Sequencer upgrade - session view useful?

[vEddY]

*raises glass*
Here's to some updated features to make this hardware sing!

Nah, it's singing already You just want it server on a better platter

[Sharp]

Since you are coming from the Triton Studio, you will be missing the Cue List

True, but I wouldn’t see that as a priority right away due to the fact that there are features already in the system that border on being complete useless because of the lack of attention to what has been included / excluded.

For example, and this applies to every KORG keyboard.

The Pattern mode cannot even “note shift” data.

Now that’s pretty freaking basic stuff. In order to get around the lack of this feature, you have to dump your pattern into a track to access the note shift options there, and then copy the data from the track back to the pattern mode. A pain in the ass to be honest.

All of which if you search the forums I’ve been saying since the days of the Triton’s first release, and on other forums since the Trinity was released

So this is not an OASYS thing.

One comment I’ve always made in terms of research and development is that the sequencer has not received the 15+ years of development since the M1 as the other systems have. It has been pretty much overlooked, and I will strongly stand by that comment as it’s easy to add up what new additions we have seen and then compare them to other companies.

In terms of the OASYS, I can only hope that KORG either release an enhanced version of the Sequencer with an OS update, or at least make one available to purchase as an expansion.

However… I honestly don’t believe that will happen. What is being said in this thread has all been said before and KORG still haven’t done anything about it.

The mere fact that the OASYS doesn’t even have the same features as the Triton ( Clue List) clearly says to me that again they never put much time into developing the system. So… sorry to say it guys, I can’t see anything changing anytime soon.

Not unless everyone (Triton users too) get behind this in the future and starts making lots of noise. Not that a Triton could be updated at this stage since it’s been replaced. But for the future it’s worth making some noise.

This is the ONLY area I have ever felt KORG completely lacked in, and the one area I would never defend KORG on as being a leader in the market of “Workstations”.

It’s their Achilles heel

Regards.
Sharp.

[thekeymaster]

Ive got to agree with everything Sharp has said above.

All the points he's made are exactly how I look at the situation and I'll say again Korg have an opportunity with the OASYS to do something about it,more so than any other manufacturer at the moment....they just need the will power and the desire to make a change.(dont think they will though)


Market leader when it comes to intergrated Sequencers for me.....Roland by a mile.MRC sequencers have always had the edge over the competition.Phrase tracks,easy menu design,quick,intuitive managing of data.Fantom X has a great sequencer on it and I really loved my MC 80.What a hardware seq that was.

[Arend Groot]

I am really hoping for a massive sequencer update for the big O. Agreed with a lot you all have said. I want to do it all within the Oasys.

[domc]

The Pattern mode cannot even “note shift” data.

Yeah - I find this pretty frustrating as well as I like to work with patterns a lot.

However… I honestly don’t believe that will happen. What is being said in this thread has all been said before and KORG still haven’t done anything about it.

The mere fact that the OASYS doesn’t even have the same features as the Triton ( Clue List) clearly says to me that again they never put much time into developing the system. So… sorry to say it guys, I can’t see anything changing anytime soon.

I hope this is not true. I've got to believe that at least a portion of the time since the original first os release has been well spent in developing a new sequencer. As per my previous posts, I've hoping that Korg haven't caved in to software and must believe that developments for the Oasys sequencer could be used for future product ranges. A few comments from people such as Dan, Stephen on threads many many months ago also seemed to confirm that this was in the works.

Just from the poll on this small section of the buying community, there is clearly a desire for a well spec'd hardware sequencer - and the Oasys is positioned to truly move the bar a long way with its great touchscreen. To incorporate things such as the 'session view' from live and implement it for the touchscreen does not (to me) seem that hard (given all the pattern code already), but would take the sequencing ability beyond that of the current software (by virtue of control via touchscreen). This must be good for Oasys sales as this is really the only criticism which has carried any weight.

Would be great to get some input from Jerry, Dan, Stephen on all of this. I'm hoping the silence bodes well for the next release (.....or alternatively they don't want to shatter our hopes!)

