I have no problem with the fact that it can be done... I am well aware of that. The only point I was trying to make (perhaps we both missed each other's?) is that it is a herculean task to create a soundset that accepts styles form a variety of manufacturers, and doesn't go crazy when faced with the bewildering variety of PC/00/32 codes for the ever expanding world of sounds modern arrangers contain. Whether this is done by the user or by the software creator, it is still an AWFUL lot of work.

That vArranger runs styles perfectly from Roland, Ketron, Yamaha is only true if running them INTO a Ketron SD2.... if not, you have much to do to convert them so that they use the best sounds, hit the right vel-switch spots for kits, etc., etc..

Sure, you do all this work (whether to use a different soundsource or VSTi's) and OF COURSE it is going to sound great. The only problem comes when, as so many of us do, you have THOUSANDS of styles. All of which, particularly newer ones, have a huge choice of sounds that they are going to want to call up. I know for a fact that BFD is not going to be able to switch seamlessly from a brush kit to a sticks one and back (which a style might ask for) or Broomstick Bass go from a fretless to a picked bass without loading a new sound (and going dead in the meantime). VSTi's, although they have MUCH better sounds, are not necessarily as flexible in a live situation as a hardware module is (hence the success of the vArranger with the Ketron module, rather than some theoretical VSTi). I have auditioned several 'all in one' VSTi soundsets (like Colossus, for instance) and haven't yet felt that they do a better INTEGRATED job as a hardware source. Many of the sounds are streets ahead of arranger's built in ones, but I haven't yet felt that I could play say a G70 optimized style or sequence into one, and let the PC/00/32 codes do their business and out comes something balanced and ready to go. Let alone a Yamaha style/sequence or Korg, etc..

I think the point you have completely missed in what I have been trying to say is NOT that it can't be done. Or that I have any problems with Dan's software whatsoever. It is just that, for the vast majority of us mere mortals that don't want to spend an eternity setting up a plethora of different VSTi's, and editing each and every style we use to make sure that its PC#'s don't freak the VSTi out, or worry about whether the polyphony needs are going to bring our laptop to its knees mid-gig, the all computer route is a long and hard one. That you are back on a hardware arranger speaks volumes, Dennis...

Perhaps YOU think that setting vArranger up to use the Kronos would be a doddle. I doubt that many here would find it so easy!

My only point to Dan was to suggest that, rather than spend an eternity trying to get vArranger to work well with a VSTi, that he concentrate on making the lookup tables so that it works well with EXISTING TOTL WS's... something with an already built-in sizable user base, and no way to achieve an arranger's ease of use at present. Not to mention the myriad arranger users chomping at the bit (like you and I) to get our hands on something that combines the best of the arranger world AND the WS world.

I am really sorry you got the wrong impression from what I have written. It was not my intention in any way to derail the idea, or put it down in any way. All I have tried to do is point out to Dan that the idea of a VSTi based arranger HAS been tried before (the MS was a MIDI only, VSTi feeding arranger long before Dom took the thing down the 'elastic audio' dead end) and it proved unsuccessful. But leveraging users of EXISTING WS's soundsources would provide him with an already proven sound selection, and an already purchased user base.

As is the case with the SD2, it is a far easier job to use an existing soundsource than it is to design one yourself.

I hope this has cleared up what I have been trying to say. I don't honestly think we are arguing at all. We both just seem to be saying the same thing in different ways!

Peace..!