I think that, unless Roland innovate some NEW features, and embrace the many concepts from other manufacturers that have become standard on even MOTL arrangers (multi-pads, break/fills, etc.) they are best served by staying out of the TOTL market.

For starters, it is a MUCH smaller overall market than it used to be (as the economy shrinks, and the BOTL and MOTL models get better and better), and without these 'standard' features, people will jump on these shortcomings probably a lot more than celebrating the new features.

The thing I am starting to see is that, for probably 85% of the total arranger market, the features on even the BOTL arrangers exceed what these players will EVER use. And, let us not fool ourselves... Just what percentage of those of us with TOTL arrangers are actually USING the TOTL features? How many of us have never loaded up our arranger's sampler, other than maybe once when we first got it? How many of us with TOTL arrangers has ever actually taken an SMF and created a usable, good sounding style with it? How many of us seldom end up using the UPR3 sound, or the Dynamic Arranger features, or the D-Beam, multi-switch inputs, or even the harmonizer often?!

More and more, the BOTL arranger models offer all the stuff we USE, and none of the features we don't, but they are SOUNDING more and more spectacular compared to arranger even from the TOTL from just one generation ago (which didn't used to be the case).

Now, don't get me wrong... for those of us that are 'power users', all the bells and whistles are fantastic, and great performances can be squeezed out of them. But we are an ever dwindling pool of potential buyers. As much as I would love to see Roland return to production of a TOTL arranger with all the stuff I can use, I can see the sense in staying firmly in the BOTL to MOTL markets. Even the lowly BK-5, so much from the TOTL that we would use is included, and so much from the TOTL that we wouldn't is left off, I think they are doing the right thing.

Roland need to firstly, introduce AND perfect the 'me too' features missing at the moment, and can quite easily do this without going upmarket, IMO.

Their 'SuperNatural' technology is still in its infancy compared to SA2, again. Bringing this into a new TOTL arranger will only again produce unfavorable comparison. I'd say, leave it in the Jupiter's until it is more mature (and can be ported to the MOTL, like Yamaha's trickle down model).

In the meantime, even though I still haven't heard the BK-5 (but have a BK-7m), I agree that the factory styles sound quite a bit better than some of the G70's, although much of this can be removed by applying the EQ and sound settings from the BK style to the G70 style... only the drumkits can't really be replicated. Most of the difference simply shows that Roland's style programmers are getting better at optimizing the styles BEFORE they release them (probably the best thing they could copy from Yamaha!) rather than the unit itself going leaps and bounds over the previous generation.

I am really starting to think that TOTL arrangers are becoming more and more irrelevant. TBH, until the manufacturers finally manage the mind-meld of the arranger and the WS/loop player, and we can have arranger ease along with Motif/Kronos contemporary relevance, what the MOTL does is probably perfect for 99% of us.