Hi,
well Dan's finally done it.

VArranger software plays Ketron styles, Yamaha styles & now he's added Roland Styles to the mix.

Still in it's Beta stage but how awesome.

3 style players in 1. haahaa

For me personally I use it as a tool for creating midifiles of styles , which I then use to create styles for my PA3X . I get a better result using a midifile, than using EMC.

Anyway Dan, you really made my morning when you sent me my update.

I wonder how the sound font project is going. If I were to check into the vArranger, good self contained balanced sounds is what would interest me over having a sound module.

Hi Rikki,

Thank you for sharing your happiness.
I am too very happy of the new beta version 1.16.

My first goal was to be able to play Ketron styles with the Ketron SD2 to get the same sound as my Ketron SD1 with a very small package.
Ketron styles are the big GROOVE. For the live dance gigs it is the best.

Then I added Yamaha styles to vArranger, and was very impressed about the orchestrations. Styles are more arranged with intros and endings as a cd recording of a big orchestra. More rich than Ketron styles, more easy to listen, but less punch. It's a question of taste.

Then I just added the Roland style format to vArranger.
Roland is simple but very efficient. More I am listening to Roland styles and more I love them. It's a pleasure to play with the style, because you are the musician and the style is giving you a solid but not invasive accompaniment. I understand why the Roland users stay faithful to Roland even if they did not released a new pro arranger since many years.

Most of the Roland styles are also more GM compliant, than Ketron and Yamaha, so you can play them with any sound module.

What I love the more is ...no more matter of PAT, STY, STL, PRS...... Just load and play

Hi Dan,
Got the upgrade and have it running with all three style formats - works great and sounds awesome as well. Now I won't get any sleep for the next week - thousands of Roland styles to audition!

Deane

Scott, After the Roland styles integration finished, I will focus on the virtual sound module.

Hi Dan,
so you are still going ahead with using a soft synth. It will make things so much easier if one doesn't have to use external sound modules. Still planning on using Soundfonts??

Great! Wondering if your vArranger allows you to layer 2 or 3 right hand voices and if you are able to save them in registration memory (presets)?

I will jump in and make a reply for Dan here as he is usually quite busy... the simple answer is yes

Chord Sequencer! Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer... Chord Sequencer...

Diki,
vArranger does have a way to enter a chord sequence and play it over and over. It does not "remember" chords played - must be entered by hand on a PC keyboard.

Deane

Scott,
Yes, you can layer RH voices and even create your own and save them for future use. I have not done that but I know the ability is there. It is also easy to adjust or change just about every parameter of a style and it is done with ease and without having to become a technical guru.

Deane

Diki, in a next version I will add the chord sequencer, just because you keep asking it since 10 years

Hi Dan

Does your software play T4 styles without conversion, and have you also programmed your own Mega voices that mimic the operation of the Yamaha Mega voices, or does it just substitute them for a standard voice.

It’s great to see you have implemented direct play of Roland styles, (I wish Wersi would do the same) as in my opinion they blow all the other manufactures styles out of the water.

Bill

Hi Bill,

vArranger plays T4 styles directly without conversion. It tries to find substitutes in the normal GM soundset. It's not 100% perfect, but sounding OK.

This is utterly useless to me. If I want pre-programmed accompaniment, an SMF does the job FAR better (less or no repetition) and Mark/Jump buttons nowadays allow you to restructure the song should you need to. The Chord Sequencer is a LIVE tool for whenever you feel like it. I am still amazed that it isn't considered one of the core functions every arranger should have.

I find arranger use without one utterly restrictive...

Diki

I think Dan's reply to you, however, shows what kind of support one can expect from vArranger. Who else has said he would add it because you asked for it ?

Bernie

The day I see it, and see it working well, I guarantee I will be getting it, I will even have to buy a Windows laptop to run it, and won't feel bad doing that!

I still think that a simpler product, that merely took the NTA output MIDI channel, and looped it back into your arranger after Chord Sequencing it would be the simpler product, with a wider user base, but if I have to get the full vArranger, so be it...

I agree with you 100% Bernie. A couple of weeks ago I contacted Dan about his vArranger to get information about it. I asked him if vArranger also played midi files & if so, did it have the capability of utilizing position markers within the SMF's. He told me that it indeed did play midi files but didn't have the marker feature. He said that he would add it, no problem. I purchased vArranger the next day and in less than 1 week Dan had incorporated the marker feature, that I asked for, into the vArranger software. So I just want to thank you again Dan & let everyone know that what Bernie said is very true.
Wally

Dom from Lionstracs..

Hi Wally,

I know that many musicians are giging with midifiles.

This MARKERS idea was very good. Thanks to ask me for this

You can now navigate through the midifile markers on time.

If you want to go to the intro again, or the crowd wants to hear one more chorus, or you need to stop and finish the midifile nicely...

Use the buttons of your arranger's variations INTRO, VARIATION, FILL IN, ENDING 1 2 3 4... to go directly to the midifile section.

Cool !

Have you solved the issue of, lets say there is a program change in the middle of a verse, but the PREVIOUS program change is in the middle of the Intro (or some other section). You decide at the end of the Verse that you would like another one, so hit the Marker for the Verse again.

Is the Verse going to start with the PREVIOUS program change, or is it going to start with the sound that got called up in the MIDDLE of the verse?

And how about volume, expression, effects sends etc.?

BTW, it would be INCREDIBLY useful if the Markers could be named and displayed on a screen (maybe at the bottom of the lyric page display) so that, if you forget what each marker does, there is a reminder on screen...

Those markers always act glitchy imo

I think the glitchy nature of mark/Jump at times often comes down to this issue...

The sequencer will try to send out ALL the Program changes, volume commands, and other controllers that it back scans for on the 'One' of the next section, which can often (if there's a lot of them) interfere with the timing of any notes that are ALSO on the 'One' (which is pretty much all of them!).

I think a better system would be to play these PC#'s and controllers on the LAST 1/16th (or 1/8th, whatever works) of the PREVIOUS section, where you wouldn't hear them very much, and they wouldn't interfere at least with the TIMING of the notes on the 'One'.

You might also have issues with some arrangers, that still cut off the sound of a previous Tone when changing to a new Tone, making the glitch no matter what you do to mitigate when the PC# is called for. Fortunately, Roland's have long (I mean LOOOOONG!) been able to change Tones utterly seamlessly, and I for one have far fewer issues with any glitches at Mark/Jump boundaries.

If you plan carefully, and try to avoid having MIDI channels with Program changes on them (most sequencers can split a multi-sound track into separate ones for each sound - as long as you don't end up exceeding 16 tracks, you are good to go), you can avoid most of the glitch pitfalls.

On the Korg PA the markers can be very specifically targeted at timing points. This can be edited down to an individual tick if required..they can also be named whatever you want...

And you can have as many as you want. No restrictions.

