and have even more to offer on top of that. I own a Casio WK7500 and is just like that, is a workstation where you can record midi or audio, but also you can create patterns and play with rhythms like and a Arrenger, but I use the keyboard to study in home and also I play in live gigs with it.Īctually the topmodel arranger(workstations) can compete with most workststions in every aspect of their being. Some keyboards are "Workstation/Arrenger" that also can be used in live situations as a "Stage keyboard". But again, a manufacturer can call something anything they want, based presumably on how they think it will best be seen by the intended market.īut right now there's a lots of new kinds of keyboards just like Elwood said. So while, as I said, a multitrack sequencer seems to be a defining feature of a workstation, it may not be sufficient, by itself, for a board to be categorized that way. So in that respect, the 560 is one step closer than the 360 is. (And I think their WK-7500 can do these things.) Also, I don't think I've ever seen a workstation where you can't edit the sounds. Related to that, workstations generally permit you to be triggering over different MIDI channels on different parts of the keyboard, and the 360/560 look like they might lack this feature. Typically the multitrack sequencer on a workstation can use any combination of internal or external sounds, and it looks like these may only support internal sounds. As Morodiene says, it is best to looks for boards that have what you need rather than being too concerned with what the companies call them.īut possibly one reason the 360/560 aren't called workstations is because of their limited MIDI functionality. (As an aside, many boards have arpeggiators which can also be used to provide a kind of automated backing track, even on a workstation, but still without all the functionality of an arranger.)Ī stage piano may or may not have some sequence recording or accompaniment features, but not to the extent described above.Īs I said, these are marketing terms, without hard and fast definitions. So arrangers are easier to use for backing tracks, but also give you more limited control. with sequencers, you create each note of the backing track in advance, whereas with arrangers, the backing track is algorithmically created by the board itself, as you play (which also means you don't have to lock in a specific arrangement in advance in terms of exactly when you will shift to different parts of the song). Workstation sequencers and arrangers can both be used to create backing tracks for live performance. to switch to a different pattern for a bridge or chorus). You can alter/manipulate the backing patterns, and you can have them follow your changes in real time (i.e. It's more than just a plain beat or repeating accompaniment pattern. But some people still prefer the dedicated tools in some of the boards.Īrrangers have the ability to create intelligent backing tracks, in a wide variety of styles. This was especially useful when computer-based systems were less capable and more expensive than they are today. Workstation means there is a multi-track sequencer with editing functions, such that you can assemble and play back a complete song from right within the keyboard, typically with up to 16 different parts playing at once. This isn't the first time I've been in this position but in the future I think I need to focus on the fact that a rompler and a synth are two different instruments and there's never going to be a single instrument that scratches both itches.These are marketing terms, and the exact definitions are not cast in stone. Additionally, the factory synth presets are mostly wibbly-wobbly motion sequenced things that sound impressive in the store but have almost no musical value. On the other hand, the synth engine is very powerful but all the parameters are hidden in endless submenus and it's not particularly pleasurable to set sounds up. It covers all the basic rompler sounds like acoustic pianos and EPs, but the interface for selecting them and setting up splits, layers and drum tracks is quite laborious. I find that the Modx falls slightly awkwardly between two stools. I have a Modx and while it's certainly a beast of a synth, I'm currently considering selling it and using the money to buy a less capable rompler (maybe even just a Yamaha PSR type thing) and an additional knobby synth (maybe a Minilogue XD or a Deepmind) to keep it company.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |