What direction should Kronos take?

BobTheDog · Post by **BobTheDog** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:23 pm

[55] Wave Seq Parameter Change (integer) Receive/Transmit
F0, 42, 3g, 68 Excl Header
55 Function
step step index (0-3F)
PID part of parameter id (see WaveSequence.txt)
valueH Value (bit14-20) (*4)
valueM Value (bit7-13) (*4)
valueL Value (bit0-6) (*4)
F7 End of Excl

See WaveSequence.txt for details.

[56] Wave Seq Parameter Change (binary) Receive/Transmit
F0, 42, 3g, 68 Excl Header
56 Function
step step index (0-3F)
PID part of parameter id (see WaveSequence.txt)
value type *9
value[] *3
F7 End of Excl

See WaveSequence.txt for details.

drmaestro · Post by **drmaestro** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:39 pm

Kevin Nolan wrote:
drmaestro wrote:Add arrangements to Kronos Then you'll have the ultimate arranger-workstation which will unify this artificial separation between those two kinds of keyboards.
Honestly - they are very different instruments for very different markets and players. Arrangers are primarily for musicians who do not have a particular interest in programming or designing sound, but who are interested in stunning sounding voices, from which they can immediately start to play, arrange and perform. And - arrangers are based around already predetermined genres. So the emphasis is on providing the maximum for players, especially those who traditionally already have a large repertoire, knowledge of (or interest in learning) chord progressions and the like.

As you know, the workstation provides none of that - instead something like the Kronos offers an open-ended domain with vast programming, sound design, recording, mixing and performance capability - but where you are starting from scratch. Much more suited to those wanting to design their own arrangements of existing material or start form scratch composing their own. You need this to be unhindered by presets or voices that cannot be deeply edited.

To merge to the two would clutter each approach, and make such an instrument confused and unwieldy. Each has their place.

@ Dan: though a few pages back - let me state it here that however forthright I express my thoughts on various aspects of Kronos, OASYS, Korg and so on; I for one hold you and all at Korg with deep respect (as I do with Sharp (whatever our debates)). It's a privilege to me a member of this community and a privilege to use the stunning technology you design. This forum and Korg have hugely enhanced my musical life and I am eternally grateful for it. Anything I debate here is always with that premise and stand point. That goes for the rest of the members of this forum - this has always been an exquisite forum with very positive members by and large (when compared to some of the more aggressive and sometimes brutal forums that exist even in our area). Hope this isn't laying it on a bit thick, but text is a horrid mode of communication and feel it important, on occasion, to reset my stance to indicate my deep respect for Dan, Korg, Sharp and all the members of this forum.

Kevin

I agree that an arranger is different from a workstation and I know that we won't be able to see a fusion of these two instruments in the near future. However, I think that this separation is created by the manufacturers to be able to sell more units. If I want a Kronos (due to its sonical capabilities, streaming, etc.) but I also want to be able to play some arrangements, I have to buy 2 different keyboards or use a software solution. The size of the styles in Pa3x is approximately 11 megabytes (if I am not mistaken), as they are midi instructions and don't occupy a lot of space. Now, how hard can it be to add a few buttons (like start/stop and fill-ins) and modify the software of Kronos to integrate this additional 11 Megabytes of information? Of course, this is not only a question of space, an enormous amount of effort is required to create styles, however, once you've created them, you can use them in any keyboard you want, so the cost could be lowered. Kronos is more technologically advanced than Pa3x, however, in my country, a 76 key Pa3x is slightly more expensive than a 73 key Kronos X (or if you want a Tyros 4, the cost is substentially higher). Why do I have to pay more but get less? Is that 11 Megabytes of information so precious? Or, would it really be too complicated to have an arrangement section in a workstation with only a few additional buttons?

[I am not a professional musician, so please accept my apologies if my statements seem to be too amateurish

]

jeremykeys · Post by **jeremykeys** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:14 am

WoW! Having just read form where I posted; page 2; to here, it seems a lot of anger has diminished. Good thing! Now, le';s all take a deep breath!

Okay. Where was I? Oh yeah. Can anybody tell me the name of a better or more powerful work-station then the Kronos?
Granted, it;s not perfect, but please tell me what you we're expecting?
And I'm not talking about people with hardware issues. Those things simply SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HIT THE MARKET!

As far as other issues though, the only real thing I see is the sequencer issue and that for me isn't really a problem.

Truth be told, we all should be somewhat grateful that the Kronos even exists.

Without it, what would we be playing? Think about that.

MoonMusic · Post by **MoonMusic** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:00 am

jeremykeys wrote:Without it, what would we be playing? Think about that.

I'd probably still be playing my Yamaha XS6 I got rid of last year....I just spent all day loading up and playing sounds from Hd-1 xpansion sounds 1&2,Lac-1 devine,Mod-7 Extra sounds and an extra Exi XP expansion....Needless to say I'm exhausted....There are so many sounds in those packs that it would fill all the extra banks in the Kronos if you tried to load them all at once....I can tell you I left the experience humbled...I have NEVER had a keyboard that has the depth of this one....The sounds are so clean with punch and space....I'm officially a fan boy...LOL....moon

Broadwave · Post by **Broadwave** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:31 am

jeremykeys wrote:WoW! Having just read form where I posted; page 2; to here, it seems a lot of anger has diminished. Good thing! Now, le';s all take a deep breath!