[zirkdextron]

The sequencer is perfectly useable but an "arrange window" type facility would help. However, I DON'T want to see Korg implement a system which needs a mouse to get round. No! No! No! I want to get away from computers for making music, as far as practicable. Roland have done a pretty good job with their sequencer on the Fantom X, which DOESN'T need a mouse. And the screen's half the size. And it's not a touch screen.

Korg can surely do something similar. What's that "function" button going to be for, eh? Maybe to change the function of some of the other knobs and buttons to facililtate a cursor type arrangement? EG, you have an "arrange window" you hold down a specified button, press on the screen and drag and drop your phrase, sample or whatever....

Just musings, that's all.

[Daz]

However… I honestly don’t believe that will happen. What is being said in this thread has all been said before ...

I was curious, so I went searching ...

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... php?t=7411

Like Sharp, I also believe these things will not be changed, although I have only come to this conclusion just recently. They will not be changed because only a handful of people want them. Which is totally understandable IMO. A little frustrating for a few more advanced users (you lot).

Similarly, I was feeling moderately confident that editing progs in multi-mode would be addressed, but the announcement of the M3 and it's inclusion of the Radias engine in the same form as the MOSS board and Oasys EXi has reinforced for me that people don't want or need this functionality, and therefore it probably won't change on the O either. Which puts me in a rather difficult spot, as I am struggling to use the EXi effectively in their current modus operandi

Daz.

[domc]

However… I honestly don’t believe that will happen. What is being said in this thread has all been said before ...

I was curious, so I went searching ...

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... php?t=7411

Like Sharp, I also believe these things will not be changed, although I have only come to this conclusion just recently. They will not be changed because only a handful of people want them. Which is totally understandable IMO. A little frustrating for a few more advanced users (you lot).

Daz.

Daz, I feel for you and Sharp (and others) who've waited years for this - I've personally only had a year with hardware, having previously only used software, and only 6 months with the O, so my patience hasn't yet been tested as much. Therefore I understand your view is based on good reasons bourne out by past experience.

I guess I have a slightly different take on the market for hardware/software and what is viewed as important. I'd like to see a little more market info about what people want (hence my wish to see comments from Jerry, Dan Stephen) - before I'd agree that it won't be changed as only a few users would like the upgrade.

My (probably unrealistic/simplistic) view of the music market (defined to include both hardware and software) is that two things seem to sell products:

- quality of sounds/sounds/production of sounds
- real time manipulation/speed of use/sequencing of those sounds

I see the hardware manufacturers as still being ahead of software mostly on the former - certainly on a quality basis, and for romplers on a quality sounds per megabyte basis. But the gap continues to narrow, and as all is digitally based, all of the current Oasys/Yamaha sound creation technology could be replicated just with software. Certainly on an overall breath of options, software now is king.

On the second part, I see a split. Hardware has an inherent advantage on being a dedicated controller (bringing sounds alive in real time), and on real time arpeggiation/Karma/sample switching - where the current crop exceed the arpeggiators of the software synths/software sequencers. Here again however the gap is narrowing as controller keyboards become better quality with LCD displays to map across VST parameters and the software arpeggiators start to mimic and catch up with the hardware ones (hey we may even see a full software Karma).

But in the speed of use/sequencing area, software has jumped ahead. And this has led to increased sales just for this improvement in workflow - regardless of the sounds. Products such as live have grown from nothing a few years ago to having a decent part of the market, and that's on the back of having no real quality sounds (yes they introduced operator and the live 6 now has a rompler - but they basically created the brand and the success of live is due to its workflow). I would also contend that one of the reasons for Reason's success is also due to its ease of workflow.

That to me tells me that the buying public values and is willing to pay for workflow/sequencing abilities in addition to sounds and their real-time manipulation.

In a world where the gap in sound quality is narrowing, the gap in real-time manipulation in narrowing, why wouldn't a hardware manufacture at least try and be a bit more competitive on workflow/sequencing.

