Hi Diki.
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.
Basically you don't know what you want.
You want flexibility, but not too much
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..
No..... I was answering the question directly about Audya VS Pa2X and I only used workstations as a point of reference to demonstrate just how much more advanced the Pa2X is.
Anything Nedim said was just an extension of that just to drive the point home of just how advanced the Pa2X is. There's also no rule saying we can't talk of workstations in order to help make a point.
We simply seem to be divided into two camps. One wants the arranger to be a FULL WS as well as an arranger,
No ...Go back and read my last post because I've already explained all this and how this benefits even people who have no intentions of ever programming so much as a single sound.
You have missed the point on that one.
So WHAT if it only has 48MB of sample RAM? Probably 99% of arranger users don't use a sampler live.
There's no excuse, 48 MB is pathetic for countless reasons with the main one being that it's a premium priced keyboard. Premium should mean premium features.
Arranger users and players are getting fewer and fewer.
Arrangers will have no problem surviving and it's clear to see that people like KORG have already started to make sure that's the case. The lines between their arrangers and workstations is very blur right now and with the resources Yamaha have you can bet that when they feel the need, they can quickly adapt too.
So I wouldn't be too worried about arrangers.
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'.
Well that's because your using mainly bread and butter sounds and you don't have any major need for complex sounds. Same goes for the likes of Yamaha and the Tyros series. Rather than developing a new technology like KORG's DNC, they will just keep on flogging their AWM2 engine to death because every time they add a few more Mega Voices they can use that as a huge selling point. Pisses me off actually when that's the sort of thing should come on a CD-ROM for the sampler.
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...
And your against having features like that in your arranger ? I don't see the point to your logic at all.
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
No... it's the arranger that's still missing in this arranger.
Regards
James
Previous Topic
Index
