Its not a bashing post where i come from most people use 2 keyboards, after all its former organ country.

If you had to create a 2 keyboard setup containing out of T4 on top and a 76 keys unit (either synth, workstation, arranger or masterkeyboard) on the bottom.

Would you go for a M3 73 key unit that allows you to put both keys units very close to eachother and put the M3 module on top of the Tyros 4

Or maybe a clavia north electro III 73 for its awesome sound and its beautifull waterfall keys

Or maybe another Yamaha like a Motif XF7 because of your love for Yamaha sounds and teh added sound edditing capabillities.

Or maybe another arranger like the Audya or the Korg PA2X or a good old Roland G70..

or just a plain masterkeyboard like the Doepfer LMK4+ with hammerkey action...(and then add teh Audya 4 as a module)


To many options... what would add most to teh T4 in your opinion? And espescially why?

What

To get close to organ functionality, you HAVE to have the second keyboard in so close, you really have NO access to any controls or display, hence it needs to be a dumb controller.

But the Tyros' have several large gaps in their MIDI implementation that would allow the second keyboard to be functionally identical to the top one (the hallmark of organs). Sustain pedals, expression voicing, active controls, Part splits and layers, all of these are tied to the OS, so that registration change sets them all up exactly how you want them on the main arranger keyboard. But the lower keyboard is relegated to having to send ALL of these things independently of the OS. You at least double or even triple up your button pushing on the lower keyboard, and now are forced to separate the manuals just to get access to those controls the Tyros OS won't let you program in the registration...

It's a vicious cycle. Perhaps, now that Yamaha are trying to sell a lower manual to go along with the T4, some of these issues have got better. But no-one's reported it yet...

Up to the T3, Yamaha's could plug a second keyboard in, and it MIRROR the main one. What is needed now is a dumb one MIDI channel input for a second keyboard, that the OS determines what and how the layout on it is called up.

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 09-27-2010).]

That's why the Regi Stick came about http://www.yamaha-club.net/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=196 to meet demand.

Bill

If I was to add a 76 key bed to control a Tyros4..I would use what I have..A dumb (sorta)..A-33 controller..it would give me the midi din connection too...If the Tyros4 has the same key feel as my Tyros3 did..I would prefer playing from the A-33 primarily (piano etc)..

Where did you get this information diki? Thats new to me?

Is Yamaha actually adding a 2nd keybed as an addon?

Hay, thats brand bashing. Stop it.. The T4 has everything that everyone wants so there is no need to say it does not have a feature.

------------------
I have shortened my ID to TTG

Come on guys what do you want that lower keyboard for...organ functionality you say? Then it is for playing styles (chord recognition) and the left hand sound. You get the whole arranger keyboard for your right hand and the registations affect both manuals. Only problem I found is muting the left hand sound but my controller has an independent volume slider on the side. If the controller can send on simultaneous multiple midi channels or splits you can use the song channels. Create empty song settings and your registration will change those songs with 16 channels/sounds for the lower keyboard.

OMG.... never played much organ, vagro?

One of the things on this forum that always gets a gasp of approval is watching a REAL organ player get the most out of a modern organ... Stagea, Scala, Atelier, you name it. And, the hallmark of that performance is actually PLAYING everything (or an awful LOT more than most arranger players do ) with your feet, your left hand as well as your right. And the ability to split the lower manual up into multiple zones, or have cross layers on an expression pedal or velocity, etc., all of those things that you can do on the top manual, you do on the lower too... Having many different sounds, all mapped to areas you can get to quickly allow you to vary what you play drastically over a simple one keyboard setup. Remember, two 61 note manuals is actually a 122 note keyboard! Now THAT'S better than a 76! (except for full piano parts ).

But just as you sometimes split and layer up the top keyboard to have two, three, four or more sounds on it, you should be able to do EXACTLY that with the lower, too. The idea isn't just to play on one until you need something new... it's that you have BOTH manuals as your 'main manual' Depending on which sound you need for a phrase (or just one note), your RH could just as easily be playing the top manual OR the bottom, And vice versa for the left. Add in some pedals, and, by having a keyboard where the lower manual is JUST as versatile as the top, you can play amazing things with little more automatic than just a drum beat (and footswitches to trigger the fills).

If all you do is play chords in the LH and a solo in the RH, who NEEDS a second manual..? But if you REALLY come from an organ background, having that second manual be as integral to the OS as the main one is is essential. Any 128 voice arranger is easily able to handle far more Parts than you really need. But until programming what the lower manual does is integrated into the main arranger OS, full organ functionality eludes it. An organ registration completely reconfigures BOTH manuals, to be whatever you want. At the moment, an arranger registration really only addresses the main manual (or its' mirror)...

