Creating your own SA2 sounds

Here we go watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgFYyYWZrYk

Its a Kontakt 4 plugin that allows you to create your own SA and SA2 sounds or even recreate the orriginal Yammaha sounds to use them with live-styler or lionstracs.

Very nice..........but a bit steep in the learning curve for the average player.
Do you think the people in the peter barrtman audience could figure this out?
http://www.ocala.com/article/20100915/ARTICLES/100919797/1402/NEWS?Title=Behold-the-7-000-keyboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoOhjGpAKuI&feature=player_embedded#!

No mate....they will not figure this out, neither do they want to figure that out..

But people that choose Mediastation should be able to use this and achieve greatness with it.

So should certain people that want Audya styles combined with grade A vst solo sounds.. And make a setup of Audya/PC

But the average retired pensionada in the Tyros crowd will have no clue what this video was all about.

I am amazed that all the people that are MOST impressed with the potential in open arrangers and keyboards, to the point of having bought them, would not try to make a fortune off of doing the very thing they say is SO possible...

Turn them into a great sounding arranger OOTB.

Here's a challenge to all the people that have been saying just how good an open arranger COULD sound (if only we were willing to do the work)... DO THE WORK YOURSELF!. And then SELL us the data to turn this blank canvas into the work of art a modern closed arranger is.

I mean, if it is SO easy, why not make a buck off of it? I want a complete, well balanced set of sounds, playing a complete, well balanced set of styles. AT LEAST as good as a T4 or PA2Xpro (or even a G70 would be nice! ). Now, how hard could THAT be? Seems I've been told for YEARS that it is doable. Surely ONE of you has managed it, by now?

Give us a shout when you are finished... I've got my checkbook ready

WHY

If they had wanted to have features of a G70, T4, PA2x etc., then they would have bought one, however they don’t, and so they didn’t.

Remember not everybody wants the same as you.

Bill

That's the future...and it's here now...
I've got my check book ready too.

Some day....it WILL happen!
Like I have always said it's content that takes the skill & work.
Lee S.

I hope not.....diki is spot on above !

Donny,
You wouldn't want an open arranger with great content OOTB. Then be able to add tons of sounds (Vsti's etc, styles, as you want or need them?
Incremental growth...buy a well built machine once every ...5-8 years and upgrade CONTENT as needed..

I think it could beat the 'H' out of all this expensive spoon feeding we get from the closed arranger MFG's.

Lee S.

A computer is an 'open' platform, able to be made better simply by software alone... but only up to a point. How many of us are using a ten or fifteen year old computer? Damn few, I'd say..!

The idea that an open keyboard future-proofs us is demonstrably false. New OS's, new power-hungry plug-ins, new I/O standards, all of those make us turn over our computers on a cycle probably not THAT different to the arranger cycle. And, an open keyboard being basically nothing more than a computer inside a keyboard case, why does anyone think it is less in need of replacement every few years? I would doubt, even though it MIGHT be feasible to do, that many of us are running a modern TOTL computer in a ten to fifteen year old case and peripherals, either.

Add to that that no keyboard company is going to stay in business making ONE model, that software alone keeps viable for YEARS. There are only so many of us, and new products and turnover is what will keep them in business. And you better PRAY that they stay in business, because, as OS's change, and newer plug-ins ONLY work on the latest OS's, somebody is going to have to work constantly to keep them up to date.

And sorry, abacus, but EVERYBODY wants something as good sounding OOTB as a T4, PA2Xpro or G70! THEN they can improve it from there. But when simply even getting to the point of the same quality (no-one's saying it needs to be IDENTICAL... it needs to be, as you keep saying it can be, AS GOOD) seems to be beyond the capability of even its' most ardent fans (you EVER going to play us some of what it is capable of? ), it simply seems the ONLY people that want one are those determined to do everything themselves. And that is a TINY, tiny fraction of the arranger market.

But, if you WANT something that sucks the day you get it, and will probably take a lifetime to sound better, well, you've made the perfect choice!

Once again Diki you prove how out of touch you are with the real world.

