Sequencer might be good for demo's... but thats about it.

[jerrythek]

Hi guys:

All good points. I also forgot to add the other thing that was loved on Ensoniq sequencers - the easy Compare Screen that let you quickly switch back and forth from the new edit/take to the previous. All Korg sequencers can do this using the Compare button, but putting it right up in your face made it more obvious.

Derm:

His name is Charpentier - Albert. Along with Bruce Crockett and Bob Yannes - perhaps you bought them all some nice things...


To learn a bit more about how RPPR can help your writing flow, download the new RPPR Song Template maps we made and consider making some new drum tracks triggering the parts in realtime. Much more intuitive and musical than "pastings" bits of data along a timeline!

http://www.korg.com/service/downloadinfo.asp?DID=1105

Track looping - different styles of music require different methods, and this feature was an often-requested and now used function. It is true that it becomes especially useful along with the Cue List, but I know of people who rather than using the Cue List would simply build up different sections of a Song in individual Sequences, and then use the Copy commands to build them back up into a single song later. So there are many ways of working.

Sas:

I too like the concept of the "never stop" workflow, and hope to move more in that direction. It seems that it becomes way more difficult to manager the ability to keep changing tracks etc. in realtime when arps and KARMA are generating the data and not just the keyboard. There are more things to keep track of to be sure there are no hung notes and other errors. But I agree that it is a great way to work.

Having a track record for an undetermined length of time, and then "pop" into loop mode and move on to the next track... cool idea. It's not unlike the loop recording design paradigm of things like Polar in Digital Performer... And for Ricky (our resident historian) these concepts go all the way back to Dr. T's software for the Commodore 64. I too like the idea of looped/multiple take recording as a way to try out different solos and ideas. Some sort of virtual tracks along with this mechanism would help to keep this all idea neatly together when trying ideas on a single part, and then it needs a diffeent consideration when trying to move from drums, to bass, to guitar etc.

So, let's put it this way. Spill out your ideas, your dreams and wishes as always here. We do read and listen and learn from it all.

Regards,

Jerry

[Daz]

...but I know of people who rather than using the Cue List would simply build up different sections of a Song in individual Sequences, and then use the Copy commands to build them back up into a single song later.

I was just looking at this ... the Copy Measures command on the Track Edit tab lets you copy material from the current song to another. So I may recant on the not being able to complete a project

Daz.

[Daz]

I will readily admit/agree that we have been emphasizing the synthesis/sound making side of our developments for a while now, and these are very important aspects of an instrument.

Imagine if the Oasys focus had been inverted. How many of use would have bought something that had the Triton engine instead of HD-1, the MS2000 engine instead of AL-1 and Karma 1.0 (as per the original kbd) but had the best sequencer and disk mode ever devised.

Daz.

[jerrythek]

Yup - there's a lot of unused power in the Edit Commands that just need some exploring. Try to find out what something can do in addition to just wanting things to be different.

A general observation that I will offer is that our current system is "procedure based". You decide you need to do something, and then you go to that command, set the range/parameters etc. and do it. Some of this discussion about workflow is about naturally finding the next thing you need to do, or the command you want while in the same place. This would be enhanced by rearranging a lot of elements so you don't have to leave a screen/page to do common things. Like staying in an event edit view and being able to do more stuff with the data you're looking at...



regards,

Jerry

...but I know of people who rather than using the Cue List would simply build up different sections of a Song in individual Sequences, and then use the Copy commands to build them back up into a single song later.

I was just looking at this ... the Copy Measures command on the Track Edit tab lets you copy material from the current song to another. So I may recant on the not being able to complete a project

Daz.

[Daz]

Try to find out what something can do in addition to just wanting things to be different.

But the customer is always right Okay, yeah that is a very good call actually ... I do need to look a little more closely. In my case that comes to down to being "spoilt" by software seqs ...

A general observation that I will offer is that our current system is "procedure based".

... which are less "procedure based" and less "modal" in nature. Software sequencers tend offer a number of ways to do the same thing (which can be bad/confusing for some users!) and that lets you "cherry pick" in terms of choosing the methods that best suit your way of working and creating your custom workflow.

Although I am very software seq based. Using my electribe when everything else was in boxes ready to go overseas I came to appreciate working directly on the instrument, especially when getting an idea off the ground. So I am trying to do more work with the sequencer aspect of my workstation than before ... when the Triton was really just a very nice controller keyboard and multi-timbral sound source.

Thanks for being in our conversation. Sorry it's a bit ranty ... personally I try to keep some balance in there too

Daz.

