Quote:
Originally posted by to the genesys:
One of the reasons why some people just don’t get the value of the MS is that they are applying the wrong standard to the arranger section of the MS.

The standard is not whether it “sounds” better than a T3/PA2xpro, (what ever that means because that is very very subjective) but it is whether the user can customize the arranger section to his or her playing style and gigging market.
And once you customize the arranger section to your needs, then you can integrate other sections of the MS to work seamlessly on your gig.


Quite true. As yet, though, who has posted anything where they DID customize it to their style and market, unless, of course, you mean lousy style and undemanding gigging audience? You see, that tiny phrase 'once you customize the arranger section to your needs' is the crux of the whole thing. It appears that no-one has done this yet, at least not to my obviously undemanding tastes (after all, I'm fairly happy with a G70 ). No doubt PA2 or T3 users would put an even HIGHER standard on that arranger section!

And, if no-one has achieved it, what chance is there that it is actually easy to do? Slim to none, IMO...

Quote:
There is a reason why it is called a “Media Station”.

Really it is for those who incorporate covers and originals, styles, mp3s, midi files, audio, video and midi on their gig.
Integration can not be overstated when we talk about the MS.

So that some people can understand the concept of Integration, take for example some one who use to use a keyboard and a drum machine. Now, instead of having both a keyboard and a drum machine, they can have it all in one with some more features in the form of an arranger.

Lets say he got a T3. Do you think that person is going to go back to the keyboard and drum machine because the Yamaha T3 drums suck?



Well, firstly, if the guy bought a T3, he presumably thought the drums DIDN'T suck! At least, not enough to not use. But if he did, he would have got a PA2 or a Roland or an Audya. All good closed arrangers. But the MS's arranger section is a joke. Even its' 'features'. No Bass Inversions... they missing on YOUR arranger? Didn't think so...

I said it earlier, I'll say it again. Is the value of integration worth putting up with a very inferior arranger section? No other arranger from ANYBODY makes you come up with the content, sounds and integration yourself.

Personally, I don't believe it is. Unfortunately, the majority of those that believe this integration IS worth the effort haven't actually BOUGHT one, and tried to quantify that effort for themselves, and seem bent over backwards making excuses for those that HAVE tried to do it, and failed (by any reasonable degree of expectation) to achieve results superior to a closed arranger.

So I ask again... What is the easiest way to integrate a few VSTi RH sounds with a good arranger section? Personally, I don't believe the MS is the way to go... But I am CONVINCED that, if the MS arranger section had STARTED out as good as a PA2 or T3, and THEN all the other goodies were integrated, it would have dominated the arranger market and everybody else would be scrambling to copy it.

And they certainly aren't doing that!
_________________________
An arranger is just a tool. What matters is what you build with it..!