The ONLY minor annoyance is that one cannot assign hardware buttons(or footswitches) on the panel to operate it. The markers page is the only place you can select them from and this sits on top of whatever window is open. Mind you, it is quick to get to with just a double button press from the right side of the display (lyrics and score pressed together)

One of the advantages I suppose of having the ability to have more than four mark points.

That's really quite a fantastic improvement to the feature, Dennis. I didn't really dig in too hard to this aspect of the PA3X while I had my friend's one at the house (too busy trying to get his Roland styles into it!).

Mind you, it still doesn't quite address the issue of a PC# (or whatever) being in the middle of the previous section, but you wanting to start at the beginning of the next. But hopefully, there is some kind of back-scanning going on (as most DAW's do automatically), and as long as you can place to the tick where they get played, you should be good to go.

I guess the only issue remains that, don't Korg's still cut off the sound of one Tone when you call up another?

Hopefully, Korg might realize that whatever they are doing with the Kronos engine to prevent sounds from cutting off as you change them would be a boon to ANY keyboard, arranger or WS, and this will soon no longer be an issue.

I would also hope that Korg might realize that the BEST place to have the Markers displayed is on the Lyrics and Score pages, as these are the only pages you are likely to need in SMF mode... and that operating them from your FEET would be a darn good idea (wish Roland had added this!).

That PA3X certainly seems to be slowly getting quite a leg up on some pretty important ideas than the competition. There is much about it I am quite jealous of!

Has there been any accurate leak of what's coming in the new PA3X OS yet?

nah, nothing solid on the new OS front at all -

Sound cut-off still happens if the midi is not programmed to avoid it. No problem for live play as one can adjust a bit...but it's nothing like what there is on the Kronos!! That wee beastie handles this aspect brilliantly well!!

The PA does recognise any markers (with names) that are inserted in DAW software (in my case Sonar X1).

Yes being able to assign a footpedal (even if only to advance to the next) would be quite handy.

But having the CS operated from just two footswitches on the EC5 is a brilliant move imho. One toggles start and stop record and the other toggles start/stop playback...MUCH quicker and easier than fiddling with the buttons. Just that one feature alone justifies the price (cheap) of the EC5!!

Hi Diki

The note being cut off when a new voice is selected is really old hat, and I can’t believe that in 2012 some keyboards still do it. (So I would be surprised if Korgs still do)

I think the Kurzweil K250 was the first to do it in 1983, and I think all the digital organs and keyboards released in the 80s had this feature. (I know Wersi incorporated it in 1984 with the release of their first digital models the DX organ range)

Bill

Bill have a read on the motif forums--it is one of the BIGGEST complaints users have for the Motif keyboards - even the XF!! Yamahas reason is that it is all the insert effects and other sound specific data that needs to get loaded with the sound that causes it..Funny that it still does it with NO insert efx, and a bog standard no system efx sound too hey

The PA is quite good at sustaining when you change a patch as it holds the last notes played until the notes or sustain pedal are released.

There can still be some issues with midis though...but mostly minor, and usually a programming error...

Yep.... both Korg AND Yamaha still cut off sounds to bring the new one in. Except the Kronos. And even that can cut off sounds if it has to load a new synthesis engine in.

Roland tend to take the opposite approach. Rather than cut the sound off to prevent glitches that MIGHT happen (but might not), they let the sound continue, and if a glitch happens from having to load a new effects insert, they let it happen. As sound glitches can easily be prevented by making sure that both sounds either don't use insert effects (it doesn't affect send effects) or they use the same one, you rarely ever hear a thing.

IMO, the better of the two systems.

Dennis, the problem I heard was with anything with a release tail... On Roland's the overlap is smooth and undetectable. On Korg's, not so. One of my favorite tricks is to play pads, and change the pad sound almost every note, so you get this swirling cloud of different sounds all blending together. You simply can't do this on a PA... But the Kronos has it down!

Hmmm okay...I must admit I don't do that...but I will have a try right now....

They actually do sustain, but you can hear a slight glitch, not much but it is there...but I just played a five note chord with a different patch on each note - each sound held, albeit with a slight audible artefact when the next patch was selected.....

What about release tails? Do they keep sounding? I must admit, I tried that trick on the PA3 and the glitches were what I thought was more than 'slight'. Once you are used to totally seamless, I guess the hiccups seem more annoying than if you haven't.

But things are definitely getting better in Korg country. Now bring on the Kronos based PA4!

yeah for the most part they did..DEFINITELY not seamless...The Kronos was brilliant in this task!! The best outside a DAW vsti engine imho

Oh well you know , slight glitch as in the patch didn't totally stop LOL!!!!

It is still totally unacceptable for me were I to do that live ( and you too ) but the PA sorta kinda does not drop notes as such....

Actually Dan is hard at work incorporating a VSTi engine in vArranger...so maybe no sound cutoff might be possible on it...

Although having to be tethered to a laptop on stage ( totally different to using an ipad for charts ) was the ONLY reason I dissed the Motif XS + the Karma 3. It ONLY works when a PC is connected to generate all the midi data.

Same reason I went back to a PA and away from vArranger....just TOO awkward...If I was only playing for a lead singer vArranger had possibilities, but for a solo player/singer pretty awkward, well at least for me anyway...OMMV.

PS: sorry for the digression

Dan's got a herculean task if he thinks he's going to make a VSTi engine in an arranger. Look at how difficult that task proved for Lionstracs. The onboard ROM libraries of even most BOTL arrangers are so extensive, so well sampled, and most importantly, so WELL INTEGRATED they have so far defied software equivalency.

I think Dan's time would be better spent making the software arranger work seamlessly with current TOTL (or MOTL) WS's like the MotifXF, Kronos, etc., and forget about the task of providing a soundsource that honestly stands little chance of bettering even an S910 or BK-5.

I mean, if you want an arranger with that sound quality, you are going to BUY an S910 or BK-5, etc.!

What we are looking for with software arrangers is MUCH better than currently available. And the only place you are going to find that is in a good WS.

If Dan were to concentrate on translation tables between PA3X style sounds (and Tyros4, Ketron Audya, Roland G70/BK-7m etc.) and Kronos ROM sounds (or MotifXF, Fantom-G or Jupiter80) it would be a world-class product. But tie it to naff user soundfonts of underdeveloped VSTi's, it will only ever be an also-ran, IMHO.

Learn from Lionstracs, Dan! Use existing, well thought out sound sources, and leave the VSTi integration to only an add-on afterthought! The Ketron module success shows the way.

Actually using a VSTi with vvArranger will work quite seamlessly..I was doing it

The BIG problem with the MS - well two really, was Linux was a piss-poor OS for running audio apps, (still is!!!) apart form DJ tasks, and Dom wasted ALL that time trying to adapt an engine (the elastique I think it was) to have styles using all audio..As Ketron have found out to their loss it is a LOT harder than you think - you know this...

vArranger is much the same as Karma in that ALL it generates is MIDI data...what you send that midi data to is up to the end user..