[jerrythek]

Not to worry, Daz. I can always choose not to get involved if I were uncomfortable with what was going on. I'm good at lurking...



regards,

Jerry

[sasori]

"Imagine if the Oasys focus had been inverted. How many of use would have bought something that had the Triton engine instead of HD-1, the MS2000 engine instead of AL-1 and Karma 1.0 (as per the original kbd) but had the best sequencer and disk mode ever devised. "

That would be me. As the ESQ proved, improved sounds can come later. Theres no need for great sounds if you can't get the songs down while they're still rolling around in your head.

Mind you, I'm talking about making songs, not music. The live demo's of the OASYS that I saw illustrate that it is the Chapman Stick of keyboards. Great for rambling-on music (no insult intended). If its made to be as fast at creating structured songs there won't be a reason for serious composers to buy any other keyboard, computer or music software.

Of course, I might be a special case; I have the memory capacity of a dog.

[thekeymaster]

Hi there folkies,

Well I'm glad the sequencer has been discussed,I have mentioned it a couple of times in wishlists on various forums.I dont think its as bad as we all make out but it is a main area by which I think Korg could stray from the normal Trinity/Triton operation on the Oasys.The screen cries out for a more software sequencer type editing facility.

I must admit I cant comment on Ensoniq's sequencers but for me I have always thought Roland have led the way with regard to hardware Sequencers.I predominantly use my keyboards in live situations and the Oasys will be the hub of my main live rig.One thing that needs addressing is its ability to transmit more than one midi channel per track.The Roland way of doing things by making all 16 midi channels recordable per track is far more useful.

Example,one track could soley be assigned to EXT and transmit data to another Keyboard in multi timbral mode,you would still have 15 tracks left but if they all record 16 midi channels each you dont have to worry about assigning each INT instrument to its own track.It would make the OASYS a much better controller in Seq mode.

Also Rolands Fantom X seq with Audio expansion is a great way to edit Audio.Very similar to a software seq.I think we have our seq of choice and I have always had a soft spot the way Roland incorporate the seq in there worksations.

I must admit I need more time with the Oasys seq to be able to make a true opinion but from my intial tweaking I think Korg have an opportunity here to really set a standard for all to follow,they have produced what is in my opinion one of the best hardware synths ever, based on Software.To incorporate a more software approach to their seq on this machine would really seal the Oasys as possibly the best of both worlds.With all that power of sound creation at our fingertips,which I understand was always priority and rightly so,I think we now need to make music from this machine in the most possible simplistic and intuitive way as Korg can imagine.

Oasys V 1.2 DAW style improvements to the seq in midi and audio tracks.oh plus a dedicated Vocoder not an effect.(hint hint)

[sasori]

I took Daz's advice and checked out Ableton Live.
Korg, stop the R&D! Just convert live and you've got it done.

Thanks Daz. Now, I'm looking for a perch for my laptop to hover over the OASYS. I tried Live before but it didn't really sound good with the internal instruments (I run a dual-proc with a Layla). Plus, at the time, midi response was laggy.

Seems to run the OASYS fine; Now I need to make a template for this setup.

[StephenKay]

The info that the Japan unit of Korg is tasked with the sequencer was discovered in an article about the OASYS.

Let me just add my 2 cents.

While the sequencer may be currently developed in Japan, the OASYS development team is not just Japanese people. There's quite a large part of the work done on the west coast by Korg R&D, and I and Jerry and Jack are on the East Coast. Believe you me, we all have definite opinions and input into the sequencer.

Speaking for myself, I use computer based sequencers (software) such as Digital Performer, when I have the occasion to do music these days. I've always been into software sequencing. All due respect to Sharpie here, but a software program almost always kicks butt over a hardware sequencer (flame goggles on).

As has been said, other parts of the unit have taken priority to some degree. But I am sure that Korg will eventually improve that area substantially. I have faith. And I have heard some of the discussions.

Imagine if the Oasys focus had been inverted. How many of us would have bought something that had the Triton engine instead of HD-1, the MS2000 engine instead of AL-1 and Karma 1.0 (as per the original kbd) but had the best sequencer and disk mode ever devised.

Hmm, I suppose anything is possible, but many people seem to have a different opinion about that. A "great sequencer" would not have been enough to sell the OASYS, by itself.

Forgive me please for mentioning Emagic's Creator/Notator package again. I ran it on a simple Atari 1040ST. In my mind Creator/Notator still gives the best balance of power and ease-of-use in the sequencer world - to this day.

Many people tend to like what they grew up on, and what they became proficient with at some particular time. That doesn't mean it's an amazing design that deserves to be replicated.

I went to the pages about this program and read about it, and (admittedly) not having used it, I'm not impressed. And why would I use it now? Because a bunch of people who once used it 20 years ago say it was great? In spite of the pitiful graphics and other limitations? No, I don't think so.... That's not to say it wasn't a good program - I'm sure, for its time, it was happening.

