Your main problem with an arranger is, unless you use different styles for the same song every time you play it, no matter what sounds YOU use, the backup band are going to play it IDENTICALLY each time (assuming you don't hit the wrong chords or use an inappropriate Variation)...
No matter what disadvantages you think might exist working with other players (and it would be an eye-opener to hear what some of these dissed other players think of the poster!

), at least they are going to throw something fresh at you from time to time. The price you pay for a night that leaves you high on music is a night that isn't so good. But your arranger will never surprise you, never challenge you, never outplay you (well, I guess that depends on the player!), never make you reach down for something you wouldn't have come up with by yourself...
If consistency and repeatability are your gold standard, it's the tool of choice, second only to the SMF WS's in always doing the song the same way each and every time. But, if I'm playing with a bunch of live players, hearing the song played identically each time they do it bores the hell out of me. Might as well use a CD...
An arranger IMITATES what real musicians do. You think those styles were made by musicians that play something identically each time?

But the style does, once it is made. Same fills, same guitar patterns, same bassline, same horn licks. Live music just doesn't do that... And, I'm sorry to say, the general public knows the difference. Or there wouldn't BE any live bands.
This incessant repeatability is what I have been going on for a long time about arrangers. It just isn't REAL. To be honest, I don't think that sound by itself is what makes a great arranger, it's how much variation and spontaneity the style section can throw at you. Why just four Variations? Why only six or so fills? Why just the one break/fill? (And yes, I know the Audya is one of the first to address the B/F issue).
It's kind of strange, because the Audya has addressed a couple of my pet peeves about arrangers... more breaks, and some way to introduce extra phrases in a quasi random manner to add more variation to the Variations, but on the other hand, it also relies quite heavily on audio loops, which by their very nature can't be changed much at all. Some of the Audya features are a generation ahead of the rest of the TOTL pack.
But for arrangers to start to give us the same experience that playing with a GOOD live band gives you (I'm afraid I tend to think that most of the live band naysayers never had the opportunity to play with the best - especially, sorry to say it, but from listening to some demos, it's easy to see THEIR playing skills aren't up there, either... hard to get the best to play with you if you aren't at their level), it is going to need a LOT more features designed to impart variation depending on how YOU are playing. Features that make the arranger follow your dynamics are a good start, although I'd like to see more than just getting louder or softer, and see different parts entirely switch in and out, and then features that look at whether you are playing 'busily' or not, and respond to that, features that look at your 'pocket', and impose that on the rest of the style, features that look at the inversions you are playing, and make musical decisions that mirror what real players would do...
There's a LOT that arrangers could do to mimic the live band experience, but other than Audya, I don't see a lot of innovation going on in that area. Tons of work getting the sounds that YOU play more realistic, but little to make the parts that the style section parts more realistic, and I mean realistic with respect to note choices, not just the sound, which at this point, I think is as realistic as it needs to be - were it tied to more realistic playing it would fool anyone. Right now, little of it fools me, and I know it ain't the 'sound'.
Don't get me wrong, you all know how much I love using arrangers... but I am a LONG way away from admitting they are an adequate substitute for playing with really good players. They make a great choice for economic gigging, they are the easiest way to put something together to do a solo OMB act or duo, and they never gripe at YOU for your playing shortcomings or personal habits (we might be better people if we followed their example

)... If you took this forum seriously, you would think that only paragons of virtue played arrangers, and that ALL other players are nothing but lazy slackers with poor hygiene and bad timing. Me, I think it's a more even distribution of flaws and faults than we wold care to admit!

This isn't meant to be 'elitist' (the word that always gets trotted out when we start talking about REALLY good players, unless they are already stars, of course! You never hear Paul McCartney being accused of being 'elitist' just because HE prefers real players over automatic backing

), but I am afraid to say, if you think that playing with an arranger is as satisfying musically as playing with real players, you simply haven't played with any really good ones...
Sorry...!
It is satisfying to your bank account, and maybe your ego (I can't count the number of times I've heard demos here by their proud posters that had timing on them so bad, no decent musician would ever tolerate it!) and it is convenient, but arrangers have a LONG way to go before you can walk off stage with the same high you get from interacting with great players. Interacting with the audience is a TOTALLY different type of experience to 'talking' with a skilled player that understands music, understands his axe, and understands how to make a meaningful musical 'conversation' that lifts you higher than you thought you could go. You can 'interact' with your audience just the same from a band or an OMB, but you can't interact the same way with real players and an arranger.
JMO...