I actually had it running okay with the TTS-1 synth loaded up in Sonar (TTS-1 is the Roland Sand Canvas VSTi included with Sonar, and it is 16 part multi-timbral) sound was average, but it worked okay using a software midi router...

If I was sticking with the laptop method, I would set up templates in Sonar with various vst's racked to take the midi data from vArranger...for each of the parts..that is if I was not happy with the Ketron Sd2, or 4.

I had already got this software vst hookup working with the now defunct OSL Rack Project...

But there is no way in the foreseeable future imo that hardware arrangers are going to get replaced by software - it is all just a bit clunky and awkward, achievable, certainly, sounding good, yes -but jst too many hoops to get through.

TTS-1, as you say, is a Sound Canvas VSTi. And not even a last gen one. If you want your arranger to sound like a G600, maybe even a G1000, then OK... it's going to do the job. But who in their right mind is going to run a software arranger on a current gen laptop, and be happy with a soundset that is based on something 15 years old or more?!

I mean, what's the POINT?

You are back with the PA3X now. Honestly, are you going to be happy with an arranger that is FAR less impressive than that?

Look, the whole idea of the software arrangers is it allows you to play multiple style formats. So, you are going to want to import the latest styles. But, with the latest styles comes the task of rearranging EVERY SINGLE STYLE to work with a soundset that is completely different to the one the style was written for. Not only the basic Capitol sound, but the myriads of Variations that often are quite utterly different to the capitol sound. Drumkits with quite different note mappings (Standard MIDI, GS/GM and Yamaha mappings all seem a distant memory), utterly different velocity crossover points between samples, velocity response, etc..

Just this task alone is quite a task (look how long and how slow EMC are in responding to style conversion software for newer arrangers with newer soundsets). And now you want Don to consider the task of creating a Soundfont or VSTi based soundset that is not only going to cover ONE manufacturer, but ALL of them, and do it seamlessly?

I don't believe it can be done. Dom certainly couldn't. I have never heard a VSTi yet that, when sent a proper Roland GS SMF, or a Yamaha XG file, ends up sounding BETTER than its hardware equivalent. And Lord help you if it contains some of the more obscure Variation sounds or those lesser used drumkits..!

But the task of creating an look-up table to convert every single PC/00/32 code for a Roland sound, or Yamaha sound, or Korg sound, and pull up the closest equivalent in a Kronos or MoXF is FAR less difficult. The sounds have already been created, they've been balanced and effected, eq'd etc.. The hardware WS is utterly impervious to polyphony over-run ( a major issue in recreating dense styles in software alone) and if certain PC Variation sounds aren't close, it is a WS after all... not that hard to program something closer.

It's all well and good getting an SD2 or 4 to recreate Ketron styles identically to an SD1. But isn't it far more exciting to contemplate the vArranger running into the Kronos or MoXF, and finally have that mind-meld of the arranger and the WS/Arp/Loop player/Karma generator, and move beyond simple recreation of legacy arrangers and move towards creation of something utterly new and unheard as of yet..? But with all the reliability of TOTL hardware based synths?

Just as Kay's Karma software can push a Motif into utterly new capabilities, vArranger engineered to trigger existing TOTL WS's would add yet another degree of capability to a keyboard utterly incapable of doing this for itself. And would take FAR less effort on Dan's behalf than trying to put together some naff VSTi soundfont that would struggle to achieve better than 15 year old sound quality.

Just my opinion... but backed up by experience of watching Dom's project go down the toilet.

Yeah I already SAID the sound was average in my post or did you miss that
The whole point was to tell you it can be done...not how GOOD it was going to sound...

The thing you are forgetting is it is ONLY midi data...make of style has no bearing whatsoever...

I had styles running using BFG drums, Broomstick Bass and Guitar Rig from NI....I could use ANY style from any maker as long as the style playing software could interpret the midi data... this was with other software. I only used vArranger with the TTS just to confirm the connections. I went back to a PA3 soon after that, so I did not develop it any further...

As for them not sounding better you obviously have not heard then using specialist instrument vst's which totally sh@t over ANYTHING Roland can produce!!!!

And yes I KNOW the VSTs are going to cost more than the sound banks on a G70, and ergo are theoretically out of reach of most as you would need to buy about 8 really good ones, but they will give a brilliant sound result.

You keep referring to Dom and the MS....vArranger is SO far away from that it is not funny...The MS downfall was trying to operate it as an audio only arranger...that was why the midi data side fell down so much..in planning and development midi was the poor (distant) cousin. Had Dom concentrated on midi only data but using vst's as the sound engine it would have worked quite well.

Still would not have sold many, as it is Linux, but it would have worked.

You say it can't be done...don't you read...I already wrote above I have DONE it, and was DOING it...it ain't rocket science you know

If you want a point by point on how to do it just ask...but really m8, I thought you were more with it than this....

vArranger already runs perfectly, styles from Roland, Yamaha and Ketron......what more do you want!!! And all using the SD2 as the sound source. Dan has done a brilliant job...

Dan is the person who is driving the push to use vsti's as the sound source so he can keep it all in one contained system, no external hardware of a sound generating nature is needed...remember, and I will say it again....vArranger is ONLY midi data!!!!No audio...

Rather than trying to find negative jibes at his efforts you of all people should be actively trying to be more positive about where he is taking it!!!!

If I wanted to I could run vArranger into a Kronos...it would be a doddle!!

Look that's enough from me on this. You have your opinion and you clearly don't seem to want to move off it, lest you appear wrong perhaps, or for whatever reason I cannot fathom..no offence meant.

Anyway that's me done...

I have no problem with the fact that it can be done... I am well aware of that. The only point I was trying to make (perhaps we both missed each other's?) is that it is a herculean task to create a soundset that accepts styles form a variety of manufacturers, and doesn't go crazy when faced with the bewildering variety of PC/00/32 codes for the ever expanding world of sounds modern arrangers contain. Whether this is done by the user or by the software creator, it is still an AWFUL lot of work.

That vArranger runs styles perfectly from Roland, Ketron, Yamaha is only true if running them INTO a Ketron SD2.... if not, you have much to do to convert them so that they use the best sounds, hit the right vel-switch spots for kits, etc., etc..

