Didn't know that about the Fantom, although my last experience with the Fantom was the FA76.. Diki have you played one with the audio loops and what was it like? Do you think it would make a big difference to a, say, G80??
Dennis

Well, I guess it wouldn't hurt, but in all fairness, except for modern cutting edge musics, live loops are usually used on most arrangers to beef up the fairly poor drums. I think that the V-Drums in the G70 are SO good (when programmed well) that there isn't as much need on Roland's as, say, Yamaha's, whose drum sounds could definitely do with an upgrade (I know some will knee-jerk a reply to this, but it is a comment made by many Yamaha owners as well as those that have tried them).

I simply feel that, by the time you need synchronized loops, arpeggios and modern tools like that, something like a FantomX or even better, a MotifXS is probably a better purchase. Just stick it on TOP of your arranger!

I feel that Roland, before they distract themselves with trying (probably futilely) to play catch-up with Ketron on live loops, or Yamaha's well-honed SA technology, should spend most of their efforts returning the actual OS to the effectiveness of the G1000, that, although a little long in the tooth sound-wise, was still one of the easiest and most flexible arrangers to PLAY.

It's MIDI implementation was seamless, it's arranger operation was seamless, it's performance data structure was unified.

The last few years with Roland have been one big litany of 'Why did they drop THAT feature?' from countless users. Sure, they have made the G70 and upwards SOUND the best that Roland have ever achieved, full, fat and deliciously 'live', with by far the best grand piano, drums and organ of just about anything, short of software arrangers like Wersi. But it has been the 'dropping' of things like Bass & Drums/Small Combo/Full Ensemble shortcut muting buttons (from the VA series), detailed aftertouch controls (from the G1000), seamless change from normal arranger mode to Pianostyle mode (from G1000) and many, many others including, of course (groan!) my favorite (and MANY other's!) the Chord Sequencer (from the G1000) that has most of us worried.

Most other manufacturers seem to incrementally improve their OS (maybe too slowly for some, but you seldom hear much protest about formerly available features now sent out to pasture), but Roland have this fetish with re-inventing the wheel every new arranger series, instead of just slowly improving it. This often adds in a lot of REALLY cool features (the Makeup Tools style and SMF quick editor is something I do NOT ever want to do without again!), but it often seems two steps forward, one step (one giant step!) back...

I am simply happy to hear at least one counter-rumor to the doom and gloom (somewhat gleeful in some cases!) prediction of Roland's imminent demise in the arranger market. Time will tell.

But I will state quite clearly that, if Roland just graft these 'me-too' features onto their next G-series without addressing the fundamental OS flaws (no global split, anyone?), my G70 may be my last Roland, and probably my last arranger. It is doing the job SO well that I can quite happily play it for as long as it lasts (ten years and still counting for my G1000). By that time, things will be SO different, the concept of the arranger may be unrecognizable to us now...

I would definitely go with 88 keys if the weight was acceptable doc-z. The only reason I am pushing for 76 keys (as opposed to 88 keys) is because I don't think Yammie and the others could keep an 88 key high-end arranger at an acceptable weight level. I recently bought an 88 key Casio Privia 200 that had 128 note polyphony and other advanced features and it weighed just a tad over 26 lbs. But when I realized that the Piano sound and many of the other sounds were not top notch I returned it for a refund. But if the sounds had been better I would have kept it.

If Yamaha, Roland, Korg, etc. could make a top notch 88 key high-end arranger that weighed in the neighborhood of 30 lbs or so I would be the first in line to snatch one up. That is, if all the other features and sounds, etc. were top notch also.

If the manufacturers can't oblige with a light weight 88 key arranger I would still be quite happy with a light weight 76 key arranger. But you are right doc-z, 88 keys would be optimal and desireable if they could keep the weight down. That's my opinion anyway.

Best,
Mike

With the all new features request for the Tyros 3, you had forget the USB 3. http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9780794-7.html
Maybe they are working for this untill release the new Tyros3?
How know...