To say something is rubbish because YOU don’t like it, just gives the impression that only YOUR opinion counts, and the rest of the world (Including those that have looked at the open concept) does not.

Sorry to say Diki, but only in YOUR World. (A term I thought I would not have needed to use again)

Bill

Bill,
It appears to me that your the one that is out of touch with the real world of arranger users.
Diki makes some very valid points regarding the needs of arranger players both Pro and Home player and and is not bashing the open keyboard but quite rightly identifies its shortcomings for arranger users. He has stated quite clearly what current arranger players would want from an open system before they would consider moving to an open system,that is, to be at least comparable with current top arrangers OTB.Which as yet is clearly not the case.
Diki point regarding nothing is really future proof speaks for itself and you don't have to look very far to see Why.
Bill I felt it was wholly wrong of you to ,Quote,> To say something is rubbish because YOU don’t like it, just gives the impression that only YOUR opinion counts<,
nowhere in his post did he mention anything was rubbish and it appears you have dismissed the whole context of his post in defence of the open sytem.I for one agree with this post,I am sure many more arranger players would also agree.

Gilbert.

[This message has been edited by gilbert (edited 09-25-2010).]

I think Bill’s comment to Diki that “To say something is rubbish because YOU don’t like it, just gives the impression that only YOUR opinion counts, and the rest of the world (Including those that have looked at the open concept) does not.”
Was referring to Diki’s thoughts that the open arranger’s OOTB do not meet the needs of the open arranger buyer who bought the open arranger.

Diki’s posts show a lack of understanding of the open arranger concept. It is not the content OOTB that matters to the buyer but what you can do to make the keyboard your own.
And, in all fairness, we have not seen any true arranger player here on SZ who bought an open arranger.


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

Thanks TTG
Eloquently put

Bill

And the major thing many people spend their time doing. creating voices and programs that do the same. Most players don;t get into the editing processes. Creating Styles is time consuming as well. Many of us buy what we hear today rather what we envision creating ourselves tomorrow. I like KNOWING the Motif can do more than i will ever do with it. LOL Its like some guys/ who own those 4 wheel drive "show" trucks that never see dirt, or the Harley rider who trailers his bike to an event, or the Corvette owner who has nevr seen the number 90 on his OD...or those of us who must live within miles of the beach and rarely go,,or on a lakefront and never boat or fish....

Sometimes it's just nice "knowing it's there"' is enough. We buy capabilities but don;t necessarily need or use them all.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-25-2010).]

to the genesys
I think you will find that if you read Diki post that he is identifying Why arranger players DO Not buy open Systems, not a lack of understanding of the open system. He follows on with what might temp arranger player to test the water regarding open art system, which is an improvement in the quality of the OOTB content.
For Bill to THINK that Diki was rubbishing the open system is not grounds for saying that Diki WAS Rubbishing the open system.I feel you need to read the post again with an open mind.
Gilbert.

The open systems are not there for older arranger players that prefer thing out of the box..

They are there for to get the younger players interested intoo arrangers.. And espescially those youger players grew up with synths and the abbility to tweak and control...

Arrangers are an easy way to jam and improvise on your own..

Open keyboards are not a 'concept'... they are a tool. A tool for making music. And, compared to a closed arranger, a fatally flawed tool. The truth is, the VAST majority of arranger players are more interested in MAKING music, and not spending their entire life programming a blank slate just to achieve the functionality that a closed arranger gives you from the day you buy it.

While there may not be as MUCH possibility for improvement, it's not like open arrangers are unique in being possible to improve. Most closed arrangers have a sampler, should one choose to use sounds the manufacturer doesn't supply, and most arrangers have all the tools you need to make your own styles, should you WANT to... But they don't set themselves up so you HAVE to.

And that is why they dominate the market. There is no lack of understanding about what an open arranger is. In fact, everybody is only TOO aware of what they are... and that is why the vast majority give them a wide berth, me included.

Let's face it, once you decide to use an arranger to make music, rather than through composing something and creating SMF's or audio backing, or strictly just recording the old fashioned way, you have acknowledged you are looking for an EASIER path than the traditional way. That's what makes them so popular, even with players that CAN make high quality productions by sequencing and recording audio. And, once you acknowledge that people are looking for a path that IS easier, giving them a pretty much blank slate and saying 'Have at it!' completely misses the point of what they want.