Sure, you do all this work (whether to use a different soundsource or VSTi's) and OF COURSE it is going to sound great. The only problem comes when, as so many of us do, you have THOUSANDS of styles. All of which, particularly newer ones, have a huge choice of sounds that they are going to want to call up. I know for a fact that BFD is not going to be able to switch seamlessly from a brush kit to a sticks one and back (which a style might ask for) or Broomstick Bass go from a fretless to a picked bass without loading a new sound (and going dead in the meantime). VSTi's, although they have MUCH better sounds, are not necessarily as flexible in a live situation as a hardware module is (hence the success of the vArranger with the Ketron module, rather than some theoretical VSTi). I have auditioned several 'all in one' VSTi soundsets (like Colossus, for instance) and haven't yet felt that they do a better INTEGRATED job as a hardware source. Many of the sounds are streets ahead of arranger's built in ones, but I haven't yet felt that I could play say a G70 optimized style or sequence into one, and let the PC/00/32 codes do their business and out comes something balanced and ready to go. Let alone a Yamaha style/sequence or Korg, etc..

I think the point you have completely missed in what I have been trying to say is NOT that it can't be done. Or that I have any problems with Dan's software whatsoever. It is just that, for the vast majority of us mere mortals that don't want to spend an eternity setting up a plethora of different VSTi's, and editing each and every style we use to make sure that its PC#'s don't freak the VSTi out, or worry about whether the polyphony needs are going to bring our laptop to its knees mid-gig, the all computer route is a long and hard one. That you are back on a hardware arranger speaks volumes, Dennis...

Perhaps YOU think that setting vArranger up to use the Kronos would be a doddle. I doubt that many here would find it so easy!

My only point to Dan was to suggest that, rather than spend an eternity trying to get vArranger to work well with a VSTi, that he concentrate on making the lookup tables so that it works well with EXISTING TOTL WS's... something with an already built-in sizable user base, and no way to achieve an arranger's ease of use at present. Not to mention the myriad arranger users chomping at the bit (like you and I) to get our hands on something that combines the best of the arranger world AND the WS world.

I am really sorry you got the wrong impression from what I have written. It was not my intention in any way to derail the idea, or put it down in any way. All I have tried to do is point out to Dan that the idea of a VSTi based arranger HAS been tried before (the MS was a MIDI only, VSTi feeding arranger long before Dom took the thing down the 'elastic audio' dead end) and it proved unsuccessful. But leveraging users of EXISTING WS's soundsources would provide him with an already proven sound selection, and an already purchased user base.

As is the case with the SD2, it is a far easier job to use an existing soundsource than it is to design one yourself.

I hope this has cleared up what I have been trying to say. I don't honestly think we are arguing at all. We both just seem to be saying the same thing in different ways!

Peace..!

Interesting comments however:

Kronos is essentially a software player, its synth engines and modules are effectively VSTi (Some are available from Korg to use in any VST Host) which has been fully integrated into a custom OS, (It’s what the Mediastation could have been) however because you can only use the software instruments that Korg provide, it means they have full control of what can or cannot be done by the user. (It’s as integrated as any hardware board)

A fully integrated VSTi in an arranger/organ has been available for 7 years, as all Wersi OAS instruments from 2005 use the Steinberg Hypersonic VSTi as its sound engine. OAS 7 instruments also give you the option to use your own choice of VSTi for additional sounds. (Including use in styles)

The Pegasus Wing is an interesting departure for Wersi (And not just because it is cheaper than other TOTL arrangers out there) as while it still uses the Steinberg Hypersonic VSTi as its sound engine, it lacks user VSTi integration, thus only VSTi supplied by Wersi can be used (Similar to the Kronos)

As Diki said integrating styles from other manufactures is not easy due to all the variables,(Wersi had to program its own equivalent sounds to replicate the Yamaha Mega Voices to get Yamaha styles to work without conversion) however one of the problems is that most hardware boards don’t have the flexibility to allow an easy transition, (e.g. If a Roland Style has a 3 layer bass drum, but a Korg can only accept a 2 layer bass drum then its gets difficult to get the styles to match) however software instruments don’t have this restriction so it becomes easier (Although still difficult) to sort out the conversion.

The Music industry is (As has been mentioned) in a state of flux at present, so it will be interesting to see what the future brings. (Personally I can’t wait)

Bill

I've heard and tried Hypersonic, Bill. I wasn't that impressed with the sound integration or overall quality compared to a TOTL arranger. Are you?

As an adjunct to an already tried and tested soundset (like the Abacus comes with) it is probably quite good. But would you REALLY be happy if all regular Wersi sounds were removed from the Abacus, and you had to rely 100% on just those Hypersonic sounds?

Or am I getting this wrong? Is 100% of tone generation the Hypersonic engine, but Wersi have loaded it with a custom set of sounds?

I am confused...

Hi Diki

All factory sounds are produced by the Hypersonic VSTi, Legacy sounds from earlier instruments have just been converted into Hypersonic format, and all the new sounds have been programmed by Wersi. (So it is 100% Hypersonic with the exception of the OX7 drawbars which is a plug in board from Blue Chip)

OAS 7 instruments also have the ability to import Akai and STS format sounds, however when loaded these are converted into Hypersonic format to allow them to sound. (As they were not generated by the Hypersonic sound engine the editing features are more limited with these sounds)

Note: The Pegasus Wing does not have the capability to load Akai or STS sounds, or have the OX7 drawbar module.

Hypersonic is swings and roundabouts, there are some that think it is the best thing since sliced bread, whereas others like yourself are not impressed, I have no problems with-it apart from the fact that as most of the sounds were programmed by German engineers, the standard setup does tend to sound very Germanic.

Hope this clears up the confusion

Bill

No worries Diki...I think I may have misinterpreted your outlook on it...

FWIW I agree that using vst instruments is a "one patch" deal when using styles...the examples you give re drums and bass are true. As they need to be loaded this does cause a stoppage and no PC, Mac or Windows, is anywhere near quick enough, or can "background load" or pre-load if you like, the next patch to use.

This is a fatal flaw if one wants to use more than one patch in a style, or even a standard midi for that matter - with a vst you DO need to allow time.

There is a workaround in a DAW where you can have say two parts assigned to the different kits using two midi channels. One channel for a brush kit and one for the standard kit (to stick with the drum example) and use these instead of trying to change patches. Then in the style you simply reassign the notes from say part C, to that second channel...so in effect nothing changes except the channel number, instant and seamless.

Now of course this does take time to set up, but once setup this can be used over and over again for different styles and songs. In Sonar you can save each as a project file, and even load up a special playlist with all the project setups pre-loaded, 128 at a time. These can be remotely selected.

In the Kronos example I gave, it is a doddle because vArranger recognises the Sonar instrument definition system, (or xxxx.ins) so all one needs is an accurate .ins file for the patch base on the Kronos, edit the style to reflect those msb/lsb and patch data and away you go. Play the style, it sends the correct patch info to the Kronos, pretty straightforward really. It is all only midi after all!! As long as the correct data is in the style, it can use any sound hardware.

Now THAT is the area that is the most tricky as there are very few editors out there for styles. So editing the style to embed that data can be awkward. If this is not done then software such as Dans must do a conversion of the data in real time and THAT is a difficult task, so I agree there.

