http://tinyurl.com/26bx7g

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 07-04-2007).]

very interesting how the tyros is labeled "arranger" and not a "workstation"...

I am looking at my tyros 2 right now and says on it "Digital Workstation"

words are powerful advertising tools for the subconscious buyer.

Says it on a G70, too. Doesn't make it one, though..

When your sales and market share start to fall, don't actually do what your customers need, just slap a label on it that just SAYS it can do it!

because the G70 has a very good sequencer, a complex style composer and more edit capabilities than most arrangers..Also so many parameters and don't forget the harmonist possibilities too...Yes it is definitely a workstation by any definition..

I would think any keyboard that has patch editing, sequencing, and onboard mass data storage could be considered a workstation-it is the styles that make a keyboard an arranger. Put them all together and you get an Arranger Workstation. -my 2 cents

I remember a few months ago starting a topic on the definition of an arranger and some people felt it was a frivolous topic.

With respect to arranger v. ”workstation”, we also have to look at the difference between having a “workstation” feature and the complexity of that feature.

Most people erroneously think that the complexity of a feature determines whether the keyboard is a “workstation”.

Two of the most recognized features of a “workstation” are a sequencer recorder and sound editing. Once a keyboard has those features, they can legitimately be called a “workstation”. Regardless of the complexity those features exist and whether people use them.

Remember, as discussed here, the editing features on an “arranger workstation” it was felt that arranger players can not use them.

Detailed editing is one of the essential features of a workstation. K2600, MotifXS, Oasys, FantomX, M3 etc., ALL of these have editing capabilities FAR in excess of just about ANY arranger (possibly PA1X excepted).

They ALL have extensive arpeggiation capabilities (unlike most arrangers) and are capable of the production of ANY modern style of music AS WELL as older styles (unlike most arrangers).

They ALL talk fluently to ANY other piece of MIDI equipment, no matter the dialect of MIDI they need to hear (unlike most arrangers). Sys-ex, ANY type of controller codes, ANY channel, any of which can be mapped to any controller the workstation possess, which are usually FAR in excess of most arrangers.

They usually don't make ANY assumption about how you need to split the keyboard, either by position (at LEAST eight zones is the norm) or by velocity (again, multiple overlapping velocity splits is the norm).

They ALL (except for the least expensive) have samplers, with VERY detailed (down to the sample start and end points and loop markers (usually several loops and often release loops), and again, VERY detailed voice editing, usually with multiple choices of filter types and curves.

MOST of them have multi-track audio recorders built in, with close to DAW capabilities (not simple two-track 'capture' devices, with next to no editing)...


'Why would anybody NEED all of this?' probably a lot of you are asking... This is why you are playing arrangers. You DON'T. You need the interactivity and 'get out and go' attitude that an arranger is best at (me too, don't get mad at me! )

But please don't think that just because it has the word 'workstation' on it, that it compares to a MODERN workstation...

But this is like saying that, because, in the distant past, a 'sports car' was the only vehicle that could go 70MPH, ANY vehicle nowadays that can go 70MPH can be labeled a 'sports car'.

I just feel that for a MODERN arranger to qualify as a 'workstation', it should have MODERN workstation capabilities, not those from several generations ago...

And Fran... One of the most fundamental features of a workstation is the ability to edit a voice, and then store it WITH THOSE EDITS, to be called up into any setup you are using. The G70 (by itself) is completely incapable of this most simple, basic workstation feature.

This one omission alone disqualifies it (IMO) as a 'workstation'.

And a harmony generator (and style editor) is pretty much an exclusively arranger feature. I can't (off the top of my head) think of a single workstation with one...

wow Diki i never new that about the G70... thats such a fundamental feature of sooooo many boards.

why would Roland have left this out?

Are the Korg 01w and the Roland xp 80 workstations?
Whether a keyboard is a workstation or arranger dependant on the time it was made and the time it is now?

There has to be a minimum requirement to make something a workstation not the max.

