I wouldn't really count on the GW-8 performing like a "workstation". Sound wise this new model is going to be interesting now that it's using Sonic Cell, and Fantom X sounds. However..., Roland has still crippled this unit in the recording area. No user created styles.., limited post editing of user songs.., and the MFX are only there for real-time play. The MFX cannot be recorded into the sequencer.

Personally I think Roland is a bit loose with the term Workstation. You're going to get much better "internal" recording options on the E series. I don't think the GW line is an any way a "Workstation". It's more of a performance arranger IMO.

That's it in a nutshell, squeak... it isn't an arranger, it isn't a WS, it's a hybrid.

And, in today's environment of the majority of sequencing, recording and editing being done on computers, with a simple transfer to the keyboard once the work is done (pretty similar to the S900, in a way, with having to use software to make up for limited on-board editing), much of the 'missing' features are kind of moot.

Personally, I haven't used an on-board sequencer for decades! Style creation is also primarily handled by software these days, although Roland do have what I think is the best on-board out there, but I think most people work on styles with things like EMC, etc., nowadays.

Don't forget it's price point... At well under a grand, it seems like a bargain to get Roland styles and sounds, even if you DO have to give up some editing flexibility...

To be honest Diki.., I think at the very least Roland could have added style recording. This is supposed to be (by their statements) an arranger workstation. What's the point of an arranger workstation that doesn't even have the ability to record user styles. I also agree that software is filling a lot of gaps you're not getting on the hardware.. however, even if it didn't have a 16 trk seq.., at the very least it being an arranger workstation, it should record user styles.

I also understand price point.., BUT in this case I have to point out that both of my previous (very dated) Yamaha PSR's (PSR-540 and PSR-550) $500 cheap arrangers they were too--had the ability to record user styles..., and although the sequencer was disk based--had WAY more recording power than both the GW-7 and GW-8.

Even if the GW didn't have a 16 trk recorder and just recorded user styles... I'd still say it was one hell of a bargain, because the user would at least have the ability to customize the board.

From the product page...

"Bundled with each GW-8 is Roland's Style Converter software for PC, which lets you convert your own MIDI data into GW-8 backing styles via commercially available USB Flash memory devices"

...which I would take as a software route towards making your own styles out of whatever you want, MIDI-wise.

That's still not the same thing as creating your own styles. The software takes "you" out of the picture. IMO a very important feature on ANY arranger that costs nearly $900 should be the ability to record user styles.

What $900 arrangers CAN record their own styles? I was under the impression that Yamaha needed software...

Plus, you've got to take into consideration that anyone looking to only spend $900 or less isn't probably the power user that WOULD do much with making their own styles. I would be willing to bet that 99% of all GW-8 buyers never have made a user style in their life on anything else... why would they start now?

At least (particularly as it is marketed to WS users, who are probably less computer-phobic than most arranger users) there IS a software route to your own styles... Personally, I would always prefer to be able to record and assemble the parts in a computer, with it's vastly superior editing and display, than have to work under the confines of the tiny displays built-in to our arrangers.

But to dismiss a product in this price range for missing something that even the market leader (especially in this price range) doesn't even have without software support seems shortsighted. It's $500 cheaper than an E50, has twice the polyphony, audio playback capability, and possibly better sounds.

Not too shabby...

Not long ago a person COULD buy an arranger for under $900 and record user styles. Problem is these keyboard companies have gotten so greedy that they've dropped this feature on lower models. If a $499 PSR-540 and PSR-550 could record user styles then there is no way in hell why a $900 Roland can't do the same thing. Serioulsy how much would it have cost to add user style recording to a keyboard that cost $895...?

It's all greed man. Yamaha's rep responses are a good example on the Motif forum. Yammie's MM6 has gotten a lot of complaints about some basic features missing. Everytime you mentioned something about the MM6 missing (something that's a basic feature you should find on ANY keyboard claiming to be a synth).., Yamaha's response was always.., "You want this feature.., buy the MO 6/8".

With technology getting so cheap today.., there's no reason IMO why a $900 arranger shouldn't be able to record user styles. If current cellphones have higher technology than the freakin lunar module of 69 and sell for much less than what it cost to build that thing.., then there's NO REASON a $900 arranger can't record user styles. It's GREED! simple as that. Makers are dropping these features on models to push the sales of upper line... $900 for an arranger that can't record styles or even freakin loop record..., geez! Hell the Roland Juno-G does circles around the GW-8 and does it for a mere $100 more.

Think about that... Juno-G has 4 track audio recording, 128 note poly, 16 trk seq with loop, twice the synth power, SRX expansion, and TADAAA!!!!! DRUM ROLL!!!... Fantom Sounds... The G sells for $995....

I know one's an arranger and one a synth, but can't you see my point? If Roland can pack as much as they did in the Juno-G for $995..., there's no excuse for an $895 arranger keyboard not being able to record user styles..., and not being as crippled in the recording section as the GW-8 is.

Also you can't expect everyone to go the software route Diki--just because you feel it's the best. Since when did using your keyboard to record userstyles become "outdated".







[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 07-12-2008).]

But no styles...

You have to face it that, dollar for dollar, you get a generally better product in the WS line than the arranger, and that is due, IMO, to economy of scale. WS's outsell arrangers probably at least ten to one. Probably much more, in truth.

Arranger users have always, IMO, got the short end of the stick, but we only have ourselves to blame. We LET arranger manufacturers pawn off shoddily constructed barely toy quality keyboards on us at premium prices, and make little fuss when major features are dropped (as in style creation or my Chord Sequencer ). In all fairness, it's difficult to justify some of these features if no-one uses them... That's got to be how the manufacturer feels. It is well known that only the tiniest fraction of arranger players ever create their own styles. Why spend a fortune in R&D if no-one uses it?

At least we ought to be grateful that they provide ANY path to user style creation, given how few actually DO...

Diki.., I couldn't agree with you more man.. I have been saying arranger players have been getting the short end for years, and I just couldn't understand how everyone was just accepting it. I've been met with some hostile remarks for saying this in posts as well.

Arranger players do get JACKED when it comes down to comparing price against features. Look at the price difference of a pro arranger and a pro synth. Don't even get me started about styles--because just as much hard work goes into making the arps on a synth (anyone here ever even consider how much work it takes to get those guitar arps to sound the way they do on the Motif line???)

A Tyros 2 (online) is still going for around $3,500. Now tell me where this makes sense.... YOU CAN BUY THE TOP END YAMAHA MOTIF XS8-with Yamaha's TOP QUALITY 88 graded action keybed FOR LESS than the Tyros 2... Please tell me where in the HELL does a person have to live for that to make sense..????

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 07-12-2008).]

I still think that Roland has on the whole done a good job with the GW-8... It's very likely I'll end up buying one of these. I've been wanting to add an arranger to my synth set up for some time now. (I'll probably go for the more oriental version though-lately I've been having a blast doing hip hop with a middle eastern twist).

I just don't like how the pricing is done on these arrangers when you compare them to what you get on a synth in the same price category.

The GW-8 will fit my needs (good sounds, ability to create user patches, good styles, and REAL TIME CONTROL KNOBS!.., why isn't that standard on pro arrangers I'll never know... I'll go the software route for recording because simply the arranger market forces you to go this route.

I will say I'm very surprised that more people don't create their own styles though. I would think that alone is one powerful feature on an arranger keyboard. Even if you take out the 16trk seq.., recording user styles (to me) only makes sense......

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 07-12-2008).]