Why do synthe makers all need to put 1200 sounds and 60 drum kits on their synthes? I would much prefer a keyboard with 8 drumkits and 300 sounds. They keep upping the amount of memory in keyboards, but then just keep packing more sounds in. I would like to see a keyboard that conserves on numbers and allocates their memory to highest quality possible. Especially in the areas of horns and solo strings and guitars. Pianos and drums they've gotten down pretty well.

Thoughts? Do you like having a million banks of a million sounds?

Hi!
Unfortunetly every sample playback synth with on board ROM waveforms is made for an "average user", who needs a bit of everything and isn't as "picky". That's why most guys (who need bigger samples and less junk that they don't need) buy samplers or workstations with sampling capabilities.
Some synth manufacturers like Roland and Kurzwell make expansion cards, but I prefer a 300 meg string section to a 4 meg one any time a day - that's why I use samplers.
ED

You used the phrase, "A bit of everything". That's exactly what I mean. Just a bit. I've got a Roland xp-80, fully expanded. There is so much redundancy in that board. Give me one stereo sampled piano instead of 5 nonstereo pianos that all pretty much sound the same. Give me one good violin instead of 6 bad ones. I really think most keyboards could cut down on the number of patches and still give everyone what they need. Just my 0.02

The Kurzweil PC2 - series seem to fill the bill. I understand there is limited editing. My understanding is the sounds are excellent as well as navigation ease. I've had a K2000RS and a a K2600 and the sounds were excellent.

Jerry

You've got a strong point when you say that you need one good violon sample instead of six bad ones. I'll mention it to Roland at the next NAMM. I personally got fed up with Roland compressing their samples. There isn't any need for it nowadays. And you're right - those six bad violins (or pianos or whatever)almost sound the same. THey might as well just be one good sample.
ED

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-20-2003).]

You'll mention it to Roland? Are you ****ing kidding me? Are you serious?

FAEbGBD, I suppose they (Roland, Korg, Yamaha) need to do this in order to look competitive. The average user doesn't think about, or even know, what smaller sized samples mean. This way Roland can say they have 6 violins in their brochures. They're also sufficient for most gigging musicians. It's only in the studio you'll notice the weaknesses of the samples. That's why we have Emu, Akai and Kurzweil.

-tek

Tek!
"mention it to Roland"
- I thought you'd like that one!
But this discussion just cries for sarcasm and irony.
I think trying to figure out why the synth makers do what they do, or even try to persuade them to make any changes is an impossible task.
All we can do is either buy their synths or not buy them.
For years Roland were getting complains about the quality of their outputs, bad dynamic voice allocation, short and thin samples and sample compression. Not to mention obnoxious RND pan settings that almost all presets are set to. Complaining and asking questions did NOT make any difference at ALL.
At some point I just stopped buying their synths. That's my solution.
ED

The thing is you are both right about Roland. We might say they are double assholes even. There is one thing only that makes Roland change shit. It is a familiar symbol: $
If enough people tell them they are not going to buy from them until they do something about quality Then they will start writing new schematics. The thing is they will listen, but only to numbers. If all of us wrote the same thing in to them, if would cretainly go far far further, and if tenacious about it, a design meeting could be called if we proved even slightly right (which we are).
POST SUBJECT:
I think that there should be sound groups that you can choose from when you buy a new synth, just like if you order a new car from the factory. You buy the synth and the presets you want are loaded in semi-permanently plus making it able to have the other sounds for a later purchase. I need to have superior quality foundational sound or I won't even bother. I have many times taken a patch and sampled it into my kurz only for the purpose of creating the same patch on the kurz, made by the kurz. So what does that tell you about the quality of patches given on most synths? It flat out sucks in most cases.
Me? It's quality or it's nothing. I have to deal with enough of other people's turds and I'll be damned if I'm gonna have to start dealing with my own too.
MORPH!

Roland...
Just like in that commercial in '86
"Roland designs the future!"
But sadly - not my future.
Although, looking at a bright side -the V-Synth wasn't bad ...not bad at all!
May be all the complaining made them think (at least a little bit). But i can only guess.
ED

I agree. Someone really earned their pay at Roland when they came up with an idea to save their investment in the variphrase technology. The V-synth, although it is somewhat "gritty" of a sounding synth, it holds a key that no other synth has as far as sounds and creations of new tones. In 5 minutes you can begin creating sounds that are absolutely out of this world which could be done otherwise with a whole bunch of other gear on a long and tedious setup. The v-synth makes this long grueling task immediate, hands-on, and even on the fly.
The V-synth can be heard on a San Diego based friend / producer bt's (work) "Never gonna come back down" - bt
MORPH!

PS: No, bt does not stand for bong toke. Although at times that sounds like it might be kind of nice.
It's his initials silly!(forBrianTranseau)but you didn't find that out from me.

------------------
Exclusively "Rights Free" Production in the USA
"As far as we are concerned, it's all you. Our name goes on nothing!"
MORPH Productions Group LLC
Laguna Beach, CA 92652-0054 (USA)