It's nothing more than software, too. No arranger manufacturer would have to change ANYTHING physical to enable this. All they have to do is realize that there are many who might like to add another manual, organ style (nice and close), maybe a 76 or even a wood 88, but it remains a pain to do until a 'second manual' input MIDI channel is enabled, which would allow just as much configuration possibilities as the main manual.

Simple, really....

Diki
If you want to fly with your car buy a plane. If you want to play organ buy an organ. As far as I know Yamaha arrangers can split the keyboard into Style+LH, LH and RH...not too sophisticated isn't it? If you want to replicate that on the lower keyboard you won't even get to the heels of the organ's functionality you describe above.
I was only explaining you don't need to touch your controller to change sounds, you can use the registrations to change one and up to 16 voices in the lower manual. Regarding to part splits it would depend on the controller and probably would be fixed if you can't access the panel.
Yes, this is not flexible enough for the genuine organ player but those features are not included in arrangers probably because it's not convenient for their business other than negligence.

Victor

How about if I want to fly with my organ?

Look, I don't want an organ. I don't want an arranger. I don't want a WS. I WANT THEM ALL. In ONE keyboard. If I want to use it as a one keyboard arranger, I can. If I want to use it with a second manual and some pedals, I should be able to. If I want to use it as a WS, I should be able to do that, too.

It's little more than software. Programming in a set of commands to create a Lower manual layout for a one MIDI channel input should be child's play compared to most of the programming in an arranger. I don't want the WORLD. Just a LITTLE bit more than I have got

I sure as HELL don't want to pay $10k+ for an organ when a simple dumb MIDI controller and a set of pedals should give me almost full organ capabilities. But unless the lower manual layout is integrated into the OS the same way the upper is, it's a FAR more complex task to achieve this. And as doing this would be a simple task, I don't feel uppity suggesting that we could benefit from this feature. ALL of us...

Sure you can fly with your organ if it isn't too big and fits in your luggage (talking about the instrument)

I also wish, more than anyone here, an arranger could easily become an organ. No way I would spend 20K (in my country) IF they existed here.

[This message has been edited by vagro (edited 09-28-2010).]

And another topic is drowned....

Brand bashing is one thing as long as its based on the orriginal question/post..

THIS my friend is named trolling....

Taadaaa http://www.orla.it/ita/default.asp?A07EDFAB53EC9646BBCB268EF21C08CE

Impuls

Aye i know those are around, but i am not that old that i'd like something like that... Lets say this looks ancient.

Actually for what its worth, I think if Yamaha ARE going to provide a simple 76 note keybed to sit directly under the T4(or 910 for that matter) it would certainly be back on the radar for me.

My only gripe with dual keyboard setups, is the height required to get to controls on the lower, which then of course raises the height of everything else including the laptop.

I remember, I think, seeing some sort of 76 note keybed under the T4, on one of the early promo vids from Yamaha, and now I cannot find it...But I may have been mistaken.

The other big advantage, is that when required to do gigs in really confined space, simply disconnect the lower.

Dennis

I just had a good talk with Steve Demming from Yamaha, and he pointed out to me that the extra keyboard input MIDI channel doesn't JUST mirror the upper, but can do ONE sound or/and Chord Triggering function independent of the Upper. Sort of what I knew but he clarified it and I thank him...

However, he seemed a bit puzzled why anyone would WANT splits and/or layers on that lower manual. I told him that, rather than thinking of the lower manual as an addition to the upper, for those of us wanting to use a 76 or 88 as the MAIN manual and having the 61 arranger itself as more of a 'solo' addition to the lower, being able to split and layer the lower manual JUST as extensively as the upper is quite important.

I'm not sure I made a convert, but MAYBE this idea might get kicked up to the engineers one day... who knows!

So, more importantly, did you ask Steve why Yamaha do/did not make a 76 note Tyros or PSR?

I would have thought that would be your first question.

Ian

We've had the conversation in the past... Same line as you, with the same gaps in logic, too. If Yamaha DO make 76's and 88 arrangers, why not GOOD ones? But if you buy into the marketing, and pretend a DGX or NP80v or CVP ISN'T an arranger, well, it all starts to make sense, doesn't it?!

After the discussion about the lower manual features, what I tried the hardest was to get him to talk to the engineers and see if there wasn't any way we could get all the arranger manufacturers to agree on ONE standard for what MIDI codes were used to trigger arranger operation (Var's, Fills, Intros, Endings, Breaks, etc.), as they all use something a little bit differently to each other.