Diki, I disagree with you...The basic question was...is the so called arranger workstation ..a workstation...and it is...

Even the G70, does have sound edits..maybe different methods of saving[user programs instead of tone banks...so what]
All typical "workstations have different detail features...
You can just as easily select features on a Arranger Workstation, that are not found on a "workstation" only board..

You are given false impressions of capabilities of arranger workstations, and in particular, the G70..

Nick , just because Diki says so, doesn't make it true..

Stop making it more complicated then need be...The Arranger workstation..is a workstation...anyone that has "worked" with one knows that...

Diki , maybe you can enlighten us all...tell us what important tone edits that the G70 and other arrangers from Roland's previous models are lacking...most of the common edit features are there..and yes you can save them....just have to take another avenue that may be different from the typical workstation...

A side point ..typical workstations utilize arpeggiators...to simulate what typical arrangers can do better...play style patterns.....No contest..Look around , and you see new workstations trying to copy arranger features...limited as they are...

We can get just as frustrated .." working" with arranger workstations, as we can "working" with typical workstations......that alone should qualify it as a workstation..

Fran you must realise this will a follow with 32 paragraph response from Diki

Nick, you are right...what was I thinking????

u just go back to playing your G70 Workstation LOL

The words "workstation" have no set meaning anywhere in the music world. But Diki is right in that there is a general understanding about the limitation of arranger "workstations" and pro "workstations. But in all honesty the difference relates more to how you use the keyboard than what the keyboard is.

The true difference between an arranger workstation and a pro workstation is the degree to which you can manipulate the music, notes ,sounds and effects to come up with a completed piece of music. In reality both types of instrument rightly deserve the title "workstation".

It's interesting how the word "workstation" can stir up things When you break it down, they're BOTH workstations, BUT workstations that each operate on a "different" platform.

You got your arranger workstations, and synth workstations. I think the confusion is compairing the two as a whole. Don't compare arranger workstations to synth workstations. Compare the arranger workstation to other arrangers that may fall short of what's considered an arranger workstation. (if that makes sense)

Fran pointed out that synth workstations are trying to copy arranger features.., but my friend--that door swings both ways because you see arrangers trying to copy synth workstation features as well

Both are workstations. One functions with the expected features you'd find on an arranger workstation while the other focuses on the features more often needed and used by the synth gurus. The real truth is most arrangers aren't bought for their voice editing abilities. It's the sounds and styles. It's been like this for years. You got your synth junkies (me being one), and your arranger junkies. We're all junkies..., keyboards are like musical crack for us. They cost a shit load of money, we always want more, and detoxing is a bitch!

One trend that I do not like is that if anything my latest arranger ( Tyros 2 ) has become less of a "workstation" in that the patch editing power from inside the board is virtually non existent. I need to be hooked up to a computer. This isn't a big deal with acoustic instrumentation, because I really don't see the ability or need to do much beyond what the presets can do, but it's a whole different story when we talk about synth based sounds. Is this also the case with a G70 ?

When I had the PSR740 a few years ago, it was a mid range model, not a flagship, yet there was more voice editing power in it than inside the T2. I still needed to be hooked up to a computer though for any detailed edits.

The MZ2000 and PA80 are far better for me in this one respect, in that the full editing power is accessible from inside of the board, and both of these boards have plenty of editing capabilities. It's the one thing missing on the T2, and frankly, many of the T2 synth presets aren't that pleasing to me to begin with.

AJ

You're spot on about the MZ-2000 AJ in terms of synth power. That board is quite dated by today's standards, yet it still blows the Tyros 2 and PSR-3000 clean out of the water in terms of (internal) voice editing. If I remember correctly the MZ lets you have up to 4 osc, along with numerous editing options per osc. The MZ's effects weren't too bad either.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a Casio MZ-3000--I won't hold my breath though

I do however feel the strongest "synth arranger" (closed system that is) has got to be the Korg PA series.