Official statement on the status and future of the OASYS

[pandel]

...
The problem is every time the subject came up, the responses were along the lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked", even though some folks were not actually asking for anything that even remotely looked like "totally re-working it". Just smoothing out the edges.

Along the same lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked" is the other favourite "It's never going to be like Logic/Cubase/DP, so what's the point ?". Again, a number of people really weren't asking for any such thing, just the addition of a few features that would make it polite.

That's why this conversation has gone on forever, because it's often seemed we were getting answers to questions we weren't actually asking.
...

+1

[Sharp]

Hi Tiger .

Anyway, I would like to repeat myself here: "I think everybody incl. Korg Inc. (Japan/USA) should rather take this whole discussion as a huge compliment and be very flattered, because if the rest of the Oasys had not been of such high quality as it is, the sequenser issue would have been less important in the end. It is a matter of "proportions" here, and the sequenser part is the obvious weak link.."

That's like saying it's because the OASYS is so good that they should update the sequencer.

If I put a 14 year old Trinity beside the OASYS I could show you that the two sequencers are almost identical in their function, layout, and they both are missing the exact same basic features from both the main sequencer pages and the pattern mode. It's the same system with only minor updates.

I've been asking for a sequencer update as far back as the Tritonica days which most people here won't even remember it's so long ago.

This is why I honestly believe that not one single KORG Engineer who was responsible for the Sequencer uses it themselves. When you have that disconnection from such an important feature you get what we have today in the OASYS. A state of the art workstation, the best KORG has ever produced, but with a 14 year old Sequencer.

Regards.
Sharp.

[fdspeck]

It's clear as day to me that not one of the KORG sequencer engineers use their own sequencer as day to day musicians.

Yes, I also have the feeling that this is the cause of the problem. The result is that the sequencer was added to have it in the specs and to qualify the Oasys as a workstation, but nothing more. Instead of exploiting the potential a hardware sequencer could have the mere basics were implemented and when copying most of the stuff from the Triton there were even some things forgotten.

Also resulting from this seems to be a wrong perception about the part of users which favour hardware sequencers. I've got the feeling that they are viewed as the -let's say- less sophisticated users, those who are somewhat old-fashioned or those who just want to toy around a bit and thus demand not much from a sequencer. Because otherwise they would use DAWs. I think this only applies for a fraction of these users and that it is more a matter of different processes to create music. For those who want to type music in like on a typewriter and whose compositions rely very much on copying and pasting bits of music together nothing could beat a DAW. But there are other users who want to play most of the parts live and if a composition has the same part several times they rather play it in several times than copy and paste it (maybe this is viewed as old fashioned too). They need editing only here and there to get out the glitches. For those group of users the sequencer of a workstation is ideal because of the integration. You can do everything at the press of only a few buttons and the creative process is not hindered by too much menu crawling and mouse shoving. And -most important for me- you can overcome the shortcomings of MIDI. It would have been good if Korg would have questioned themselves why some people are using internal sequencers and what could have been done to improve their workflow. Because that's the group the sequencer is developed for, not the ones which use DAWs anyway.

My advice for the future would be to decide if you want to have a synth with a sequencer or not. If yes - do it right. If not - implement prefect integration with a DAW (which the Oasys also has not). That means integration via a high speed interface where you can transfer a bunch of notes which should be played at the same time and they really are played at the same time. That means hardware integrated into the DAW as a plug-in. That means saving all data, programs, combis and of course samples in the DAW and transferring them high-speed-wise to the synth, as fast as they would be loaded from an internal disk drive. And so on.

-Frank-

[fdspeck]

I know it's too late for the Oasys, sadly, but ...

For me it's a bit early to give up. If Korg really wants to meet the interests of a considerable part of their users there would be ways which would serve both the interest of these users and Korg. Even in the economical situation as it is. Time will show what the position of Korg in this matter is.

-Frank-

[Tiger789]

Hi Tiger .

Anyway, I would like to repeat myself here: "I think everybody incl. Korg Inc. (Japan/USA) should rather take this whole discussion as a huge compliment and be very flattered, because if the rest of the Oasys had not been of such high quality as it is, the sequenser issue would have been less important in the end. It is a matter of "proportions" here, and the sequenser part is the obvious weak link.."

That's like saying it's because the OASYS is so good that they should update the sequencer.

Hi,

Yep, I know. And that's what I ment. At least I wouldn't care much about the seq. issue (now) if I was of the opinion that the Oasys had other faults and shortcomings, whitch I don't think is the case. Besides the seq. issue (whitch is fatal) I consider most other things (sample streaming, loading own samples at power up etc.) more to be on a personal "wishlist" if you like.

-Tiger

Guitarist / Classical pianist
Oslo, Norway
--------------------------------

Korg Oasys 88 - # 002113 + Karo Philh. Strings
Roland Fantom G6 + ARX-01
Yamaha Clavinova CVP-309PE

Amps: Marshall 2205 + 2210 w/1960A cab. Marshall Mode Four + cab. 3 x Marshall SE-100.
Effects: Roland SDE-2500, Alesis Midiverb II. DOD 250 & Cry baby 535. Wireless systems etc.
Guitars: 3 Fender Strats, 2 w/HS-3 & YJM pics. + nylon classical guitar
Recording: Roland VS-2480CD incl. MB-24 meterbridge, All 3. party plug-ins available, mouse, 22" widescreen, 160GB Backup system.
Monitors: Dynaudio Acoustics BM 6A Mk II. Samson Resolv 65a.
Mics: AKG C 3000B, Shure SM 58, AKG 240 headphones
Other: Boss DR-880, studioracks, patchbays, vintage effects from the 70's & 80's.

