 |
Korg Forums
A forum for Korg product users and musicians around the world.
Moderated Independently.
Owned by Irish Acts Recording Studio & hosted by KORG USA
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is the Kronos weathering the storm? |
| Yes, because it is so good. |
|
75% |
[ 58 ] |
| Not yet, I will reserve judgement. |
|
16% |
[ 13 ] |
| Still not happy, maybe I never will be. |
|
7% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 77 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Melodialworks Music
Platinum Member
Joined: 23 Feb 2003
Posts: 522
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| GregC wrote: |
As far as numbers are concerned, there has been tons of conjecture.
|
And here is an example:
| GregC wrote: |
I think its reasonable to state there have been 250 reported Rh3 defects.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LivePsy
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 355
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Korg does itself harm by not officially confirming limitations and problems. To tell customers to contact their Korg support is just hiding the size of a problem behind a customer service screen. Keep users unaware of problems. To not acknowledge even an unlikely possibilitiy of a production fault is a weakness IMO and not a clever professional attitude. To point out in forums when a bug is not a bug is fine, but I've not seen a confirmation of a bug (or expression of apology) from Korg. Stephen Kay's lightening fast response to a Karma bug is a lesson for Korg. Of course we will have to wait weeks for Korg to fold that into an OS update - all without any idea of our reported bugs being fixed 
It actually feeds a paranoia and the crusader posters are compelled to warn everyone of their bad experience. Its unnecessary because Korg just telling us the truth would satisfy everyone. We know the Kronos is not perfect. I really would like to hear that Korg understand that, are working on the bugs and have great plans for building on this huge potential.
Kronos Product 10/10, Customer relations 4/10 and its completely unnecessary.
Regards,
B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kanout
Junior Member
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
-kronos enginers and sound designer 10/10
-kronos quality control 5/10
-korg communication and apologies 0/10(only 1/100 units affected..lol)
So simple! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeroesque
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 451
Location: SoCal
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MarPabl wrote: | | Considering Kronos started development around 2007-2008, because as it has been stated, surely a great deal of effort was needed to add the exciting new features we now enjoy with Kronos; then this is at least 3 years for developing... I think this is more than enough time to adjust the sequencer found on M3 to fit it on Kronos and why not, also on Oasys. |
Are you old enough to have won a gold medal in gymnastics? Then you should have. And you're old enough to be a doctor, right? So why aren't you? And a lawyer. And a rocket scientist. And have won international piano competitions. And have your own cooking show on TV. I mean, you've had more than enough time to accomplish any of these, so obviously you are a failure because you haven't done them all.
_________________
Kronos 61, Kronos2-88, Hammond B3, Baldwin SD-10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NuSkoolTone
Approved Merchant
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 1069
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RonF wrote: | As I am sure has been said many times before, the M3 platform and the Oasys/Kronos platform (read: the underlying code) are just simply different. The fact that they had coded the Xpanded sequencer into the M3 platform was of no use to the programmers of the Kronos. They were building on the Oasys code. Its just apples and oranges. I would love to get an updated sequencer in the Kronos....which might include M3-type features (graphical representations, and piano-roll editing), but for such to happen its going to be a truly new design. I personally think that a V2.0 of Kronos can indeed happen in the future. Its not unprecedented. As to whether they would focus on the sequencer or not, or perhaps new engines, or other aspects of the toolset on board....remains to be seen.
|
Out of curiosity, how privy are you to this information? Are you speaking from 1st hand experience with the code or hearsay of what you read on a forum many moons ago? I mean it's almost certain the Kronos is derived from the Oasys Code base. AFAIK the M3 is derived from the OASYS as well. Now the M3 had very different hardware, but this doesn't mean that the core code is that different. Modern compilers can output to many different architectures. Now how many customizations had to be made to make that code work on the M3 hardware is anyone's guess. Though generally speaking, the coding of algorithms and functions don't change a lot between platforms. The big challenge usually is getting the code to work and be efficient. As always "it depends", but IME (and of course YMMV) generally only a few tweaks and case testing are needed when doing these ports.
