var1 and Var4 or some other preset combination? And likewise with the Intro/Ending…

I think Roland have missed an opportunity to compete with the Yamaha, which is full Yamaha style compatible (all Intro/Endings and all 4 Variations). It certainly feels like a very arbitrary restriction that limits how well legacy styles will work…

I think any reading of the design and features of this instrument would make it clear that this was never intended as a full blown arranger, but instead a mid-priced digital piano with 88 weighted keys, an excellent sampled piano, and a few arranger-type features. To rate it as an 'arranger' is ludicrous (unless you're deliberately trying to criticize it - nothing new there). The minimal arranger features appear to be there more as an aid to practicing than a gig-worthy feature. I've had mine for about two weeks now and am very happy with it for fulfilling the purpose I bought it for. The specs and features were clearly listed and demoed on the net and if one wanted a full blown arranger keyboard, there were plenty of other options on the market. From what I can gather, most of the (many) new purchasers are not 'arranger' players but guys looking for a decent, inexpensive digital piano that COULD be used as a 'stage' piano.

Sorry, but I just get so sick and tired of the same people 'bad-mouthing' every product that they don't personally own (or intend to own). In most cases they've never even seen the product, much less played it. It must be sad to live a life of 'gloom and doom' where one's only joy seems to be finding something to criticize. Jeez, get a puppy.

I don't think Roland 'missed any opportunities' as the board seems to be very popular and well-received by it's INTENDED MARKET.

chas

Well said chas !!

Diki you are correct that the FP-E50 only has two variations per style. The FP-50/FP-80 also had only two variations per style, as did all Roland arrangers before the G-70. This fact by itself doesn't mean that FP-E50 styles won't play in older Roland arrangers, perhaps subject to revoicing.

My point was that style compatibililty (and incompatibility with the E-X50) supports my theory that the FP-E50 is built on the legacy OS of the FP-50 (which itself was intimately related to the BK-series.) Thus the FP-E50 is a descendant of the true Roland arranger line, whereas the E-X50 and E-X30 are impostors with Yamaha-influenced OS, style format, and chord recognition.

If you accept my claim that there is an "heir," the first in almost eight years, I see this as hope that the bloodline will continue!

So why make it compatible with Roland styles if it can’t play them correctly. It seems apparent that there are some here determined to gush about the product no matter how crippled it is (apparently, they’ve been waiting their whole lives for a crippled arranger, being unhappy with every proper arranger they had).

Sorry kids, but if you’re looking for an uncritical take on the FP, perhaps there’s somewhere a with a bunch of people that don’t really like arrangers. Bon voyage. You think you’re the only one sick of bitching, Chas? I’m not here to cheer on your every purchasing decision. The point was made, apparently the FP is compatible with Roland styles. So pointing out there’s some hurdles to overcome.

Being the person here with an actual FP, Chas, why don’t you do something useful for a change, try and load in a Roland style (you’ve no doubt got a bunch) and let the members know what it does to those 4 variation styles. Some of them might actually be arranger players and might be interested.

Diki, your mouth runneth over but you never LISTEN. First, I don't recall ever asking you to "cheer on" my purchasing decisions. In fact, if that's what I wanted, you'd be the LAST person I'd go to. Seems to me that you have appointed yourself Lord High Commisioner of the forum and that all musical decisions, including hardware purchases, need to meet your approval. It doesn't seem to matter what a member wants or needs, it needs to meet YOUR requirements, not THEIRS. And still you don't see why some folks might find that just a little annoying. You say to me "Chas, why don’t you do something useful for a change". What freaking arrogance. Do you think you're talking to a child? or maybe just some inferior being. I'm pretty sure most members, if interested, would politely ask how this feature worked and if I would test it for them when I had time (which I would be happy to do).

Diki, I don't think you're necessarily a bad guy; in fact, politically, we probably share the same ideology. It's just the condesending way you come across to people, like YOUR decision is the only one that counts and anyone who might have a different opinion automatically becomes an object of derision and ridicule. This even extends to the MANUFACTURERS who, despite their team of engineers, musical consultants, marketing analysts, and decades of experience, still ALWAYS miss the mark (by your standards).

Hey, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe I'll go to hell (unlikely, since I'm an atheist ) for not giving a damn about how many intros/endings/variations my purchase has, since that's not why I bought it (I guess you missed that part in the beginning). I wanted a inexpensive digital PIANO to keep in my office when I wanted to just noodle but didn't want to navigate the stairs (really bad knees and hips) to my studio or rehearsal room. The fact that the DP I chose had a few skimpy 'arranger' features was just a bonus (not a requirment).

I will still check out the 'legacy style' thing if I can figure out how to load them. I don't see anything about it in the manual. If you see instructions for it Diki, please post them. I also don't see any reference to a 'General Midi' instrument list and the instrument list provided doesn't contain enough instruments to play Roland styles. ???? I could be wrong about this; since I have little interest in this, I haven't done much digging. I've briefly tried the harmonizer but it doesn't come close to the Vocalist Live I have in the studio. Oh well, I can't sing anyway. Anyhoo, have a good day.

chas

sometimes, ignoring is better ....

... it has become hard to post here safely ...

... what would have said Nigel?!!!