He was of the opinion that the MMA (MIDI Manufacturers Association) would have to get involved, as the engineers weren't even ALLOWED to talk to each other! And, sadly, the MMA is a slow, unresponsive bureaucracy unlikely to be concerned with what arranger players want, or to move at anything other than a glacial pace. I tried to point out that the potential benefit to the arranger makers (sales will balloon if anyone can easily link up two different arrangers and they work as ONE!) might make it worthwhile to bypass the MMA and simply talk directly (after all, that's how MIDI got started... no MMA before MIDI came out, that's for sure!) about the issue. Most manufacturers use simple PC#'s and CC codes, so the MMA wouldn't need to reserve and specify a whole new set of commands, this could be done independently, if they wanted it to happen bad enough.

But Steve thought that inertia, unwillingness to change and company rivalry would probably prevent it from happening. Sad, and a bit pathetic, IMO... Here's something that could significantly increase arranger sales for everybody, and bureaucracy and petty backbiting will probably stop it from happening. As fragile and under threat as the arranger market is, these days, you'd think that ANYTHING that would create a spike in sales would be pursued relentlessly...

Once you assume that Yamaha have their own reasons for not bringing out a TOTL (or even MOTL, to be honest) 76, all you can do is try to work around it. So I'm concentrating on things that would make using a PSR or Tyros WITH a 76 as good as it can be. The idea of linking my G70 to a PSR910 (or S900 back in the day) has LONG appealed to me. But certain minor obstacles need to be removed from the MIDI implementation of it so the two would integrate and work as one...

Rather than argue and bicker about which ONE arranger is 'the best', finally we would get the opportunity to use each arranger for only its' strengths, and discard each weakness completely. G70 for the action, the ballsy drums and great piano sound, PSR910 for the SA sounds, Mega guitars and other good things. Best of BOTH worlds...

But it will only happen if we call our reps and ask for it, put it down on any survey we are invited to participate in, and post often about the need for it. Otherwise, it will get lost in the inevitable 'Just WHY would an arranger player NEED this 'advanced' function?'. From talking to Steve, I definitely get the impression he (or at least Yamaha) doesn't have a very high opinion of what arranger players might actually WANT. Even as simple a thing as a split on a lower manual seemed to be something he thought we wouldn't want or need...

I figured he'd give you the same answer...that's because it's fact.

If there are any gaps in logic, it is you who sees them...apparently Yamaha does not share your opinion.

It's nice to see you enthusiastically pursue something, Diki; we both share the same stubbornness, or diligence, depending on who's doing the describing , and believe it or not, I'm not against a 76'er as long as it's lightweight, but, at least for the present, and perhaps the near future, it does not appear to be a priority to those who make the decisions.


Ian

While it's true that I don't think these ideas will ever happen, I neither used any of these words, nor did I convey anything like this.



Steve Deming

I'm sorry I got that impression, then Steve. I thought we discussed why the engineers would be unable to bypass the MMA, and you QUITE definitely stated that unwillingness for any company to change what it was doing and simply insisting that everybody ELSE do it 'their way' would inevitably happen. If that doesn't define 'inertia, unwillingness to change and company rivalry', I don't know what does...

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 09-28-2010).]

Bachus,
I used a CME 76 key MIDI controller.
If you are careful and brave...you can use the Tx or PA2 or whatever rght on it (on the front) then you have to support the rear. I use a on-stage stands 2 tier unit and have modified it to hold the arranger at the rear. The way I had it last time I did this is not secure enough for gigging. You could easily make it more secure.
I used the split on the CME....left for arranger LH...right for any other voice you want. R1,2,3 on te Tx or PA2.
I also had my Kurz MIDIed up so I coud use right split to plat sounds from it...simple enough.

Actually with a Tx I would use a 61 key cotroller and build a base for it unless you use it for gigging...then I would do what I already said but better.

I had some issues with this setup. IF I remember correctly on the T2..LH hold didn't work right...on the PA2 I think the lower worked OK with LH hold..but there was something else that sucked. I would have to set it up again to see the details.

I also had the Roland PK5 pedals in this setup.

I may go back to it. I just moved and can't find half my **** , so it will be a while.

If I went T4 I would absolutely do this...If I go with the new Korg...depends, If I get a 61 then yes...If I get a 76 nope...not needed.

The MIDI setup is trivial.

Lee S.

Thing is, TP, there's a difference between defining a NEW standard, and creating unique codes to do something, something the MMA is completely in charge of, and deciding amongst manufacturers how to standardize the use of EXISTING codes, which is what the arranger manufacturers need to do.

They already use commonplace simple MIDI program changes (or at least, most of them do) and already defined CC codes to achieve remote control of an arranger. BUT THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT!

It's insane! How many of us are ever likely to want to link up TWO Yamaha's, or two Korg's, Roland's, whatever? FAR fewer than those of us that would like to link a Korg to a Roland, or a Yamaha to a Korg, etc., IMO. But as long as those codes are unique to each manufacturer, the whole POINT of the feature is completely lost.