| Zeroesque wrote: | | MarPabl wrote: | | Considering Kronos started development around 2007-2008, because as it has been stated, surely a great deal of effort was needed to add the exciting new features we now enjoy with Kronos; then this is at least 3 years for developing... I think this is more than enough time to adjust the sequencer found on M3 to fit it on Kronos and why not, also on Oasys. |
Are you old enough to have won a gold medal in gymnastics? Then you should have. And you're old enough to be a doctor, right? So why aren't you? And a lawyer. And a rocket scientist. And have won international piano competitions. And have your own cooking show on TV. I mean, you've had more than enough time to accomplish any of these, so obviously you are a failure because you haven't done them all. |
Generally your posts are intelligent and well thought out. Though this makes little sense to me. I see what you're trying to get at, but it just doesn't apply here IMO. Since it's my field, I feel comfortable saying nearly 5 years is a pretty solid chunk of time to convert/port algorithms and functions over to another platform, which good chance aren't all that dissimilar in their code base. It's not impossible, but I would be truly shocked if they were programmed in a different language and the coding wasn't done with OOP in a modular fashion.
_________________
Korg: KRONOS 73, M50-61, 01W/r
Yamaha: Motif XS7, FS1R
Kawai K5000S, Roland JD-990 w/Vintage Synth
Last edited by NuSkoolTone on Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarPabl
Platinum Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Posts: 938
Location: MX
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zeroesque wrote: | | Are you old enough to have won a gold medal in gymnastics? Then you should have. And you're old enough to be a doctor, right? So why aren't you? And a lawyer. And a rocket scientist. And have won international piano competitions. And have your own cooking show on TV. I mean, you've had more than enough time to accomplish any of these, so obviously you are a failure because you haven't done them all. |
I'm sorry I didn't understand what does this mean... Hope you can clarify 
Meanwhile, as you've been told and this also turn to be my professional job, 3 years is quite enough time to port the sequencer from M3 XPanded to Oasys and Kronos. And this statement was supported by me not just with experience, but also analizyng development times from Korg itself.
And not doing so doesn't seem to be well received by many users from Oasys and Kronos. IMHO and in other posts, we can see this sequencer is sadly lacking compared with M3 and this without even considering other brands.
_________________
Current gear:  Access Virus TI2 Whiteout Keyboard (111/150), Access Virus TI2 Polar DarkStar Special Edition, Gibson Custom Lite 2013, Roland MV-8800  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cello
Platinum Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 2152
Location: Glasgow, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MarPabl wrote: | | ... doesn't seem to be well received by many users from Oasys and Kronos. IMHO and in other posts, we can see this sequencer is sadly lacking compared with M3 and this without even considering other brands... |
For the avoidance of doubt the sequencer is not the most important element of my OASYS; I use it as a sketchpad and for me it works fine.
But - Korg have known for YEARS that the OASYS Seq could be improved because they got feedback from people who use the seq much more deeply than I do.
It does seem strange that given this valuable and knowlegeable input, that the only change that was made to the Kronos Seq was the ppq - and with no reference to porting over what already existed in the much, much cheaper M3.
_________________
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimknopf
Platinum Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 3374
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess we can't generalize the time frame:
It is not so much important how much time they had, but rather how many people had to do how many jobs during that time.
What if a - for enonomical reasons - (too?) small team had to get too many and too heavy jobs done? Then the sequencer simply would be a victim of the priority list, not of missing good will or skill.
Despite being a smaller among the big keyboard companies, they have an impressive output. I really admire what I see when I use the Kronos (Oasys OS and decisive! steps beyond), and I can imagine, that a team limited by Korg budgets (during difficult economical times) has a hard time keeping up to all the challenges.
That said, I think the Kronos can be a huge(!) success for years to come, the more reliable it works, and the more convincing the OS updates are. But from my view it probably is not fair to put that pressure on the R&D team. I think, we should rather encourage the Korg Japan management to be very careful in supporting the Kronos project with enough manpower: this project has an enormous influence on the general status of Korg among keyboarders worldwide!!