Essentially using a vst is the same process...get an accurate .ins file for the vst patches (most only follow standard midi anyway - ie 128 patches in bank 0, and no upper banks). In a lot of cases a GM ins file will work as you only need address number slots, not a name. Just edit the GM ins to reflect the names of the patches in the vst assigned to the patch numbers 1-128.

I never said it was quick to do, but 90% of the work is all in the one-time setup of all this data, but it is easy if you have a decent knowledge of DAW systems and midi. As you may recall in one of my posts, I DID say I thought it was all just a bit too awkward for any real-time live performing. And it is for this reason ONLY I went back to hardware. Plus a few other operational tools on the PA series that I find invaluable..I would not have dropped the vArranger system to go back to a Yamaha, Ketron or sorry, Roland arranger...only the Korg and ONLY the PA3

I also wrote , and you must have missed this too.....that I don't think software based arranger systems will replace hardware based ones any time soon. So I was always agreeing with you...I was just presenting the case it was all 100% possible...and that using a VSTi in vArranger was not all that difficult a task given that vArranger is ALL midi based.

Most Sample Based VSTi allow you to pre-load voices (Including drum kits) into a Multi, (Usually a bank of 128) therefore it is quite possible to switch between voices with no delay whatsoever, (This is true for styles and Midi files and not just voices) unfortunately there are a few were you can’t, so for these you will need to load 2 or more instances of the program into your VST Host (Having a different voice in each instance) and switch between the different program instances. (There will then be no delay when changing voices mid song)

Hope this helps

Bill

LOL, thanks Bill...pretty much what I wrote...

mmm... interesting discussion.

About markers :
Diki, when you change the midifile position and go to one marker, program changes, volume, expression... and every thing are OK
I had to work hard for that, but now every thing is perfect.
The markers are displayed on the screen, with their name, So if you select for example VERSE while midifile is playing, it will wait for the end of the bar, and will go to the verse position. You don't hear any glitches, everything is perfect and on time !
vArranger can display 15 markers on screen, and use the arrangers variations buttons to navigate through the markers, but you can have more and assign 2 buttons to next marker / prev marker.

About VSTi :
From the begging with vArranger, I wanted to separate the style engine and the sound engine.
Diki is right, it's not easy to accommodate all styles from different manufacturer with all sound modules. But this is MY problem, not the user problem.
I am every time working to improve the sound quality in each versions, and vArranger users don't have to bother about anything. Just load styles and play.
Now, tons of musicians are asking me about having a 100% software solution. I understand that it is cool. It's for me a bonus for vArranger to be able to switch from external hardware modules to internal well know soundset. I am working on it with some humility. I still don't think that in a near future I will gig with a VSTi based vArranger. I don't think that I will do better than Yamaha Roland Ketron and Korg who have some millions dollars to spend on R&D.
But for sure I have something to bring to the arranger music world.

As midem said, I have not set my goal to win the war against hardware arrangers, that I still use and love, but to add another working solution into the musician pocket.

Just purchased the vArranger and enjoying it.

And guess what? I don`t own a sound module

Yes, I am playing it through a softsynth viz. the Yamaha SYXG50 softsynth on my MIDI OUT. This has the XG soundset and the PSR styles do sound good when you consider its a soundset which is more than a decade old !!!

I`m sure the output from the vArranger would sound at its best, if played through a more recent sound module like a SD2 or SD-50 or even a Bk-7m.

The vArranger is an awesome piece of arranger gear. Its almost Apple-like in its clear and simple user interface. The vArranger being able to play Roland styles is good leap forward!!

And of course, with Dan`s great support which I experienced first hand today, its definitely a very good investment to go along with your other hardware arrangers.


Merci Beacoup Dan !! Keep up the good work

HiDennis,
is that Rob's project? I stopped keeping tabs on it quite a while back.

Hi Diki,
I have soundsets for Ketron & Yamaha. Admitedly they're only soundfonts, but I probably could get them to work reasonably well.

I don't think Dan is under any grand illusion that he's going to replace yamaha, roland & ketron keyboards with VArranger.
I tend to think is aim is to create something affordable for the average user. Someone for can't afford or doesn't want to spend the money on basically having to buy 3 seperate keyboards.

I came across VArranger when basically all it did was play Ketron styles. That was amazing in itself. I sold my SD1+ a couple or so years ago, & I thought it would be great to have access to my Ketron Styles again. As good as the SD1+ it's not, but that probably has more to do with the SD2 sound module I'm using rather than Dan's VArranger. One can't expect a cheap sound module to have the same quality of sound that a $5K arranger had, but I have access to Ketron styles again.
Short while later VArranger also played Yammie styles. For me not the be all and end all as I already own a Yammi PSR 1500 Keyboard plus I'd been a One Man Band software arranger user ( which also plays Yammie styles) for a number of years. Still great for users who don't have a Yammie product.

As I mentioned in my post, woke up a few days ago, and wow, I also now have access to my old Roland styles. Haven't owned a Roland keyboard since my VA7 back in about 2002, not likely to either.

So, have started out with a sofware arranger that played Ketron styles, it also now plays Yammie & Roland styles & hasn't cost me a cent extra from my initial investment. Dan does his upgrades for nothing, which to me & the rest of the VArranger community is pretty amazing.

BTW Happy Birthday Dan, (better late than never0 haahaa

Yes that was the one Rikki...

Hi Dennis,
sorry to hear that, you guys had put so much effort into it.

BTW, did you get those "missing PA800 styles" I sent you, or at least I hope that I sent to YOU. haahaa

Hi Rikki, I have not checked but I will, thanks

Dennis

It's good to hear everybody's different takes on all this.

Personally, I would think that if anyone is looking for a budget arranger, look at what you have to buy to use vArranger software only. For starters, a MIDI controller. And a MIDI controller with a boatload of controls on it, because without these, you are flying blind. Then a decent laptop (in fact, a better than decent one if you want to run a few power hungry VSTi's on it), a decent quality audio interface, a decent MIDI interface (multi-output if you want to split the tracks between a couple of different external modules or existing keyboards) and probably a fast external HD (because things like Giga-Sampler or most of the newer VSTi's are HUGE in size and really need a decent speed HD to load up quickly). Then the VSTi module itself, which can vary from bloody naff sounding free soundfonts to superb TOTL monsters that cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

Cabling to hook it all up, and decent speakers.

No offense, but there are HARDWARE arrangers that can be got for well under $1000 (including s/h versions of many of the last or last-but-one TOTL models) that can sound absolutely brilliant with absolutely ZERO effort.

So far, other than Dennis, most seem to want to run this through some legacy VSTi that barely approaches the quality of an utterly BOTL sound module from 20 years ago! I am amazed! People are GIVING AWAY twenty year old arrangers. Good ones, at that!

