[rodgersorgan] Re: Roland MIDI modules
- From: "Paul R. Swank" <prswank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rodgersorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:23:04 -0400
Actually, most of the Roland MIDI modules will do a fairly good job of
providing an additional 127 voices for your Rodgers organ.
Even the older models like the PR-100, MT-100, MT-200, MT-80, MT-80S, have
the good Roland orchestral sounds.
The differences come about when you try to do the "extra" things, like
setting up presets, recording the voices and organ, etc.
For the purpose of just adding additional orchestral voices, most of the
Roland MIDI modules will do the job.
These modules do have the advantage of being available for about $100 to
$300 used.
Paul R. Swank
MIDI-fied, not horrified, in Baltimore.
you wrote:
>I want to report that I have had good luck
>in setting up my new Allen with the Roland MT90 sound module. I know most
>of you have Rodgers organs at home and this may not be interesting, but for
>non-Rodgers owners, you wish to know the MT90 is an inexpensive (but less
>capable) substitute for the PR300s. The MT90 can be purchased for less than
>$400.
>
>The positive aspects of the MT90 is that (1) it will perfectly play
>prerecorded midi discs accurately through the organ sound system (just like
>the PR300) and (2) allows the organist to preset midi voices from the
>module on an organ piston and play those voices on the organ manuals.
>
>The negative aspects are that it is not a sequencer (but just a player) and
>it will not play the organ (only the midi voices), also it is restricted to
>only the GM voices. Nevertheless, it provides an inexpensive upgrade for
>those not fortunate to own a PR300s.
To unsubscribe or change mail delivery (digest, vacation) go to our website at
www.frogmusic.com
Now shipping: HERITAGE HYMNS for the PR-300 and organ solo...play with a MIDI
Orchestra.
- References:
- [rodgersorgan] Re: rodgersorgan Digest V1 #53
- From: jim chisholm
Other related posts:
- » [rodgersorgan] Re: Roland MIDI modules
- [rodgersorgan] Re: rodgersorgan Digest V1 #53
- From: jim chisholm