Both have a place in my aresenal. A lot of what has been already said is true. I chose my arranger ( PA80 ) for it's potential as both a live play and compositional tool. It has all the bells and whistles I need to make it work well in either venue. The styles are among the best I've heard and the patern sequencer has more ( useful)functionality than any other arranger I've used. It also allows for detailed voice edits on par with a goodworkstation or synth. In fact, someone here once called it, " a workstation disguised as an arranger ". That was not a term of endearment for him ( but it is for me ) , but once the OS was upgraded, he went back to the PA80 and is still using it.. ( are your ears burnin' UD .lol ? )

I chose my synth / workstation ( Motif ), because it has some excellent cutting edge sounds ( along with beautiful acoustic and Rgodes piano sounds ) and the arpeggio feature is excellent. User arps, made properly, work VERY well, almost like one instrument or track piece of a style that can be changed on the fly. It also has some slider and knobs, ( user assignable included ) so when I want, on the fly I can change that acoustic guitar from a strum to a pick by instantly changing the decay, sustain and cutoff settings.

I added the AN150 plug in and now I don;t miss my old analog gear so much anymore.

As far as the acoustic sound thing mentioned above, I agree to a point, but sometimes the settings I mention above ( along with a host of others ) can make the differnce. Programmers of top end machines tend to use and setup the best of samples. It's up to me to set those sounds up so that they fit what I'm playing. Sometimes I find that easier to do in my synth as opposed to my arranger. ( although the PA80 allows almost unlimited editing too )

AJ