For me, I guess, this is the current sticking point. Even budget arrangers like the BK-7m or BK-5, or the Korg Micro-arrangers etc. utterly blow these dinky old Sound Canvas era VSTi's out of the water! And when you add up all the peripherals to run vArranger (if you don't already have them), you are going to end up out of pocket, sounding like you bought an old G600 rather than a new Tyros!

I honestly 'get' vArranger. I think it is the future... But at the moment, I think that the soundsources it plays have a LONG way to go to match hardware reliability and overall quality and especially, QUALITY OF INTEGRATION. An arranger's soundset isn't just a collection of sounds. That what so many often miss. It is a collection of sounds, exquisitely balanced to be almost seamlessly interchangeable.

Change a flute sound to a clarinet sound in an arranger style. Odds are, you won't have to go and alter the volume or brightness. Change a brush kit into a sticks kit, odds are you don't have to go and mess with each drum's individual velocities, or volumes, etc.. Change an acoustic piano into a Rhodes, it's a one button procedure.

We all rely on this every day. We all rely on it working, and it does it so well we don't even THINK about it any more. And we rely on several thousand sounds and drumkits doing it (in most modern arrangers, there are thousands of different sounds, not just 128 GM MIDI Capitol sounds). Until you start working with VSTi's. Then you realize just how much work went into balancing your arranger's soundset!

So, this, more than anything else, is why I am trying to get Dan more interested in leveraging existing modules (I'd LOVE a BK-7m setup file!) and even more importantly, the current crop of TOTL WS's (remember, you budget conscious players out there - most TOTL WS's are FAR less expensive than TOTL arrangers, and have FAR greater capabilities) than in going down what I consider a dead end of VSTi integration before the VSTi exists to make this easy.

We have been LONG envying and talking about WS arp and loop capabilities, how they can sound utterly fresh and contemporary, how things like Karma can add randomized elements to static soundscapes, etc., how they appeal to younger players and many of us older player, but we ALL bitched about how unfriendly they are for producing anything OTHER than strict loop music. The arranger paradigm of Variations, Fills, Intros and Endings, all logically tied together and sync'd so that one flows musically to the next is utterly missing from WS's. Here is the tool to add it...

Please don't turn this into a cheap soundalike of decades old arrangers, Dan. Turn it into the FUTURE, not into the past!

+1 Diki

All valid points, however if Dan was to integrate Kontakt (For example) into his arranger, then he could set it up and balance all the voices to suit, thus it becomes as balanced as any hardware arranger, but with vastly superior sound.

The problem comes (As has been mentioned) if you try and Mix and Match as the designer doesn’t know what to set the arranger up for.

Dan, if you can integrate a high quality VSTi then go for it, just make sure you have full control over it, and are prepared to put many hours into getting the balance right.

As to overloading a decent modern computer, then you would have to be working in a studio to get to the limits, whereas arranger play is quite simple so would not be so much of a problem.

In addition, just like new cars have more features and performance then older cars, they also have much improved fuel economy due to the more efficient use of resources; the same applies to VSTi, where modern versions can do more with less computing power.

Bill

Hi Diki
basically your ideas sound great.

Visions of what V Arranger should or could be.

Dan's got his little niche market, & he's great with trying to give us users what we think we need.

Ideas can sometimes become too grand, & the whole thing fizzles out & dies.

Just ask Dennis about OSL Project. Approx 2 years of hard work. If memory serves me correctly, Dennis first hinted about it round about the time rumours about the PA3X started appearing. I became involved for a few months about a year ago
( only in a small way ) and unfortunately the project for whatever reason has fizzled out. Really sad.

Dan's VArranger has started out fairly basic & it's expanding.
I'm confidant, Dan knows his target market and he knows what he's doing.

Well,
I tried my gm/gs soundfonts for the Roland styles. My soundfonts suck. I've got Freebie Banks as well as banks I paid reasonably good money for.
I think I was looking back on them with Rose Colored Glasses.
The TTS1 sounded better than the fonts. Also the softsynth (coyote something or other) that comes with Band in a Box sounded better than the fonts. Only problem is I don't think it has all the gm2 drum sets.
Decided not to bother trying to sort thru & set up the ketron or Yammie ones. Quality probably wouldn't be any better than my GM banks.

My SD2 on the other hand, sounded pretty good with the few Roland styles I tried to date.

[quote=rikkisbears]


Hi Diki,
I have soundsets for Ketron & Yamaha. Admitedly they're only soundfonts, but I probably could get them to work reasonably well.

This is what utterly defeated Dom at Lionstracs. Even monster VSTi's like Colossus don't have the comprehensiveness of sounds you find in even a modest arranger like a BK-7m. Not to mention, you are going to have to have pretty close equivalents for ALL the Variation sounds in EACH arranger your vArranger plays the styles of. That's over a thousand for probably every arranger out there, and other than the basic Capital sounds and the major GS/XG variations, they are ALL DIFFERENT!

And that isn't even STARTING to address how you are possibly going to have ALL these sounds loaded up in RAM, because playing an arranger is improvisational in nature... you are playing one tune, want to medley into another, are you going to be happy while the whole thing goes dead while it loads up the sounds for the next style? Hell no!

vArranger works wonderfully with the Ketron module. The next step is to have it work wonderfully with something like the BK-7m, or Korg Micro Arranger, or an S910 (so those with one kind of arranger can play styles easily from other makers). Then the NEXT step is to have it work well with MoXF/S's, FantomG's, Jupiter80's, JunoDi's, etc.

Then the NEXT step is to have it work well with the Kronos and M3, and integrate into the Karma functions, too!

And the FINAL step... once you have addressed the needs of everybody THAT ALREADY HAS A SOUNDSOURCE AS GOOD AS A TOTL ARRANGER, then you can spend your time tilting at the windmill of VSTi integration, and the 'all in the laptop' arranger.

Bill, your suggestion that Dan use Kontakt then 'set it up and balance all the voices to suit' fails to address just what a HUGE task that is you just casually tossed out.

HI Diki

What you are asking for is for Dan to design his arranger software to work with multiple sound engines, and quite honestly this would take a team of dedicated engineer’s ages to achieve, (Not forgetting the constant updates that would be required as manufactures updated their sound engines) and to be quite honest is not a practical solution.

