No offense, James, but I feel somewhat the same way...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we consider the focus of arranger designers should be. Fortunately, I already HAVE several WS's and synths, so when I need sounds more complex than my arranger has, I can still get them. But none of my WS's have any arranger functionality, so forgive me for wanting the manufacturer to concentrate first and foremost on ARRANGER operation and functionality.

There's no such thing as a free lunch... IF arranger manufacturers concentrated a LOT more on opening the sound engine to users, that would be LESS time they spent on making new arranger functions. I can only imagine the howls of protest over on the WS forums if WS development stagnated, while the parent company tried to shoehorn a full arranger engine into it (which few users want).

In a perfect world, there would be no 'either or', but sadly, I don't see how the arranger manufacturers, who are already tightening their belts and slowing down new product development, can develop what you want without it taking away from what the MAJORITY of arranger users want...

In the meantime, you have the PA2, which already does it, and if it comes at the price of arranger functionality (three fills only!), that's OK for you...

Others MIGHT see it differently...