_________________
Kronos 73 - Moog Voyager RME - Moog LP TE - Behringer Model D - Prophet 6 - Roland Jupiter Xm - Rhodes Stage 73 Mk I - Elektron Analog Rytm MkII - Roland TR-6s - Cubase 12 Pro + Groove Agent 5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeroesque
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 451
Location: SoCal
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NuSkoolTone wrote: | | RonF wrote: | As I am sure has been said many times before, the M3 platform and the Oasys/Kronos platform (read: the underlying code) are just simply different. The fact that they had coded the Xpanded sequencer into the M3 platform was of no use to the programmers of the Kronos. They were building on the Oasys code. Its just apples and oranges. I would love to get an updated sequencer in the Kronos....which might include M3-type features (graphical representations, and piano-roll editing), but for such to happen its going to be a truly new design. I personally think that a V2.0 of Kronos can indeed happen in the future. Its not unprecedented. As to whether they would focus on the sequencer or not, or perhaps new engines, or other aspects of the toolset on board....remains to be seen.
|
Out of curiosity, how privy are you to this information? Are you speaking from 1st hand experience with the code or hearsay of what you read on a forum many moons ago? I mean it's almost certain the Kronos is derived from the Oasys Code base. AFAIK the M3 is derived from the OASYS as well. Now the M3 had very different hardware, but this doesn't mean that the core code is that different. Modern compilers can output to many different architectures. Now how many customizations had to be made to make that code work on the M3 hardware is anyone's guess. Though generally speaking, the coding of algorithms and functions don't change a lot between platforms. The big challenge usually is getting the code to work and be efficient. As always "it depends", but IME (and of course YMMV) generally only a few tweaks and case testing are needed when doing these ports. |
This is a load of handwavy nonsense. Your "experience" should tell you that the devil is always in the details. If you don't buy that, you can read what Steve Yegge* thinks about this. If you're not into reading one of his famously long blog posts, I'll sum it up for you using his words:
| Quote: | | s**t is NOT easy. Remember that. s**t is NOT easy. If you think it's easy, then you are being naïve. You are being a future VP. Don't be that way. |
* I know you know that Steve Yegge is one of Google's (formerly Amazon's) highest-profile programmers, because this is your field.
| NuSkoolTone wrote: | | Zeroesque wrote: | | MarPabl wrote: | | Considering Kronos started development around 2007-2008, because as it has been stated, surely a great deal of effort was needed to add the exciting new features we now enjoy with Kronos; then this is at least 3 years for developing... I think this is more than enough time to adjust the sequencer found on M3 to fit it on Kronos and why not, also on Oasys. |
Are you old enough to have won a gold medal in gymnastics? Then you should have. And you're old enough to be a doctor, right? So why aren't you? And a lawyer. And a rocket scientist. And have won international piano competitions. And have your own cooking show on TV. I mean, you've had more than enough time to accomplish any of these, so obviously you are a failure because you haven't done them all. |
Generally your posts are intelligent and well thought out. Though this makes little sense to me. I see what you're trying to get at, but it just doesn't apply here IMO. Since it's my field, I feel comfortable saying nearly 5 years is a pretty solid chunk of time to convert/port algorithms and functions over to another platform, which good chance aren't all that dissimilar in their code base. It's not impossible, but I would be truly shocked if they were programmed in a different language and the coding wasn't done with OOP in a modular fashion. |
I appreciate that you generally find my posts intelligent and that you've edited out the "stupid" comment. I feel likewise, in both cases, because this is more hand-waving. It's also nearly offensive by insinuating that Korg's small team of engineers have been doing nothing for five years.