Okay. Where was I? Oh yeah. Can anybody tell me the name of a better or more powerful work-station then the Kronos?

Truth be told, we all should be somewhat grateful that the Kronos even exists.

Without it, what would we be playing? Think about that.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Everyday, I boot it up, and I'm constantly amazed at new things that can be discovered.

BobTheDog · Post by **BobTheDog** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:38 am

I must admit I am constantly amazed that the Korg developers managed to squeeze it all into a lowly atom processor running with extremely low audio latency.

Some people on the forum seem to think the developers didn't know what they were doing, I would disagree with this whole heartedly I think they did an outstanding job.

For me there are only slight issues with the software on the Kronos which I find extremely easy to live with as it is such a powerful and great sounding machine.

If only the fan didn't sound like a sick tractor

Saxifraga · Post by **Saxifraga** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:25 am

BobTheDog wrote:I must admit I am constantly amazed that the Korg developers managed to squeeze it all into a lowly atom processor running with extremely low audio latency.

Some people on the forum seem to think the developers didn't know what they were doing, I would disagree with this whole heartedly I think they did an outstanding job.

For me there are only slight issues with the software on the Kronos which I find extremely easy to live with as it is such a powerful and great sounding machine.

If only the fan didn't sound like a sick tractor

It think Korg is superb on the soundengine side and suck on workflow and UI side.

Btw.: MIDI is perfect! That's why they impove the protocl and architecture.
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/ ... -protocol/

Dany · Post by **Dany** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:41 am

Dany wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Roland workstation, based on the Jupiter/Integra technology, very soon...

I was obviously wrong on this. No new Roland workstation in sight!

http://www.rolandconnect.com/

So KORG is still the absolute world market leader in this regard!

-

dfahrner · Post by **dfahrner** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:43 pm

drmaestro wrote:Add arrangements to Kronos :) Then you'll have the ultimate arranger-workstation which will unify this artificial separation between those two kinds of keyboards.

Adding arranger capability as a separate function is never going to happen, it's too big a change. But KARMA could provide this with fairly minor changes (is there any such thing as a minor change to a complex released product?), such as:

(1) There should be a way to have a KARMA scene play once (or some number of times) when selected, and then go to another scene (either the next numbered scene in sequence, some specified scene number, or the previous scene), or turn KARMA off. This would allow scenes to provide the different parts of the song, like intros and endings, without the performer having to always remember to select the correct scene.

(2) Each KARMA scene should be able to use a different GE for the same module. Since the scenes would be the different parts of the song (intro, fill, ending, etc.) an entirely different kind of backing part might be needed. Currently, the selected GE can be modified for the different scenes, but being able to select an entirely different musical pattern for part of a song would more like an arranger.

These two things alone, along with some new GEs, would make the KRONOS usable as an arranger (and may already have been implemented in later versions of KARMA). There are all kinds of other things that might be useful:

(3) There should be some way to allow notes currently being played by KARMA modules to sustain (for some number of beats, maybe) after KARMA is turned off, instead of cutting off abruptly.

(4) Some additional and more musical Dynamic MIDI note group sources would help: for example, a "note density" source, proportional to the number of notes being played at one time; a "complexity" source, relating to the complexity of the chord being played and/or the relationship between notes inside the KARMA zone and those outside; a "push" source, proportional to notes being played ahead of or behind the beat; etc. All of these (and some existing sources like velocity) should not be instantaneous but should be averaged over some period (a measure? a selectable number of beats?) of time.

(5) Etc., etc.

With these kinds of added KARMA functionality, the KRONOS would be a kind of "super arranger", not only providing the kind of backup parts (intros, fills, endings, etc.) that arrangers traditionally do, but also modifying them in realtime using KARMA's Performance Real-Time Controls and Dynamic MIDI capability. It would be an arranger that can respond to what the performer is playing. And maybe more KRONOS owners would actually start using KARMA...

df

BobTheDog · Post by **BobTheDog** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:34 pm

Saxifraga wrote:
BobTheDog wrote:I must admit I am constantly amazed that the Korg developers managed to squeeze it all into a lowly atom processor running with extremely low audio latency.

Some people on the forum seem to think the developers didn't know what they were doing, I would disagree with this whole heartedly I think they did an outstanding job.

For me there are only slight issues with the software on the Kronos which I find extremely easy to live with as it is such a powerful and great sounding machine.

If only the fan didn't sound like a sick tractor
It think Korg is superb on the soundengine side and suck on workflow and UI side.

Btw.: MIDI is perfect! That's why they impove the protocl and architecture.
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/ ... -protocol/

I never said midi is perfect, what it is is a standard that manufacturers stick to, one of the well known problems with standards is that they hold progress back.

Don't hold your breath for the new midi standard, they have been working on it for nearly 7 years and it is s**t. OSC is far more powerful.

P.s did you try the sysex functions for changing wave table parameters?