If you only have 1 sound engine to work with, then the time to balance everything up is considerably reduced, and it becomes like a hardware arranger (IE fully integrated) rather than a universal arranger. (Jack of all trades, master of none)

Regarding loading voices when changing styles, then this is a non-issue, as most hardware arrangers have about 1000 voices, and that amount can easily be loaded into memory at start up, (Ram is cheap, and SSD are dropping in price so fast that speed and storage will have little relevance)

Bill

Hi Guys

I think you may have missed one minor point, wheras an SD2 will probably play back a roland style quite well, ( the few I've tried to date , sound quite good ) a Roland soundsource will not play back a Ketron style that uses Live Drums ( ie sd1 styles ). My impression has been that Roland only has the the one drum track?? not percussion & drum like Korg, Yamaha, Ketron??
Even if it has 2 drum tracks, Live Drum tracks are not easy to duplicate. I recently converted one of my favourite SD1 styles Slow Orch to PA3X using VArranger to create the midifile for my conversion. Discovered the Brush Live Drum kit it used consisted of at least 40 or so different types of brush swishes taps, hits etc and the style used about 20 of them. Basically the kit is like a sliced loop. For me personally I'd be able to play the style using the sd2 for the Live drums, even went to the extent of trying to create a Live Drum Kit from my sd2 Soundfonts, but in the endI decided to redo the track completely.




vArranger works wonderfully with the Ketron module. The next step is to have it work wonderfully with something like the BK-7m, or Korg Micro Arranger, or an S910 (so those with one kind of arranger can play styles easily from other makers). Then the NEXT step is to have it work well with MoXF/S's, FantomG's, Jupiter80's, JunoDi's, etc.

With the worries that some have expressed about having to load sounds between styles, I thought I would post an item that I posted earlier on in the year, (And may have been missed by some) and it regards a new prototype that Wersi (Music Store) showed at the Frankfurt Musikmesse this year. (And was scheduled for possible release later this year, although no actual time frame was given)

As can be seen from the spec sheet, not having enough voices directly available to the user (No loading time) is a non-entity, and while it will probably be a few years before the technology is available in affordable Arranger Keyboards, (Although probably not as long as most think) it does show how manufactures are thinking. (Remember the Kronos is basically a pre-set (Determined by the manufacturer) VST player which has an OS that integrates everything together with other features.

Here is the link: https://www.box.com/s/698424b2822b604bc215

NOTE: Google Translate is not 100% so there may be slight errors in the translation

Bill

I second that...

Was wondering if such a combination used in midi OUT could produce a TOTL combination that plays all the styles and sound just like the arrangers do !!


a) MP-10 Pro to playback Korg Styles ~ 2000 USD
b) BK-7m to playback the Roland Styles ~ 1000 USD
c) XS Rack(Xf rack when its available) ~ 1000 USD
d) And the SD-2/SD4 to playback the .pat files ~ 600 USD

A new thread about software arrangers here

Bill

Hi ,
WELL, talk about DUMB, just realized I was trying to play them thru the Ketron mapping instead of GM/GS.
They certainly sound better thru the correct setting.
[quote=rikkisbears]Well,
I tried my gm/gs soundfonts for the Roland styles. My soundfonts suck. I've got Freebie Banks as well as banks I paid reasonably good money for.
I think I was looking back on them with Rose Colored Glasses.

Yes !
On vArranger options, you can select your target sound module.
The default value is Ketron SD2.
But you can select GM or GM2 or GS or XG.
Every mode own specific adaptations.
I usually select GM2 for most sound modules, and this sounds great.
Use XG for Yamaha sound modules.

So the SD2 will play the legacy Ketron styles with 'Live Drums' from the SD1, right? But it can't do the current Audya styles, right?

Bit of a bummer, IMO.

I'd be interested to hear a modern BK-7m style, or even a G70 style played through the SD2. Be interesting to A/B them, original and SD2 version.

Now Dan... you've got GM or GM2 or GS or XG maps done, yes? All I'm talking about is maps for MotifXS/F, Korg Kronos, M3 etc.. Nowhere NEAR the amount of work putting an entire VSTi together to cover this stuff.

Mind you, you've got two problems. First is, I don't think ANY major manufacturer has made styles that ONLY use the GM or GM2 or GS or XG soundsets for years. All the arrangers have moved WELL beyond those decade old (or more!) standards. So, anything but old styles are going to be calling up sounds or drumkits that just don't exist.

And the Ketron styles are going to remain SD1 and older, as I seriously doubt Ketron are going to let you sample their Audya loops and drum-slices, to put into a 3rd party VSTi.

We had this debate years ago with Dom. He was full of promises that each arranger's sounds were going to get sampled, and you would have a VSTi that replicated things like Tyros, PA2 etc.. Then reality set in. First off, it's a herculean task to do this, and secondly, the minute you do it, you are going to get your butt sued off by Yamaha, Korg, etc.! Nothing ever came of it, it was just empty promises.

The thing about going to things like the Kronos, or MotifXS/F for the next set of maps is, for starters, their soundsets, and drumkit selection is HUGE. It is going to be unlikely you can't find a sound from a MODERN arranger in there. Plus, voice editing is a breeze, so anything that isn't QUITE right can be edited to BE right. And you can create your own user drumkits from the magnificent set of built in drum sounds. So any modern arranger's kit setups can probably be replicated quite well.

You see... old GS/XG kits were basically, one sample per note. Modern arrangers ALL have multi-velocity kits. And legacy styles don't always hit the velocity points right. There was no difference between a low velocity, high track volume drum sound, and the same sound at high velocity, but with the track volume turned down. Things have changed. And for the better! But GM or GM2 or GS or XG kits don't get any of this.

You see, THIS is why I would like to see vArranger move away from those old legacy modules and soundfonts. If you want to compete with even modern arrangers, these things are going to have to be addressed. And modern WS's are the only tool flexible enough to be able to address them.

So... instead of vArranger selecting GM or GM2 or GS or XG target modes, why not Motif, or Kronos, or Jupiter80, etc.? After all, it's just lookup tables. Trust me, you make this product work with modern WS's, and you will have a line as long as you can dream, knocking at your door. What WS owner WOULDN'T like something that can turn it into a great sounding arranger too?

Integrate the Karma stuff, and you have something no-one has even HEARD yet. The future awaits. This product is too good to waste on replicating decades old styles.

Hi Diki,

Send me a Roland style that you love, and I will record a mp3 demo of this style played with vArranger+SD2 for you.

A listen is better than long words.

If you own a motif or other workstations, most of the styles will work OK with vArranger.

Thanks.

Let me record something on the same style (I'll just let the ACC play, no RH stuff) and then we can A/B them here.

I guess the thing I'm trying to say is, if you do the work FOR THEM, the WS boys will beat a path to your door. But if you simply send the GM/GS/XG PC#'s to the WS, well, most of them, the GS/XG bank is NOT the best sounds and kits by a LONG shot.

As always, an arranger is about instant gratification, and little hard work. If you do the grunt work, and optimize vArranger so it plays the BEST sounds in the WS, it will blow them away. But if it only addresses the naff GS/XG soundbank, probably not so much...

Hi Diki.

I understand you point. Of course things will be even better in the future releases of vArranger for workstation users if there is a need for that.

What can be dne today with vArranger is :

Most of the settings are available directly on screen, so it's very easy to change something.

