New Roland GW-8 and I think the Prelude allows numeric patch AND registration and style selection.

Seems like SOMEONE is listening, at least...

124, have you considered that extra XLR inputs, preamps, and all the processing they would need (two EQ's, two compressors, gates, etc.) would add considerably to the cost. How about a simple crossover switch, to route one of two mikes to the arranger input, and one to the board? Cost maybe twenty dollars, does exactly the same thing?

Thing is, they could EASILY make an arranger that would satisfy all of us musically. Trouble is, by the time you add ALL of what we need, not one single person here could afford it!

I think, the better you play, the less you require. When you reach the top of the heap, all you'll need is a good piano (Oscar Peterson, Bruce Horsby, Harry Connick, Jr., Elton John, etc., etc.). I don't think there is a single world-class keyboardist that owes his/her success to the number of gadgets on their keyboards. Learn to use what you have. Example: while nearly everyone complains about the poor quality of the on-board harmonizer in the Yamaha, Dan gets unanimous praise for his harmony work on his PSR3000. And 124 got kudos for his tasty accompaniment (Jambalaya) on his WWII-era I30 .

Now when's that hybrid T4/Audya2/Mediastation XXX, coming out? Damn, I can hardly wait.

chas

Sorry, chas... the better you get, the MORE you need.

Most of us are content to have a decent arranger back us up. Oscar, Harry, Elton, those guys require the finest players in the world to back them up..! Not one of them would even DREAM of playing out with an arranger

Oh, and don't even get me started about whether they would be fine with a PSR piano patch, or whether their contract stipulates a freshly tuned Steinway, or Baldwin, or Bluthner!

Even if they DO choose to play just the ONE sound, that one sound is at the highest level you can buy, accompanied by the best that money can buy...

My response was based upon my understanding of the post, "what do you require in a keyboard?", not, "WHO do you require to back you up?". I think if the original question were posed to any of those guys, you'd get answers like, 'key feel', responsiveness, tone, probably even looks. In any case, since there are no absolute truths in this world, I'll just continue to think that my response was valid for me.

chas

Now, if they'd only listened a tad harder, and allowed the owner the use of those nifty numeric and patch registrations to gain access to style assembly...it can't be that hard to implement in the OS...unless it was designed never to have that feature.

Style assembly would make the GW-8/Prelude very tempting, and an even bigger bang for the buck.

And...while we're at it...why haven't the GW-8 and Prelude got a chord sequencer.

Someone (not mentioning any names, but his name begins with Diki ) has been asking this for quite some time now...seems like that request has fallen on deaf ears...well, at least for the time being.

Then again, sometimes they are listening, and the answer is no.

Wouldn't it be incongruous to see Casio implement a chord sequencer on their next arranger? They did have this feature on one of their earlier arrangers.

I've also heard a fairly reliable rumour that Casio is working on the equivalent to Yamaha's SA, and Korg's DNC.

Maybe we'll all get a surprise.




[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-27-2009).]

How could a Chord Sequencer have ANY value (or numeric patch entry, etc.)?

Yamaha don't implement ANY of those, and they are the ne plus ultra of arrangers, aren't they?

Trust me... if it ain't on a Yamaha, you are a fool to need it...

the PA1x has a touch screen number pad that comes up as an option when you are either working in the sequencer, sound editing or effects editing. Its really cool.

Even though you sometimes have the proclivity to be a tad sarcastic , I must agree with much of your above statements..

I actually did use the chord sequencer (it was on my old E-70), but not a lot....I can see it's value, nevertheless.

Methinks it fell by the wayside because:

1. There wasn't enough interest to warrant keeping it.

2. Part (or maybe, all) of the reason for #1 was, no doubt, the SMF Player...most performers, and entertainers (certainly not real players ) figured, why not just go the extra step, and play Karaoke style over the entire song?...sometimes human nature has a tendency to select the easier path.

The reason I mention Casio's possible new direction, is that their local rep has purchased several old synthesizers from me, and is sort of a "go have a coffee(or tea, in my case) with buddy", and, he has let a few things slip out (perhaps unknowingly...or even scarier, perhaps not) about some sort of "Enhanced Sample System" or ESS...ahhh...maybe it was just the coffee...it was a Tim Horten's Triple Triple which is strong enough to burn the heart out of a small horse, but, like booze, has been known to loosen a person's tongue occasionally. Sometimes the tongue will actually fall out.

Are you getting a lot of use out of your second G-70...is it set up more permanently (studio?)and the other is the roving instrument?

One's home, one stays in the case Life is good!

The thing about the CS is that I always considered it the EASIEST solution to the problem. Either finding an appropriate sequence for a song (for the 'entertainers') or actually making one, either from scratch or from arranger play, seems MUCH more work than simply hitting REC while you play the head, and hitting PLAY when you needed to use both hands...

Making a sequence, especially back then when there weren't any onboard sequencers with Marker capability always left you with that 'play once and never deviate' system, so alien to arranger users who can go anywhere, play and medley anything at the drop of a hat...

I happen to feel that probably at least 50% of ANY arranger's features are probably unused or underused by most players. Roland simply made the mistake of actually LISTENING to their idiot customer base, rather than sticking doggedly to what they KNEW was a unique and game changing feature...

After all, they stuck doggedly to MANY idiotic 'features' LONG after other keyboards moved on... only one drum track, no multipads, un-synched SMF and arranger play, no sampler, no Mega or SA voices

Why they chose the CS to axe while keeping these things eludes me!