Another example: the AKAI MPC series; that made it's reputation on the back of its workflow/sequencing ability. It's difficult to say how much money AKAI made over the past decade because of the sequencing features - but it must be substantial.

Now I think I understand the past - the use of custom made DSP chips makes it much harder to evolve the sequencer with OS upgrades. Also with the long development lead times and the relatively recent developments in software sequencing mean that it is only recently that current hardware feels like its many years behind the software equivalents. But for the next Oasys OS and future products, I think Korg would be really hurting themselved by not moving the sequencer forward. To me at least, economics seems to be clearly on the side of improving the workflow/ease of use.

Just my 2c.

Cheers, Domc

[zirkdextron]

I, for one, didn't buy the Oasys to be a controller keyboard for Live or Reason! That would have been a touch extravagant.

I bought it because I saw it as a total solution for music-making. I don't want it to integrate with software programs. I've spent lots of time with shitty software that crashes if you look at it with the wrong expression on your face!

Of course, there are always things that could be improved, as this forum constantly reminds us, but all in all, I'm happy with the thing for now, confident that the necessary imorovements and additions will take place in the future.

[Daz]

Hi Dom,

I think you're making a lot of sense there. I think what you're driving at is true in the broader music tech/instrument market but maybe not so true of workstation users specifically. IMHO. Stressing the Humble there, 'cos I am going by observation alone rather than any specific expertise.

I agree that the quality and breadth of sounds on workstations is the big driver. It's so easy to just dive into the category browser, find the sound you want and then play away. That covers most of what people using a workstation want, sound wise. The ability to tweak those sounds in real time is probably only important to a smaller group of users and Tone Adjust and the performance controllers cover that for them. Only a very small number of people, that use workstations, want to go further than that.

Regarding workflow ... it would appear that most Triton users for example are perfectly happy with the sequencer or are happy to make other arrangements. I don't see this conversation we're having here (again) happening on any of the Triton forums and never have, not in 5 or 6 six years of reading this stuff. If you look at the older thread above where both sequencing and editing in multi-mode are raised it's not like there was an avalanche of end users jumping in and saying "me too". It's not because people are shy with their opinions either

I think the MPC is a different kettle of fish because the target audience is very different to the workstation audience. IMO people buy a workstation for the sounds primarily whilst people buy an MPC with sequencing in mind. I doubt many people buy an MPC with the intention of sequencing it from a computer I should imagine the vast majority of MPC owners use the sequencer, whilst maybe only 25-50% of workstation users use their sequencer. Quite a different set of priorities there.

Now I think I understand the past - the use of custom made DSP chips makes it much harder to evolve the sequencer with OS upgrades.

IIRC the Triton, uses a standard H8 general purpose processor for the sequencer and the GUI, whilst the DSP is done using either a custom ASIC doodah. So I don't think that is the reason.

In summary workstation users don't seem to want this stuff, they want other stuff Evidently they want other stuff like the Open Sampling System which is a very cool recent addition to the Korg workstations. That was added instead of a whizzy sequencer upgrade (although it is actually an improvement to the sequencer in part, because of In Track Sampling). That says something about what Korg feel people want and will buy. Korg sell shedloads of these things because people are getting what they want out of them, it's difficult to argue with that reality.

There is a glitch in my reasoning that "workstation users want this and not that" in the context of the Oasys however. Oasys owners are seemingly not like the the rest of the workstation audience. Their needs and expectations are really quite different seemingly, they are not looking for a Triton that simply sounds a lot better and has more IFX slots I am so amazed at how much attention the sequencer has got from the Oasys users and how many of you have been so enthusiastic in these conversations. It's in very stark contrast to the amount of interest there has been regarding the Triton sequencer. About 30 of you have made more noise about this in a year, than 100's or even thousands of Triton users have in the last 6 or 7 years. On a much smaller scale the same is true of editing in multi-mode. I really thought, in the early days, that the hot topics would be about having more preset sounds, more samples and more IFX slots etc.

My 1c

Daz.

