Dennis... What I'm referring to isn't how each sound individually is good, but how they all work together. Probably the biggest difference between WS users and arranger users is, each composition in SMF form tends to be a work unto itself. It isn't expected to work for other songs, it isn't expected that SOME parts or sounds may stay the same while others get changed out, it isn't expected that we can completely change the overall sound of the song at a whim.

But arrangers DO...

It's this interactivity between the style, and the sounds used by the style, and then the RH sounds that distinguishes the arranger from the WS. It is rare, in most WS's, that you can substitute ANY sound for any other sound, and not have to do some tweaking. It is VERY rare, to be able to take a drum performance that sounds great on one drum kit, and it still sound great on another. It is unusual to be able to substitute one bass sound for another, and it still WORK.

But arranger players do this all the time.

Now, let's just take RH sounds. I've yet to play a WS where, if you decide 'today, I want to play lead on this harmonica sound, rather than the french horn sound I used yesterday', you can do it without having to tweak levels, at the very least. Often, even similar sounds (say a choice of a dozen Rhodes patches) can be radically different in volume, not to mention 'presence' and EQ. On a WS, no biggie. Things tend to be far more worked out in advance, it is seldom, after crafting a Performance to go with a particular SMF backing, that you go 'I want to substitute string lines for horn lines, today'...

But you do on an arranger.

It's the interchangeability of sounds that marks the arranger. This is the thing that differentiates it from the WS.

Add to that that, it is VERY rare to be able to substitute one sound from one keyboard and have it work well with the style data from another (how BAD most style translations are before some major tweaking demonstrates that) and you start to see the problem once you try to cobble a cohesive soundset out of a myriad of different VSTi's that can still play a myriad of different manufacturer's styles.

We ask SO MUCH of our arrangers, and often have so little appreciation for what is going on under the hood. But the failure of any software soundset to address this degree of balancing (while still remaining as comprehensive as most TOTL arrangers' soundsets are) just MIGHT go to indicate what a huge task this really is.

I really CAN'T wait for this to actually happen, but I have a feeling that, until the majors start to get involved, nobody has any real budget to ensure success. And, even if a major DID, it would still have to be a pretty expensive product to offset the cost of doing it. If you look at one of the areas where the sample companies HAVE tried to make comprehensive, balanced soundsets even for a more limited sound selection, that of orchestral emulation, you are looking at software that costs THOUSANDS of dollars, more than any arranger, even. And that is JUST the orchestral sounds. Imagine the cost when an entire set as comprehensive as a T4's is brought to that level...