At the moment, the only semi-viable workaround is to hook a laptop between the two arrangers, and have it translate the Variation calls from one arranger into the codes the other one wants to see, and so on and so forth. To my knowledge, several have tried and no-one succeeded completely. And having to do this over-complicates what ought to be a simple process if only the standardization of the existing codes occurred.

Currently I use a G70 (had it since they first came out), have a second for backup, do primarily (or at least for the last couple of years) live band work, but also duo, single (very occasionally), and a fair amount of session work, too. I am NOT an arranger 'purist' in any sense of the word!

My problem is, playing in live bands so much, I am unwilling to accept many of the sonic compromises that plague single arrangers. IMO, there isn't ONE 'perfect' arranger. You ALWAYS get weak points as well as strong, no matter WHAT you choose. To me, combining two arrangers that each one covers up the weak spots on the other is probably the best of all possible worlds. But it is infuriating to see such a simple thing (the lack of code standardization) make this task virtually impossible.

It's not like the industry has to ADD anything. Simply change what they already have to a common set of codes. And then ALL of us that like the idea of running TWO arrangers instead of just the one (and, if this worked, I am SURE there would be MANY) would run out and buy another arranger on the spot!

Why this doesn't motivate the arranger industry to add this standardization is one of life's great mysteries... Guess they don't WANT my money...