Could they have added the M3-XPanded sequencer enhancements to Kronos? Yeah, probably. I don't think anyone is going to say they couldn't. However, what you're not taking into account is that by doing this, they would've had to leave something else out. Something that is currently in there that they have actually spent those five years developing. Something that people probably like, and that was probably picked by the design team to create a better keyboard. So please, when you suggest that they could've easily added some feature, you must include an equally large feature from the existing machine to remove as though it had never existed. SGX-1. Gone. Now you can have your piano roll, but no new piano. How many people would really want this? I sure as hell don't. But isn't this exactly how design decisions are made in your field*? Engineering is the process of putting as much perfection into something within the time allowed (and budget!).
* I found a gig for you.
| MarPabl wrote: | | Zeroesque wrote: | | Are you old enough to have won a gold medal in gymnastics? Then you should have. And you're old enough to be a doctor, right? So why aren't you? And a lawyer. And a rocket scientist. And have won international piano competitions. And have your own cooking show on TV. I mean, you've had more than enough time to accomplish any of these, so obviously you are a failure because you haven't done them all. |
I'm sorry I didn't understand what does this mean... Hope you can clarify
Meanwhile, as you've been told and this also turn to be my professional job, 3 years is quite enough time to port the sequencer from M3 XPanded to Oasys and Kronos. And this statement was supported by me not just with experience, but also analizyng development times from Korg itself.
And not doing so doesn't seem to be well received by many users from Oasys and Kronos. IMHO and in other posts, we can see this sequencer is sadly lacking compared with M3 and this without even considering other brands. |
I will clarify for you. You're making the same mistake as NuSkoolTone but with the additional bunk about analyzing time lines of an organization that you aren't a part of. See above for more clarification.
Also, I have a job for you, since you're a "professional."
While they aren't at Korg, if you two can't handle those jobs (along with the possible additions of touchscreen development experience and Linux kernal knowledge), then I don't know what you think gives you the experience to judge the Korg development process. If you could handle those jobs, I'd expect you to know enough to realize that you'd already have a gigantic task list with dozens of items having a higher priority than "add piano roll to Kronos."
Sorry if this all seems pretty rough, but I can't overlook just how unfair some forum members are being toward the real people that work at Korg and make our beautiful instruments. My guess is that these same members wouldn't appreciate if a bunch of people they never met told them how they fail at their jobs daily.
All that said, I wouldn't mind seeing the sequencer improved. I use it as a scratch pad and easier editing would be nice. However, I'd much rather see more soundware and engine development...that's what the Kronos is all about, to me. And let's all acknowledge that this machine is already arguably the most sophisticated instrument we've ever used.
| jimknopf wrote: | | [...]Then the sequencer simply would be a victim of the priority list, not of missing good will or skill. |
Exactly, thank you, jimknopf. The rest of this post was on the mark as well.
_________________
Kronos 61, Kronos2-88, Hammond B3, Baldwin SD-10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeedyLee
Platinum Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 1377
Location: Perth, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^--- What the last guy said.
_________________
Current Equipment:
Korg Kronos 2 88, Reface CS, Roland JV-1080, TE OP1, Moog Subsequent 37, Korg ARP Odyssey, Allen & Heath Zed 18, Adam F5, MOTU MIDI Express XT, Lexicon MX200 & MPX1, Yamaha QY700, Yamaha AW16G, Tascam DP008ex, Zoom H6, Organelle, Roland J6 & JU06A
Previous: Triton LE 61/Sampling/64MB/4GB SCSI, MS2000BR, Kronos 1 61, Monotribe, NanoKontrol, NanoKeys, Kaossilator II, Casio HT3000, Roland VP-03, Reface DX, Novation Mininova, MPC One |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NuSkoolTone
Approved Merchant
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 1069
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zeroesque wrote: | This is a load of handwavy nonsense. Your "experience" should tell you that the devil is always in the details. If you don't buy that, you can read what Steve Yegge* thinks about this. If you're not into reading one of his famously long blog posts, I'll sum it up for you using his words:
| Quote: | | s**t is NOT easy. Remember that. s**t is NOT easy. If you think it's easy, then you are being naïve. You are being a future VP. Don't be that way. |
* I know you know that Steve Yegge is one of Google's (formerly Amazon's) highest-profile programmers, because this is your field. |
I thought I had enough provisions in my post about the "Devil in the details" should have been obvious, but apparently not. Anyhoo..Nope have no idea about Steve Yegge and could care less what he thinks about unrelevant things like his stance on how to legalize marijuana. No doubt he's had accomplishments it seems, but honestly not enough that the computer science community at large (academically OR professionally IME) could give a s**t. When he figures out how to beat (O) n log n without needing like a trillion iterations to do so, let us know. Until then I feel comfortable enough in my own education and experience not to need his permission to have an opinion!