For example, look at this screen. You can change everything, and save your style. This thing is so hard to do or impossible with hardware arrangers, that you never do it.



Also, in regards of the sounds selection, most of the styles follow the GM rules, and are sounding good.

If the user want to use another sound from his workstation, he can select it from the INS screen.

vArranger can import the cakewalk instrument definition INS files

Hi Dan,
thanx for the info on the ins file.

Even though I've had VArranger for quite a while now, I've never really used it as an Arranger. I really only bought it so that I could create midifiles from the styles & convert them to Korg. Total under utilization.

Anyway, since you've introduced the Roland function, I've been spending a bit more time on Varranger and I'm starting to wonder why I'm bothering converting, when I've got a perfectly good style player in front of me. Quicker to tweak some sounds to suit, rather than convert the style.

Anyway, I may have this wrong, so please tell me if I do.

OK, as I see it, SD2/SD4 is probably the most suitable module if one wants to play Ketron styles, because Roland, Yamaha etc won't play the Live Drums, wheras Sd2 can do a reasonably good job of playing Roland styles, but would have some problems with the XG Mapped drum kits in Yamaha styles?
It would be great if one could have an all round module, sd2 possibly could be perfect.

I've spoken to you before, a long time ago about a style creator/editor, when Ketron was the only style format VArranger played .
After you introduced Yamaha format, it was no longer as important as there's already creator/editing software available for yammies, so if someone wanted to create a style for VArranger , it could be done in Yamaha format.

Having said that though, have you ever considered including just a drum editor ie basically the ability to maybe change velocities & remap the drum notes. If one was able to remap, sd2 could probably play XG mapped drums back reasonably well.
(I used to have to remap my psr conversions to suit korg mapping. )

Also didn't realize I could mix n match soundsources ie use korg for instruments, sd2 for drums, even a 3rd module for bass etc.

Actually had a mix of soundfonts & soundmodule , & Korg running as well.
VArranger runs quite well with my software sampler & virtual midi cable.

Again, what could be handy for owners that may not own a ketron soundsource, would be maybe to have the abilty to load live Drum kits as a soundfont .
My software sampler cost me round about $75 which is a lot of money to spend if all one would need it for is to load a drum kit. My Korg sounds great for all the other style tracks, but I'd still need something to play the Live Drums..

Rikki, the system I was planning on using was Cantabile as the VST instrument "rack" and then tx the midi data from vA to it...

The plan was to set up various kits in the drum VST saved to it's patch banks (most VSTi's do rx program changes to select different patch slots) the same for the Bass VST and Guitar VST's...then simply assign a rx channel on each of the "racks" to the corresponding tx channel of the style in vA...all using software midi routing....

So in effect, apart from one midi cable in the rest is handled by the PC/Laptop...

Dennis

Hi Dennis,
thanx for that. I've never come across Cantabile before. Had a very quick peek, looks interesting. Noticed they even have a free version.

I used to use Brainspawn Forte for my VSTi's when I was using OMB, (but it's rather pricey). Not even sure if they perform a similar type of function without checking Cantabile out a bit more thoroughly.

I'll download later & see how I go.

Thanks again.

Hi Rikki,

In every version of vArranger I am improving the mapping of Yamaha and Roland styles for the Ketron SD2, and also for other synths.

The best to do, is that if you think that a style could sound better, then send me that style, and I will improve the maping for that style, who will profit for all styles who are using this sounds/drum kits, and for all vArranger users.

This is my way of doing things. The users don't have to bother about tables and mapping, but just sends me the style who can be improved, and I send a vArranger update.

Dan... I don't think you will see much demand from the WS community until you actually DO IT... Mostly, you are going to get interest from the arranger community, but most of us already HAVE decent arrangers.

But integrating WS's sounds and arp/loops with arranger ease of control and a musical flow (all WS loops need cuing up a bar in advance, unlike arranger fills which trigger immediately, but in sync with the music) could really peak their interest. But you are going to have to get it working first.

Hi Dan,
it's great that you offer to update & improve the styles . Average user probably doesn't want to get involved in too much editing.

I had been considering maybe using my softsynths again or even my PA3X. Being able to edit drums myself could have been useful.

I will think about it.

Hi Dan,
only reason I brought it up is, some may decide to choose a soundsource you don't have access to.
Instruments like guitars, piano's , bass etc , a substitute can be found, volumes can be altered, to make the style sound good, wheras if the drumkit used isn't mapped correctly for the style, it's not going to sound right.
Strangely enough when I converted the Ketron SlowOrch style across to PA3X , I noticed the drum mapping on the SD2 Brush Kit isn't 100% identical to the GM Brush Kit I have in my Korg.
Yet I think they're both supposedly GM.

It's not JUST the drum mapping that matters nowadays, as well.

You take most modern arrangers' drum SOUNDS, and a kick or snare etc. can have up to four or more different samples as you play louder. They can be quite different, for instance, many Roland snares add a rimshot hit to the last 3-4 velocities, or a pronounced 'click' is added at the highest kick drum velocities. This is what real drums do!

But there is no standard for at what velocity these samples change at. So a Yamaha multi-vel kit Part, played on a Roland multi-vel kit can sound QUITE different, as the accents either don't happen, or happen to much if they straddle the vel-switch at the wrong level.

GM/GS/XG made things SO simple back in the day, but as realism ramped up, unfortunately, the manufacturers didn't get together like they did for GM/GS (mind you, most of that was Roland doing it and everybody else just jumping on the bandwagon) and standardize these vel-switch points.

Sure, our modern arrangers sound quite amazingly realistic. But at the cost of loss of standardization, sadly.

Hi Rikki,

Before converting a style, try playing it directly with the PAX3X connected to vArranger.

Try the GM2 mode.

Then change the sounds, according to the INS file of the PA3X.

When everything is perfect, export your midifile

If I remember correctly Diki....I seem to remember reading an article or a blog somewhere a few years back (probably wasn't a blog back then - but you know what I mean) where Roland DID try to get another manufacturers "summit" to sort out these very issues and to take MIDI way past even GM2...but none of the other makers were that interested..wish I could recall where I saw it..

But there is now a definite and pressing need for all the makers to address these issues...still producing with a hardware/software spec that is now nearly 30 years old is really not acceptable!!

Dennis

Hi Dan,
sorry, I wasn't suggesting this type of function for my conversions. For converting I'd record the file in xg for yammie, gm for roland & ketron for sd2. I do whatever drum remapping/editing is required in my pc sequencer, then do my sound selections etc in the Korg itself.

I've been spending a bit of time on it in the last few days & I've been impressed with just how well VArranger actually works. I'd been considering buying a bk7m for my piano downstairs, but if I can get VArranger working the way I want, won't be necessary. To date I've only been using it for the midifile function, but that may change.

My laptop is a lot easier to drag up & down stairs as required, rather than one of my keyboards. haahaa