[Daz]

About 30 of you have made more noise about this in a year, than 100's or even thousands of Triton users have in the last 6 or 7 years.

That's still not a lot of people, from some 2500 or so Oasys users out there.

It's not gonna happen and I'll happily eat a big crow and hat pie if it does

The big topic now should be how we do make the most of how it works now.

Daz.

[domc]

Hi Daz, thanks for your thoughts. As you mention its a topic that seems at least to have quite a few Oasys owners chipping in, and its great to get the perspective of someone who's been avidly following discussion over a much longer period than myself.

Regarding workflow ... it would appear that most Triton users for example are perfectly happy with the sequencer or are happy to make other arrangements. I don't see this conversation we're having here (again) happening on any of the Triton forums and never have, not in 5 or 6 six years of reading this stuff. If you look at the older thread above where both sequencing and editing in multi-mode are raised it's not like there was an avalanche of end users jumping in and saying "me too". It's not because people are shy with their opinions either

I was a little surprised by this - obviously sharp was one of the few. I've only really followed this forum, Karam-labs and most recently HC for about six months but in that time I thought I'd seen quite a lot of threads about sequencers (and their features) both focusing on Korg products and the competition.

I'm with you that the sounds and their ease of selection will always be #1 priority for workstations, and I agree with your thoughts about the MPC and the current priorities of the respective owners but I still think it would be wrong of Korg to ignore the sequencing/ease of workflow side.

Here's my take/argument:

- I'm supposing that a lot of the people who buy workstations still like to do some sort of pattern/sequencer based composition. If they don't use the onboard one (which as you say may only be 25%-50%), then they'll use an external one or a software based one. I would guess there's only a small percentage (5%-10%) who would only buy it to play live with no sequencing/sampling ability.
- Therefore there's quite a lot of people (lets say 90%) either using the onboard sequencer or hooking up to an external one/software.
- The reason the MPC/live/other good hardware sequencers/software sequencers have been so popular IMHO is their workflow/ease of use benefits. And then they get renowned for their ease of use and hence people purposely buy that product (like the MPC) as they hear it's got a great reputation for sequencing
- Now the problem with hooking up to external hardware/software is its a pain and it's slow (as per lots of the comments on this thread - people would love to do it one place). But they can't so they have to hook up in order to use the better features available (better pattern based composition, session view of live, more midi tracks, etc. etc.)
- But if a workstation came out that did these things, then not only would all the users benefit, but it would then start to get a reputation for its ease of use, which like the MPC could live with it for successive generations for a long time and drive incremental sales.
- Hence I think if Korg don't do it, then Roland might, or even a keyboard based native instruments (as they've started to go into hardware); and as the gap between sounds becomes less and less, then the ease of use becomes an increasingly more important tool in the fight for new customers.

So why then the apathy of the Triton owners to the current sequencer. I'm not really sure. For those that use and external seq, I think that as no workstations really have a great rep for a 21st century sequencer, the bar is low and people are resigned to sequence with an external/software. They're also put off by the system of lists of actions compared to slick scrolling project windows of their DAWs. And for those that use the onboard one, it has its advantages - it may not be cutting edge for patterns, ease of use/workflow - but it is rock solid and steady. Hence no real cause for much complaint.

However, if someone was to raise the onboard seq/workflow abilities to something like live, using a large touchscreen so it was both intuitive and easy to learn and the sounds were of a similar quality to its peers, then I think it would change the workstation market for ever in terms of what was expected, and what drove sales. You'd always take the product that made it easy to sketch out a drum beat, a bass, a couple of synths etc. in a few mins. And then allowed you to quickly refine the sketch into a real track - as long as you weren't compromising on sound quality.

I've no cents left.