Before MIDI, you could hook up Oberheim gear to Oberheim gear, Sequential Circuits gear to Sequential gear, Roland to Roland, and so on. But the massive increase in keyboard use and buying didn't happen until you could hook up a Roland to a Yamaha, and a Sequential Circuits to an Oberheim, and so on and so forth...

What part of this do the arranger manufacturers not 'get'..?

Vagro,
Maybe you & me are the only ones here to have actually done this..??
It works pretty well with the Yamaha and Korg. Yes, there is a few things I would like...but it is usaeable now.
Diki, the registrations are fine, no it does not have full sound controls like a reguar organ...but it augments the arranger pretty well.


Also the MIDI pedals work for bass and or the arranger functions.

Lee S.

Tom,

Steve is a great guy; knowledgeable and diplomatic, and always shoots straight from the hip.

He has posted here many times to assist with any questions and to clear up any misunderstandings about the Yamaha arrangers, and yes, you're right that it's cool that someone in his position takes the time to visit this forum.

I also think that those who feel it is necessary to misquote his responses, to further their own agenda against Yamaha's policies, be they from posts, or from a phone conversation, are doing, both Steve and this forum, a great disservice.

BTW, have you sorted out the issue with your Tyros?

Ian

We'd get the same response from the MMA as you would with the IEEE-1394 association, TP...

And, I'm sorry, but anyone that excuses the inability to operate two arrangers AS ONE by saying the second one adds in a bunch of extra sounds (but you have to call them up independently) is kind of missing the point. ANY of us can put two different arrangers, or an arranger and a WS, synth, whatever, next to each other and have that... But we also double our housekeeping, calling each one up individually to do what it needs. Imagine calling ONE registration on one arranger, and it calling the right registration up on the other arranger... then the Parts that sound best on one arranger get played, and its' weak Parts get muted, and the same on the other arranger...

Then, when you call for a Fill and want to go to Variation4 on one arranger, the other does the same...

Nirvana..!

As opposed to the current nightmare of trying to get two arrangers to operate as one we currently have.

At the moment, the only semi-viable workaround is to hook a laptop between the two arrangers, and have it translate the Variation calls from one arranger into the codes the other one wants to see, and so on and so forth. To my knowledge, several have tried and no-one succeeded completely. And having to do this over-complicates what ought to be a simple process if only the standardization of the existing codes occurred.

Currently I use a G70 (had it since they first came out), have a second for backup, do primarily (or at least for the last couple of years) live band work, but also duo, single (very occasionally), and a fair amount of session work, too. I am NOT an arranger 'purist' in any sense of the word!

My problem is, playing in live bands so much, I am unwilling to accept many of the sonic compromises that plague single arrangers. IMO, there isn't ONE 'perfect' arranger. You ALWAYS get weak points as well as strong, no matter WHAT you choose. To me, combining two arrangers that each one covers up the weak spots on the other is probably the best of all possible worlds. But it is infuriating to see such a simple thing (the lack of code standardization) make this task virtually impossible.

It's not like the industry has to ADD anything. Simply change what they already have to a common set of codes. And then ALL of us that like the idea of running TWO arrangers instead of just the one (and, if this worked, I am SURE there would be MANY) would run out and buy another arranger on the spot!

Why this doesn't motivate the arranger industry to add this standardization is one of life's great mysteries... Guess they don't WANT my money...

Thank you for all that great Info Diki.

Its obvious that most arrangers are still build to function as a standalone instrument.

Only Korg's PA2X was build with master keyboard functionallity in mind. And even the PA2X is far from ideal in being on the receiving end.

Is it so hard to see that a Wersi Abacus dua pro configuration with or without pedals is something a lot of Yamaha fans would love to see, with assignable instruments to 3 zones on the uppper and 3 zones on the lower keyboard...

Its all about flexibillity... in performance A i want to play the Upper keys as an arranger while having a full lower keyboard available for a piano part...
Or in performabce B having 2 solo insruments on the upper keys and 2 solo instruments on the lower keys.

15 years ago i had a WX2 from GEM that allowed full flexibillity in setting up the keys i could layer 8 sounds over the keyboard every sound having its own range. and then add a splitpoint for the left hand chord recognition on top of that.

But, if that's the case, why have MIDI at all?

Why have features like second keyboard input ability, and then cripple it so?

Why even INCLUDE the codes for remote operation or master keyboard functionality, if they are so barebones as to be effectively useless?

Either drop them, or make them work PROPERLY... Because this halfway hell is pointless, IMO.

Seems we agree on that...

There is an old product that helped things back then..and could help some even today...It was limited to 128 program changes (negative for today), but I recall it transmitted the system exclusive data, as a saved preset...They are no longer being made, but a company could model after this product..if there were a demand..


Digital Music Corp. MX-8 MIDI patchbay