I would switch back to Yamaha tyros 3 (when it is made) if it had these few simple things

1. An onboard sequencer that could do all the standard editing functions you would expect of a sequencer with touch screen technology( why the hell have a one shot record or basic "song player on a £2000 plus keyboard that has such limited editing capability)

2. A sampler that can actually be used to sample, slice and reconstruct sound with large sample memory (300mb and fast loading times that retain the loaded samples after the keyboard is powered down )

3. Seriously upgraded editable drums samples

4. The ability to play audio samples loops perfectly synced to the arranger styles

5. About 80 banks of well programmed rnb, funk ,soul and smooth jazz styles.

6. Inbuilt speakers

For me if the T2 had simply incorporated a real sampler, sequencer and onboard speakers i would have probably bought that.

Spalding with all those wishes the so called T3 will cost upwards of 5 grand.
I would lean more towards letting the player choose what he needs that can be added as plug ins etc .....so you can add additional thing to a upgraded quality foundational arranger workstation....this way you can customize it with different things as you see fit as a player to fit YOUR needs.....why should everyone have to pay for useless features they will never use.

I hear you DNJ. I like the idea of being able to customise your board with pluggins but i fear that the manufacturers would simply use that as a means to sell even more expensive bolt on hardware/software and argue that they cant get the same economies of scale becuase of not being cost effective. eg there not being enough demand for smooth Jazz styles, warehousing space, separate distribution/marketing strategy etc (yet every arranger has oodles of polkas and oompah styles on board that i never ever use and that i paid for within tyhe cost of the entire unit! ).

As an aside the PA2X , has almost everything on my wishlist and more but unfortunately is speakerless. It does not cost anywhere near $5000. The manufacturers can build the ultimate arranger but it makes economic sense to leave bits off or drop features and substitute them with something else. I am sure Dikki knows what i mean (Smile).

The listings here is very interesting, but If all these suggestions were taken into account...None of us would able to afford to buy one.

I have been playing arrangers since day one.....there will never be a perfect one we all know this...just choose what is the closest one that fits YOUR needs, buy it, use it, enjoy it until it doesn't interest you anymore .....then either keep it, sell it, or move on to the next latest & greatest.
NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT ....it still is an electronic technology product that will constantly be changing every year that will never end. And believe me its still in its INFANCY we aint seen Nothing Yet...just wait and see! Tyros 3,4,5,6,7,8, Pa800,900,1000,G80,90,101, whats the difference? .......YOur Needs & happiness is the ticket always!

I think that that list of Spalding's is achievable at exactly the same price that T2's currently run for... Nothing of what he asks for isn't already available on either an arranger or a WS that is already considerably cheaper than the T2. In fact, all he's asking for is software, probably the cheapest thing to develop...

Roland's and Korg's have full featured sequencers with touch screen control (cheaper than T2 or equivalent, Korg have a full featured sampler with FAR better editing, and a vaster potential library by being Akai aware. Most top out at 192MB, but that's plenty. Most WS's will sync audio to sequencer. Load times ARE improving, but may never reach computer speeds, but at the moment, even computers can't retain the memory after power down. But no big whoop if the load times ARE at least an order faster than my Kurzweil (12 year old design, and STILL capable of 1MB/sec).

As long as sample load doesn't interrupt arranger play, load time isn't quite the bottleneck it currently is...

No, I honestly think that, except for the flash RAM thing (that even computers can't do), all of his requests exist in current keyboards. Just not assembled into one yet, other than the PA2X (without speakers).

Which begs the question... why hasn't some enterprising company built some good quality, low profile speakers that you can simply clamp to a PA2X..? I am not sure that, if the choice was between going without the features you mostly requested for the sake of built in speakers, or just finding a nice set of satellites that could easily be clamped or Velcro'd to an existing speaker-less PA2X (which has the vast majority of what you request), that I would have the patience to forego what I want in the vain hope that MAYBE, someday, someone brings something out with ALL I want in the same package.

Far better to get the closest compromise until the real deal comes out than have none at all, IMO... If that involves using a pair of satellites, so be it...