No-one is saying that a well voiced and styled arranger is the END of the line. There are quite a lot of us here that take our arrangers past the state it comes in OOTB. But given a choice between STARTING with a great sounding, well voiced and styled arranger and going on from there, and having to work for what seems like an eternity to even get CLOSE to what is the STARTING point for the rest of us, seems to me most of us here make the PRACTICAL choice.

I keep coming back to this, but it STILL seems that those MOST invested in preaching to us how we just don't 'get it', we don't understand the 'concept' and all the other buzzwords intended to prove their OWN superiority at having recognized the future before the rest of us saps, they are the ones that consistently fail to provide arranger examples to illustrate their point. If it IS so easy, (or even if it is hard!), just WHERE is all this music that YOU have made? Or are you, as seems most likely, STILL trying to coax even ONE standout style from your efforts?

As I said, if any of you have achieved sonic nirvana out of your open arranger, market the data. The line will go round the block once you get full closed capability out of an open arranger to add this functional ease to what would be a GREAT keyboard once it contains it, but isn't until it does...

My check book is ready. How are YOUR styles?

Not so fast abacus..i seem to have issue with that arbitrary "not everybody wants" part of your post. I think it'd be a
g-re-a-t thing if there were people doing some sort of crap on the much boasted about boards and how upscale it is WITH THE EVIDENCE to go along with it for purchase!
The "Nobody wants such things" statement just once again allows the b.s. to go on about "my KB is better than yours so here's my pee stream"

he he he

Well open keyboards is a concept and by saying it is not again demonstrated lack of understanding of the concept because you can not even acknowledge or see the concept.

the VAST majority of open keyboards players are more interested in MAKING music. They are interested in making music that is good for them not for what other persons think is good for them.
Wanting the open arranger to be OOTB what the closed arranger does is not the purpose of the open arranger. Why have the open arranger do what the closed arranger is already doing when the closed arranger is already doing it.

The open arranger gives persons an opportunity to revoice styles the way persons want it. It also allows you to get the styles you want and make them your own. Using the make-up tools on the open arranger, doing style assembly, and creating new styles is what the users of open arrangers want.
We know of some persons on SZ who do not even use onboard styles, who always use style assembly or make-up tools. That is who the open arranger is for.
We have seen successful demonstrations of styles on an open arranger. We have seen some one showcase a Merengue style that suited his need and his playing style.

See the open arranger is all about the player and the player making his or her music as opposed to the closed arranger where the player follows what the manufacture gives. In the closed arranger, persons are more content on being a karaoke player that is why OOTB styles are so important.


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

Just to clarify for those who feel this thread has degenerated into, Yours is better than mine.

Firstly. The Thread has be allowed to go well off Topic mainly due to some replies bring personal attacks,nonfactual Quotes.and vested interest. this I felt unfair and could not be left unchallenged.

Second. The only board mentioned in the entire post is the Meditation,other brands names have only been used to identify in which areas the open system at this time does not appear to match the needs of the established arranger players.I don't consider this a better than yours, but healthy discussion,

I have for some time been interested in the open Keyboard and welcome any discussion that helps me identify if this is the direction I should move.

I have been a member of this forum since 2002 and over this period have benefited from the vast knowledge held by the many members who have shared their knowledge with both poster and non posters alike.

I can remember the times when the type of ill will that is emerging on the forum was not prevalent and it was a far more creative,happy and lively place to be.


There has always been heated discussion here with no need to insult or harass fellow members,surely it is now time to re establish some sense of DO UNTO OTHERS and remember this when posting.
It only takes a little thought to make a defensive
post into a constructive one.


Gilbert.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dnj:
[b] he he he

[Yamaha

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 09-26-2010).]

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 09-26-2010).]

Excuse me but isn't the whoe "idea" and primary purpose of an Arranger Keyboard to recreate rather than to create?