[radside]

[quote]I've no cents left. [/quote]

Whew! I'm tired from reading that so I can imagine how you feel. I use the onboard sequencer 100% and have never used a soft sequencer even though I thought I would. It is just too easy to turn on the workstation and go to work. My only real gripe with the sequencer is the chore involved in having to create a pattern for each track. Others obviously want more and so do I. But to me the biggest hassle is having to create an arrangement by "putting to track" 16 different patterns instead of having the capability to capture 16 tracks into one pattern and then "putting to track", that one pattern consisting of 16 tracks. I, for one, also had the same sequencer gripes with my TC and TS as well. My second fix would have to be a non-sequencer related issue; I hate the 48Khz fixed sampling frequency. There needs to be a option to switch. to 44.1khz. Dats, Adats, and the DA series of recorders are almost extinct and I can't tell the difference between 44.1 and 48khz but I digress. To get back on topic, my vote is for multitrack patterns. Do we need to prioritize a list of sequencer features?

Rick

[Daz]

So why then the apathy of the Triton owners to the current sequencer. I'm not really sure. For those that use and external seq, I think that as no workstations really have a great rep for a 21st century sequencer, the bar is low and people are resigned to sequence with an external/software.

Good call ... I think you're right. It's like buying a laptop, no one expects a laptop to have great speakers built in. The buit-in speakers are there to cover your basic usage but you need to go buy a proper pair of speakers if you want a serious listening experience. People rarely complain about this. I appreciate the Korg sequencer is not quite in the league of laptop speakers, but I was struggling to think of a good comparison.

However, if someone was to raise the onboard seq/workflow abilities to something like live, using a large touchscreen so it was both intuitive and easy to learn and the sounds were of a similar quality to its peers, then I think it would change the workstation market for ever in terms of what was expected, and what drove sales.

Absolutely. IMO that would be a good strategic move and keep the workstation concept relevant when software must be increasingly impinging on it's space. However what seems to be happening instead is the opposite. The new Korg and Yamaha workstations include some rather funky integration with software sequencers. The strategy is maybe that if you can't beat 'em join 'em

It's not possible to implement a Cubase'esque sequencer on such a small screen, for sure, but Ableton Live has shown that a real simple interface is fine if the work flow is right. Which brings us back to the beginning of the conversation

Daz.

[Mike Conway]

It's in very stark contrast to the amount of interest there has been regarding the Triton sequencer.

This has to do with the demographic. People who most hate the OASYS are the cheap software users. The people who most love it are the hardware crowd.

What motivates people to buy an OASYS, is having many synths under one hood. For some, it will be the only synth they need. (I hardly ever turn anything else on.) If this is a hardware users main/only synth, then the sequencer becomes a bigger deal. People, like us, hate having to leave our keyboard and make adjustments on the computer.


It's not uncommon for Triton, Motif and Fantom owners to have multiple synths and a software sequencer. Me? I used the Roland Fantom (the best hardware sequencer- and a scrolling screen), The SY99 and XP50 for song making. The Triton was only occasionally used, because it lacked Velocity and Gate percentage editing, which I used A LOT to adjust mixes.

The point is, I usually had something besides a Triton to make songs with, so the sequencer was less of an issue.


I read that thread that Daz linked to. While I want more features, I also agreed with what Jerry, from Korg, said, on the second page. Compared to a Triton, the OASYS is a much more full featured environment, even as we wait for the return of the Cue List.

I can honestly say that I like the system and can create the songs I want. In that regard, I don't want to see a radical departure, as much as more functions and a scrolling screen. I love the screen in the TRACK VEIW page, as it shows all 32 tracks of data. It just needs to scroll, like the Roland Fantom's.


In my mind, the sequencer needs to compete with other hardware, like Yamaha's and Roland's sequencers, not software. An overhauled OS probably isn't practical for the company. Korg's products share system code - kind of like E-MU's EOS, across many products.

I think people need to look at what is in place and how to enhance it, as opposed to reworking the whole OS. Sharp's suggestion of more editing features, in Pattern mode is a practical request. On the flipside, I've seen people asking for other companies software features, like Battery drums and Reactor Exis. Realistically, I don't think those are going to happen.

Regarding "Session View," I don't know what it is. I have not seen it, so I have no opinion on that feature. I'm not against Korg utilizing something useful, if they can implement it.