Abacus..... I would be prepared to bet that anyone that can afford an arranger with HD recording on board already has a computer and basic (but still superior to on-arranger) recording software. And I also bet that again, other than low-end arrangers, most people that sequence prefer to use the computer. The only reason not to is that some manufacturers make it difficult to use a computer with your arranger. Otherwise, it's no contest....

Weighing an arranger down with unnecessary features only serves to distract and dilute the R&D efforts from making a better arranger into making a hybrid product that does none well.

Maybe I'd like to see the sampler and HD recording when those features can be as powerful as the alternatives, but for now, I'd MUCH prefer to see the money spent on improving the arranger section..... More fills, more variations, better ways to control them, better sounds, better styles and easier style creation, better OTS implementation, better ergonomics......

Until the arranger is perfect, why waste budget on frills?


BTW, my ten year old Kurzweil loads 2X faster than a contemporary T2..... not too much progress there, and even USB1 is capable of FAR greater bandwidth than modern samplers use. It's not the interface, it's the design of the data pipe to the RAM, IMHO.