Heck, I used to use the famous Fairlight Page R, and its successor, CAPS (in the Fairlight III), and I swore by it one time. Many people stand by that as an example of a cool sequencer, but it's sadly outdated at this point.

After that, I once used Opcode Vision exclusively, and I could whiz around that program like I was born with it imprinted in my brain. Everything else I've been forced to use since their demise has, to me, been a sorry substitute. But that's mainly because I was so familiar with it and had used it for so long.

I think it's all, to a large degree, what you become comfortable working with, and then when you get a new system, you have to learn stuff all over again. Not fun.

[Francois]

All due respect to Sharpie here, but a software program almost always kicks butt over a hardware sequencer (flame goggles on).

I completely agree. Something as simple as creating a swell effect for brass is so much easier when you can draw it in the expression windows of your software sequencer. It is not impossible to do with the onboard sequencer but it is so much harder.

Saying that, there is no reason why the Oasys sequencer shouldn't offer more, specially as this is a flagship machine. And since we're talking about hardware sequencers, maybe a quick look at the QY700 to see what can be achieved with a decent size screen.

[Drew FM]

Since the Oasys has the touch screen capability, Why not make it so you could 'draw' your own velocity curves like a software sequencer? I realize that currently it recognizes local pressure, but if you look at the screen (the touch matrix) with it turned off, you can see that it has plenty of resolution to do this. This could be expanded to many parameters of the Oasys, not just the sequencer..............

Andy

[Sharp]

I completely agree. Something as simple as creating a swell effect for brass is so much easier when you can draw it in the expression windows of your software sequencer. It is not impossible to do with the onboard sequencer but it is so much harder.

Hmmm… But the Triton comes with ones pre made and ready to go.
Stick two together and you instantly create a fairly wide range of effects.

I don’t know about you guys, but I have SNG files set aside that contain nothing by CC# effects. The beauty of them is that I can just stick the sequencer on a loop and play whatever notes I want, while the CC# data will in real-time manipulate what I’m playing. If I like what I hear, I import the effect.

Saying that, there is no reason why the Oasys sequencer shouldn't offer more, specially as this is a flagship machine. And since we're talking about hardware sequencers, maybe a quick look at the QY700 to see what can be achieved with a decent size screen

Well it’s no secret that while I do love the hardware sequencers, I also feel that KORG have not done much with them since the release of the M1. It’s all very much he same to me. By that I mean considering the number of years between the M1 and the Triton Series, I feel we certainly haven’t seen 16 + years of development gone into the sequencer.

Regards.
Sharp.

[sasori]

...but it's sadly outdated at this point."

Hmmm, an apt description of the OASYS sequencer. Definately glad I didn't 'grow up' on that. Hell, I 'grew up' on bouncing tracks between two crappy cassette decks. Now, I'll have to admit, th OASYS is slightly better than that.

Something as simple as creating a swell effect for brass is so much easier when you can draw it in the expression windows of your software sequencer."

However, that falls more under the task of producing the song; dialing it in. Once again, I'm talking about roughing out the song quickly. For example, when I used the ESQ, I didn't arrive at the studio with the sequences packed in it, I had moved the songs into a linear sequencer and polished them there.
My songwriting slowed considerably once the ESQ hit the closet, thinking I could do everything better with a linear sequencer. Having to stop, copy and paste a bunch of bars, isolate the next area for the chorus, copy and paste again... all as part of the songwriting process, is very unproductive.

In any type of production, you need to use various tools to finalize the product. Whether its creating a cereal box design, a video, music.
You might put elements created in Photoshop on a box made in a 3d program. You'll use one program to capture video, one to edit, one to composite graphics and one to render out for final distribution.

Unfortunately, a PSD file will drop into a slew of non-Adobe products. A MID file usually gets stripped of data, like tracknames, etc; so its not as transportable. This is very, very unfortunate. MID is handled like raw data, like a photo right out of the camera.

So much to think about, when creating a self-contained Hardware/Software encased solution. I suppose its all going to come down to what Korg thinks the OASYS should be more of:
A songwriting/composition machine.
A Chapman Stick-like machine.
Right now, its more the latter.

[sasori]

Since the Oasys has the touch screen capability, Why not make it so you could 'draw' your own velocity curves like a software sequencer? I realize that currently it recognizes local pressure, but if you look at the screen (the touch matrix) with it turned off, you can see that it has plenty of resolution to do this. This could be expanded to many parameters of the Oasys, not just the sequencer..............

In my experience with touchscreen monitors, and developing for them, the resolution of the graphic display is separate to that of the touchscreen overlay.