i have a microKorg and im thinking about an even swap for an R3....any thoughts?
should i do that?
pros/cons?
microKorg vs. R3(should i trade)
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
yes. I think you would have difficulty doing a swap with someone, as there are I think almost no advantages of the MicroKorg over the R3.
R3 is an ideal upgrade, especially if you have tinkered around with the MicroKorg and want more!
however, some MicroKorg owners have upgraded to the R3 and been slightly disappointed, particularly if they can't or won't put the effort into programming it for the sounds they want. The MK is easy, but I suppose the additional features and parameters on the R3 some have found overwhelming...
R3 is an ideal upgrade, especially if you have tinkered around with the MicroKorg and want more!
however, some MicroKorg owners have upgraded to the R3 and been slightly disappointed, particularly if they can't or won't put the effort into programming it for the sounds they want. The MK is easy, but I suppose the additional features and parameters on the R3 some have found overwhelming...
Current Gear: Kronos 61, RADIAS-R, Volca Bass, ESX-1, microKorg, MS2000B, R3, Kaossilator Pro +, MiniKP, AX3000B, nanoKontrol, nanoPad MK II,
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
The filters on the R3 sound slightly cleaner than the microKorg, so someone could make a legit argument that the microKorg sounds "better".X-Trade wrote:however, some MicroKorg owners have upgraded to the R3 and been slightly disappointed, particularly if they can't or won't put the effort into programming it for the sounds they want. The MK is easy, but I suppose the additional features and parameters on the R3 some have found overwhelming...
yes, and that is part of the reason that the R3 is a different synthesizer.RexRhino wrote:The filters on the R3 sound slightly cleaner than the microKorg, so someone could make a legit argument that the microKorg sounds "better".X-Trade wrote:however, some MicroKorg owners have upgraded to the R3 and been slightly disappointed, particularly if they can't or won't put the effort into programming it for the sounds they want. The MK is easy, but I suppose the additional features and parameters on the R3 some have found overwhelming...
however, I feel that the R3/Radias/whatever is at an advantage, because whilst the filter is cleaner on its own, when combined with certain types of drive or waveshaping, you can get close to the MicroKorg's sound, if not identical. you just have to program it that way. so really the R3 would be more flexible - you can have a clean filter sound, or a dirtier sound, whereas with the microkorg you're stuck with that all the time, so you can't choose to make a clean sound.
if that makes any sense....
Current Gear: Kronos 61, RADIAS-R, Volca Bass, ESX-1, microKorg, MS2000B, R3, Kaossilator Pro +, MiniKP, AX3000B, nanoKontrol, nanoPad MK II,
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Other Mfgrs: Moog Sub37, Roland Boutique JX03, Novation MiniNova, Akai APC40, MOTU MIDI TimePiece 2, ART Pro VLA, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40.
Past Gear: Korg Karma, TR61, Poly800, EA-1, ER-1, ES-1, Kawai K1, Novation ReMote37SL, Boss GT-6B
Software: NI Komplete 10 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, Ableton Live 9. Apple OSX El Capitan on 15" MacBook Pro
Well, I own and prefer the R3... but I own/prefer the R3 because it is more flexible for sound design. It has a much larger range of sounds it can produce for a enthusiastic synthesist. However, if someone was looking specifically for a dirty VA type sound I would recommend the microkorg.X-Trade wrote:yes, and that is part of the reason that the R3 is a different synthesizer.RexRhino wrote:The filters on the R3 sound slightly cleaner than the microKorg, so someone could make a legit argument that the microKorg sounds "better".X-Trade wrote:however, some MicroKorg owners have upgraded to the R3 and been slightly disappointed, particularly if they can't or won't put the effort into programming it for the sounds they want. The MK is easy, but I suppose the additional features and parameters on the R3 some have found overwhelming...
however, I feel that the R3/Radias/whatever is at an advantage, because whilst the filter is cleaner on its own, when combined with certain types of drive or waveshaping, you can get close to the MicroKorg's sound, if not identical. you just have to program it that way. so really the R3 would be more flexible - you can have a clean filter sound, or a dirtier sound, whereas with the microkorg you're stuck with that all the time, so you can't choose to make a clean sound.
if that makes any sense....
If someone was doing strictly classic electro music, for example, I would recommend a microkorg (or MS2000). If someone was looking to produce IDM, or do a soundtrack and sound effects for a sci-fi video game, or something like that, I would recommend the R3 (or very likely the RADIAS).
What the R3 gains in flexibility, it loses in the ability to just power up, tweak a few knobs, and have a mean dirty filter sound. The R3/RADIAS is for people who enjoy deep synthesis, but the microkorg is probably a better choice for people who don't.
It isn't like swapping a Hyundai for a BMW... It is more like swapping a Harley Davidson motorcycle for a BMW motorcycle. I would prefer the BMW, but I totally get it why some people would prefer the Harley.
What specifically IS a dirty filter sound?
Dirty is a meaningless term if you don't explain precisely what you mean when you use it in reference to a filter. I could just as easily say that the filter has a fruity flavor with a hint of musky aftertones.