MOst of the "styles" are yesterday;s creations allowing a single player to recreate a cover song as closely as possible to the original producer's intent...be it David Foster,Glenn Miller or Barry Gordy.

Creating something new and fresh on an Arranger keyboard is a task without a Workstation and/or DAW. The mere creation of a style on the Tyros is a task better left to the Motif in my house.

The Workflow is not what I am used to in that regard. There is where I believe Diki hangs on to his Roland. I am betting it may be able to do both equally well. I thought initially the Korg PA2x would give me the "all in one" solution but it did not.

I have two areas I have to cover. Original material for myself and some clients (which is easy when they specify Motown, of Hoedown,,,My own music is constrained by the Tyros.

The other area is creating cover song backing tracks for my wife who carrys only a netbook with itouch back up, a guitar and 88 keys, The Tyros pays for itself. The Motif not so much....LOL which is why unless I can get a straight across sale/purchase of the XS8 to the XF I won't jump.But I will pay up to the T4 to the point of selling the T3 for less than $2000 if need be.

[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-26-2010).]

That is true for most of the users...

But then there are also those that want to recreate a song and give it their own unique sound, which would reuire a lot of sound and style ediiting... Those people are beter of with for example a Korg then a Yamaha. Or they could choose to use modules or computers to get a broader choice of solo voice characteristics.

And then there are composers who use Arrangers and styles as backing while trying to create a new mellody... These people should be happy with the open instruments that let them do all steps of the creation of a new piece on one machine,
1) use Arranger to get an idea for new song and to work out mellody line and chords.
2) Create their own backing instruments and lead instruments
3) Use a sequencer in step mode to record their backings.
4) Create their whole song in chain mode
5) Record solo's
6) Record vocals

Since the open systems are just as much arranger as synth workstation as production studio, the open systems mostly target this user group, where the arranger part is just a step in the creative process. (I used the brandname Lionstracs to indicate open systems in a previous post as this is the only currently available open system that supports arranger functions)

Needles to say that these players are not the average arranger players but do use/require the arranger functions of an open end keyboard.


My orriginal post was targeted at group one, those people that want to edit their styles and sounds to create an own unique style of live playing. People that just love to play around with sounds and sounddesign. Not because they need to but because its fun. I myself could spend evenings just to create that perfect Trumpet sound for live play... and a tool as described in the very first post would be very welcome to me.

My question was about creativitty, and how to use such tooling in your creative process.

Its fun to see that most people seem to confuse this kind of creativity with open systems, because i think that for example most Motif owners would also love to have this tool in their own creation process of new sounds. And even some PA2X users would love to create their own DNC sounds.

So let me refraise my orriginal question :

"Would you use such a feauture if it was embeded intoo your arrangers OS? "




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

Actually, the 'concept' you are talking about is the creation of MUSIC, not the tool used to do it with. You can be creative on ANY keyboard, if you are creative.

The thing is, you doom the open keyboard arranger to hell, suggesting that it is BETTER sold as a blank slate than voiced and styled as professionally as a closed one is. Truth is, these things would dominate the market completely if sold already as well set up as a closed arranger. Everybody wants what they can do... but they want it AS WELL as what the closed arranger does. And setting up an open one that way would in no way whatsoever cripple it for someone that DOES want to start from scratch themselves.

But it sure as hell cripples it for the vast majority that DON'T. Once again, being on an arranger forum, I am strictly talking about the open keyboard as an arranger. If you want to use one as a WS, no problem. But, be aware that even the BEST WS's come with just as much high quality CONTENT as a TOTL arranger, albeit in slightly different format. And, if the entire 'concept' of a WS involved ONLY creating original music,. you wouldn't think they NEEDED to include that, would you?

Sorry, but the minute you say 'arranger', and to be honest, WS too, you need to acknowledge that content is an important part of the whole package. And one that is badly ignored right now. If you want a healthier 'open keyboard' segment, and have it be more than just a niche product (the more they sell, the faster innovation will become), rather than excusing it's lack of content as some kind of weird BENEFIT, you should jump on it as much as most of us already have.

Adding pro quality content to an open arranger certainly won't make it WORSE...