| Zeroesque wrote: |
I appreciate that you generally find my posts intelligent and that you've edited out the "stupid" comment. |
Caught that eh?  It was unnecessary and I apologize.
| Zeroesque wrote: |
I feel likewise, in both cases, because this is more hand-waving. It's also nearly offensive by insinuating that Korg's small team of engineers have been doing nothing for five years. |
I think you misread my intent. I was hardly insinuating anything of the sort IMO. I was merely responding to how "different" these codebases automatically are by assumption. It was put out as if it was some insurmountable task as if the two products had nothing to do with each other. I work with fragmented codebase for different products our company does. It's a PITA but manageable. It doesn't make any business sense to have the two implementations so far off the wall from each other that there is no portability so it's highly unlikely that's the case. Obviously we'll never know for sure, but that's what I was getting at.
| Zeroesque wrote: |
Could they have added the M3-XPanded sequencer enhancements to Kronos? Yeah, probably. I don't think anyone is going to say they couldn't. However, what you're not taking into account is that by doing this, they would've had to leave something else out. Something that is currently in there that they have actually spent those five years developing. Something that people probably like, and that was probably picked by the design team to create a better keyboard. So please, when you suggest that they could've easily added some feature, you must include an equally large feature from the existing machine to remove as though it had never existed. SGX-1. Gone. Now you can have your piano roll, but no new piano. How many people would really want this? I sure as hell don't. But isn't this exactly how design decisions are made in your field*? Engineering is the process of putting as much perfection into something within the time allowed (and budget!).
* I found a gig for you.
|
Too bad it's in CA. For most of those requirements, I could do the job. At one time or another I have touched on everything named there. Does that make me an expert or Mean I would have gotten the job? Hell no, but enough that I feel I can talk about it and have a clue!
| MarPabl wrote: | | Zeroesque wrote: |
I'm sorry I didn't understand what does this mean... Hope you can clarify
Meanwhile, as you've been told and this also turn to be my professional job, 3 years is quite enough time to port the sequencer from M3 XPanded to Oasys and Kronos. And this statement was supported by me not just with experience, but also analizyng development times from Korg itself.
And not doing so doesn't seem to be well received by many users from Oasys and Kronos. IMHO and in other posts, we can see this sequencer is sadly lacking compared with M3 and this without even considering other brands. |
I will clarify for you. You're making the same mistake as NuSkoolTone but with the additional bunk about analyzing time lines of an organization that you aren't a part of. See above for more clarification.
Also, I have a job for you, since you're a "professional."
While they aren't at Korg, if you two can't handle those jobs (along with the possible additions of touchscreen development experience and Linux kernal knowledge), then I don't know what you think gives you the experience to judge the Korg development process. If you could handle those jobs, I'd expect you to know enough to realize that you'd already have a gigantic task list with dozens of items having a higher priority than "add piano roll to Kronos." |
Boy that's a pretty big smackdown for us clueless forum members! Btw, what's YOUR profession as you speak so authoritatively? And you know what Korg's "Task list" is anymore than we would how?
| Zeroesque wrote: |
Sorry if this all seems pretty rough, but I can't overlook just how unfair some forum members are being toward the real people that work at Korg and make our beautiful instruments. My guess is that these same members wouldn't appreciate if a bunch of people they never met told them how they fail at their jobs daily.