There are differences in filters of course that affect the sound. But the challenge is to identify and describe these differences in terms that are not entirely subjective. That's why I hate the terms phat, thick, thin, shiny, etc. applied to synth sounds. They are completly useless terms. Does it mean strong bass? Does it mean a lot of harmonic overtones? Does it mean the highs have been cut? Does it mean that you just like the sound, whatever it is? Does it mean lots of distortion? Does it mean lots of filter resonance? Does it mean a mid-cut EQ? Does it mean a Saw instead of a sine? Does it mean a sub-osc is pumping the subsonic? Does it mean there's good fx - bitcrushers? It could mean ANYTHING. Therefore it means NOTHING.
Then you have multimode filters like on the R3 that aren't easily defined because they have such a wide range of modes. It doesn't just have the LPF24, LPF12, HPF12, BPF12, and Thru modes: the intermediate values on the parameters cause an intermediate mode. With the 2 filters, their modes, and their chain configuration, you get into thousands of combinations of filter states, without even considering the filter cutoff, resonance, and modulations. That's why I can't accept the term "cleaner" in reference to the R3 filters. Cleaner HOW? Is a 24db LPF clean merely because it's a sharp 24db Filter? Is it more clean than a 12db Filter? Does the filter add less noise? less distortion? What make clean - clean? What makes dirty - dirty?
Dirty is a meaningless term if you don't explain precisely what you mean when you use it in reference to a filter. I could just as easily say that the filter has a fruity flavor with a hint of musky aftertones.
There are differences in filters of course that affect the sound. But the challenge is to identify and describe these differences in terms that are not entirely subjective. That's why I hate the terms phat, thick, thin, shiny, etc. applied to synth sounds. They are completly useless terms. Does it mean strong bass? Does it mean a lot of harmonic overtones? Does it mean the highs have been cut? Does it mean that you just like the sound, whatever it is? Does it mean lots of distortion? Does it mean lots of filter resonance? Does it mean a mid-cut EQ? Does it mean a Saw instead of a sine? Does it mean a sub-osc is pumping the subsonic? Does it mean there's good fx - bitcrushers? It could mean ANYTHING. Therefore it means NOTHING.
Then you have multimode filters like on the R3 that aren't easily defined because they have such a wide range of modes. It doesn't just have the LPF24, LPF12, HPF12, BPF12, and Thru modes: the intermediate values on the parameters cause an intermediate mode. With the 2 filters, their modes, and their chain configuration, you get into thousands of combinations of filter states, without even considering the filter cutoff, resonance, and modulations. That's why I can't accept the term "cleaner" in reference to the R3 filters. Cleaner HOW? Is a 24db LPF clean merely because it's a sharp 24db Filter? Is it more clean than a 12db Filter? Does the filter add less noise? less distortion? What make clean - clean? What makes dirty - dirty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct2K2i_TRxkxmlguy wrote:What specifically IS a dirty filter sound?
Dirty is a meaningless term if you don't explain precisely what you mean when you use it in reference to a filter. I could just as easily say that the filter has a fruity flavor with a hint of musky aftertones.
I've seen that comparison before. The comparison is shitty. The differences shown have little to do with the basic sound character of either synth. The differences are due to parameter ranges, which aren't provided and open to review.
In the first set of comparisons - the audio is noisy as hell. Why is there noise being added to mix? Notice the "clicks" on the MS2000 that aren't present on the R3? The envelopes are obviously different. You can't fairly compare two patches until you normalize everything - so that you can compare only the parameters that are to be changed. I can give dozens of reasons that can account for the differences in sound - none of which are the basic character of the engine. The envelope depth on the filter seems to be an obvious candidate for the difference heard.
The video gives the impression that he's doing a side-by-side comparison, but the reality is that he's changing variable X, while not making it obvious that variables A B C D E F G are different and can affect what you hear when you change X. I think the clicks prove that the other variables have not been normalized.
Using that vid as a basis to show that the MS2K is "dirtier" is ridiculous. Normalize with an init patch, set to a detuned saw on both, then turn on the R3's decimator, grain shifter, and amp models, then compare which sounds "dirtiest".
In the first set of comparisons - the audio is noisy as hell. Why is there noise being added to mix? Notice the "clicks" on the MS2000 that aren't present on the R3? The envelopes are obviously different. You can't fairly compare two patches until you normalize everything - so that you can compare only the parameters that are to be changed. I can give dozens of reasons that can account for the differences in sound - none of which are the basic character of the engine. The envelope depth on the filter seems to be an obvious candidate for the difference heard.
The video gives the impression that he's doing a side-by-side comparison, but the reality is that he's changing variable X, while not making it obvious that variables A B C D E F G are different and can affect what you hear when you change X. I think the clicks prove that the other variables have not been normalized.
Using that vid as a basis to show that the MS2K is "dirtier" is ridiculous. Normalize with an init patch, set to a detuned saw on both, then turn on the R3's decimator, grain shifter, and amp models, then compare which sounds "dirtiest".