The thing that I tend to feel about the issue (arrangers vs. WS's) is that neither profits from trying too hard to be the other...

When I use an arranger, I don't WANT the flexibility and power of a full WS. Yes, I want enough power to tweak what it comes with to better suit my taste, but if I want to create utterly new sounds, if I want the ultimate sampler, if I want to create studio ready masterpieces, I think the WS and the VSTi setup are the correct tool for the job.

In all fairness, even with Korg's PA2X, we are really comparing its' capabilities to a decade old WS. It really doesn't have a fraction of the power or capabilities of the M3, let alone the Oasys. It's based on a Triton, for Pete's sake, and a Classic, at that (no tubes in the PA!). No Karma, no arpeggiators, and REALLY convoluted audio loop playback...

I tend to want to use arrangers strictly for live playing, or in the studio as a scratch pad for songwriting, or for whatever sounds are ALREADY standout. If I need more than that for a recording, I've got the Triton, K2500 and a bunch of VSTi's. But there's no way in hell I'd want any of their complexity and flexibility on stage...

We simply seem to be divided into two camps. One wants the arranger to be a FULL WS as well as an arranger, and one that wants the arranger to focus on JUST that... And, I'm sorry, but it appears that the WS hybrid crowd is by FAR in the minority. Case in point appears to be the Audya, which appears to concentrate ENTIRELY on being an arranger and nothing else. Which, if it does that ONE task better than anything else, still makes it a great (albeit expensive) arranger. So WHAT if it only has 48MB of sample RAM? Probably 99% of arranger users don't use a sampler live. The whole POINT of the arranger is that everything you want is already in ROM, no load times (can't wait 30 seconds in a fast paced show while that custom crumhorn sample loads! ). For most classic music (jazz, rock, oldies, acoustic music, etc.) most of the TOTL arrangers already have GREAT samples, some of them have pianos that rival TOTL VSTi's, for heaven's sake! All adding a sampler to the mix does is rack the price up for something nobody uses live (OK, almost nobody! )...

Arranger users and players are getting fewer and fewer. To be honest, the people that are most into the PA2X for its' WS abilities would be better served trying to get more arranger-like functions added to the M3 (a combination of Karma and styles would ROCK!), which already blows away the PA2X for the functions they feel most important. But while the PA2X works SO hard at trying to be a WS, its' paltry choice of three fills for a four Variation arranger show that it has forgotten about what arranger buyers bought it for in the first place. Yes, DNC is great, and once Korg develop a set of samples that leverage it to its' best (like Yamaha have with SA2) it will finally open many eyes, but first and foremost, the styles' divisions have to connect well.

Three fills is so EIGHTIES...!

Soundwise, I have no problem gigging live with my G70. I haven't found anything yet (and I do a HUGE range of material on it, from jazz to contemporary top 40 to reggae to country) that I couldn't get 'close enough for live'. The things that I feel could be improved aren't detail editing, but things that would make live playing more powerful. Like my Chord Sequencer, or linked SMF and arranger sections, seamless changing from arranger Modes, things like that.

If I need to modulate the speed of an LFO from how many notes I am currently playing, or use one LFO to modulate the waveform of another, I've got a Kurzweil for that But you won't see it onstage with me...

I simply think that we should let the Audya be ab ARRANGER. Bitching at it because it isn't a WS, while there are still things it needs to do to be a better arranger (like not crash!), and especially in light of Ketron NEVER going down the WS hybrid root just seems so pointless.