All that said, I wouldn't mind seeing the sequencer improved. I use it as a scratch pad and easier editing would be nice. However, I'd much rather see more soundware and engine development...that's what the Kronos is all about, to me. And let's all acknowledge that this machine is already arguably the most sophisticated instrument we've ever used.
|
I can't speak for everyone else, but I know I'm certainly not telling anyone how they "Fail at their job daily" (With exception of that USB driver infinite loop bug that I had the pleasure of on a private gig recently), but yeah in some ways I expected more. I've already outlined my points above regarding code base so I won't repeat. I still stand by my opinions regarding the sequencer upgrade and it's plausible feasibility. Your point about limited resources/time is well taken as I do enjoy the new features the Kronos has over the Oasys so given the choice, I think Korg made the right ones coming out.
I'd like to see more soundware and engine dev too as I agree with you on that point as well. They've addressed the strings, where I would like to see Korg focus next soundware wise is guitars. I've said it before, but that is the ONE area where the Kronos is downright PITIFUL! Given the streaming technology, they could have outsourced that to me and I could have done a better job. No I'm not kidding or trying to be funny. In fact if user streaming became available I would start right on it! Anyway a whole different matter and this thread has derailed enough already. Hopefully my explanations above have clarified my POV for you.
_________________
Korg: KRONOS 73, M50-61, 01W/r
Yamaha: Motif XS7, FS1R
Kawai K5000S, Roland JD-990 w/Vintage Synth
Last edited by NuSkoolTone on Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:27 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cello
Platinum Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 2152
Location: Glasgow, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is any of this really necessary?
_________________
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningman67
Platinum Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 1663
Location: Manchester UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cello wrote: | | Is any of this really necessary? |
Cello.
This is not what I planned for when I posted the original poll, believe me 
I am beginning to realise I am a bit of a peace loving hippy, naive, sweet and innocent lol 
_________________
https://m.youtube.com/user/1967runningman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cello
Platinum Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 2152
Location: Glasgow, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| runningman67 wrote: | | cello wrote: | | Is any of this really necessary? |
Cello.
This is not what I planned for when I posted the original poll, believe me
I am beginning to realise I am a bit of a peace loving hippy, naive, sweet and innocent lol |
I believe you!
However, I now have a troublesome image of you with flowers in your hair... Lol 
_________________
Plugged in: Fantom 8, Jupiter-X, Jupiter 80, System-8, JD-XA, V-Synth GTv2, FA-06, SE-02, JU-06A, TR-09, VT-4, Go:Livecast, Rubix44, Shure SM7b, Push2, Ableton 11 Suite, Sibelius, KRK Rokit 5, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeedyLee
Platinum Member
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 1377
Location: Perth, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NuSkoolTone wrote: | | When he figures out how to beat (O) n log n without needing like a trillion iterations to do so. |
Sorry to be pedantic, should the asymptotic notation instead be:
Would an algorithm with an asymptotic complexity of O(n log n) necessarily require a massive number of iterations to complete, unless for example the input set size is also equally large? Is there something inherently complex about algorithms with O(n log n) complexity that requires solving, moreso than other classes of algorithmic complexity? To me, saying "beat (O) n log n" is like saying "solve bad quality audio" - without context or rationale, it makes little sense.
I'm just trying to make sense of your statement.
(Sorry for derailing the topic of conversation significantly).[/code]
_________________
Current Equipment:
Korg Kronos 2 88, Reface CS, Roland JV-1080, TE OP1, Moog Subsequent 37, Korg ARP Odyssey, Allen & Heath Zed 18, Adam F5, MOTU MIDI Express XT, Lexicon MX200 & MPX1, Yamaha QY700, Yamaha AW16G, Tascam DP008ex, Zoom H6, Organelle, Roland J6 & JU06A
Previous: Triton LE 61/Sampling/64MB/4GB SCSI, MS2000BR, Kronos 1 61, Monotribe, NanoKontrol, NanoKeys, Kaossilator II, Casio HT3000, Roland VP-03, Reface DX, Novation Mininova, MPC One |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