[Kontrol49]

My advice for the future would be to decide if you want to have a synth with a sequencer or not. If yes - do it right. If not - implement prefect integration with a DAW (which the Oasys also has not).
-Frank-

See this is the thing that puzzles me,We're given a workstation which exists as a Hardware instrument,almost touted as an all in one working environment,with the HDR and Midi seq,its half finished in what I see as a workable up to date sequence package,Like Sharp has said what I have thought its still no more advanced than the one used in the Trinity over 14 years old Which for its time was a bloody good machine and still is preferential choice for some users.

Why if its aimed at the Hardware solution,are the people developing it not on par with what else has been made since then,or at least seeking personal insights from those who are using the past machines like the Trinity/Triton,Is it an arrogance towards what they consider precious technology.
And if its simply because they don't use it themselves why has it not seen a step towards software integration in the same way the Virus TI perhaps works as both a Hardware and software peripheral,it seems to be no middle ground for either user.

Surely Korg's not such a closed net camp to not see what alternatives have been produced by the likes of Yamaha or Roland,Infact have Korg ever released a Dedicated Hardware standalone sequencer that wasn't bolted to a workstation.

Either they simply don't or have never used it to great extent outside of the Korg research,Didn't have enough cirticism from the Triton/Trinity users or they simplt ran out of budget to develop it any further,but what I do find odd,is that its been improved on with the M3,so they must be listening somewhere.

Just out of curiosity,does anyone know if any Famous Korg users are sequencing inside of the Box entirely??I've certainly never seen any press of anyone raving about the sequencers of the Triton or Oasys.

[zolhof]

Just out of curiosity,does anyone know if any Famous Korg users are sequencing inside of the Box entirely??I've certainly never seen any press of anyone raving about the sequencers of the Triton or Oasys.

Don´t know of anyone doing this and I´ll go further, if you watch all Oasys´ promotional videos you´ll notice that Korg never spent more than 1 minute talking about the sequencer, like they already knew the sequencer was out-dated and had no new features to show. It was like "the O has a sequencer, you can do one-touch record and also record all kind of automations, including Karma" and that´s it.

I´ll quote two passages from a 2006 review of the O, it´s quite funny now:

"On final note - please, Korg, don't even think about making a LE-version"

"- please, upgrade the Sequencer, it's been the same since the Triton Studio days"

http://www.it-review.net/article/music/synth/668

I can live with the seq issue, but again, I´ll miss new fx, synthesis and Karma updates. And would love a fix for the gap between combi changes

[fdspeck]

One of the things I like about the MV,it also has a "seperate by Pitch" tool, ...

No need to implement this feature if you have only 16 tracks. At least Korg is showing consequence here. Sarcasm aside, if someone has difficulties to understand why people would need more than 16 tracks, you can't expect him to implement this feature.

..., but what I do find odd,is that its been improved on with the M3,so they must be listening somewhere.

Hey, Korg listens and delivers. That's the proof.

-Frank-

[Davidb]

My advice for the future would be to decide if you want to have a synth with a sequencer or not. If yes - do it right. If not - implement prefect integration with a DAW (which the Oasys also has not).
-Frank-

See this is the thing that puzzles me,We're given a workstation which exists as a Hardware instrument,almost touted as an all in one working environment,with the HDR and Midi seq,its half finished in what I see as a workable up to date sequence package,Like Sharp has said what I have thought its still no more advanced than the one used in the Trinity over 14 years old Which for its time was a bloody good machine and still is preferential choice for some users

... Why if its aimed at the Hardware solution,are the people developing it not on par with what else has been made since then,or at least seeking personal insights from those who are using the past machines like the Trinity/Triton,Is it an arrogance towards what they consider precious technology.

Totally true, and thats why most users have right now the feeling that leaving the OASYS this way, Korg leaves this machine and this project unfinished.

If Korg would have, as an example, updated the OASYS sequencer to at least the M3 specs and would have integrated at least one single Efx, that way Korg could state "Ok, we have delivered all we advanced we would do on the initial specs, and also we have improved the most weak area of the system, the one who had more requests ever, the sequencer.
Now, we wont longer create more sofware or updates for the OASYS because of the crisis, profit margins, or .." whatever the point would be.

But leaving the O this way is leaving this fantastic product incomplete, and in a very bad situation vs other workstations (and I mean WS, not Synth, as a synth, possibly the O is the best ever, not so as a WS)

This is more evident in the sequencer area, as the OASYS, as some of you have pionted out, does not offer the DAW integration the M3 does.

And if you think about it, is even a nosense to devote time and efforts in an upgrade to the the M3 sequencer, which already has been designed from the start to operate with its cool DAW integration, and on the other hand, not to have that time and resources to upgrade the OASYS sequencer, a machine advertised as an "studio" in its own name, designed with better possibilities for an internal sequencing, (Korg even gave the OASYS audio recording and pro mic inputs, not to mention the better screen, better control surface, a CD-Writer to store your work,etc,) and which havent got the DAW integration the M3 has, and therefore is more a closed system and would need this M3 enhancements and other improvements to the Sequencer area more and better!

Surely Korg's not such a closed net camp to not see what alternatives have been produced by the likes of Yamaha or Roland,Infact have Korg ever released a Dedicated Hardware standalone sequencer that wasn't bolted to a workstation.

Either they simply don't or have never used it to great extent outside of the Korg research,Didn't have enough cirticism from the Triton/Trinity users or they simplt ran out of budget to develop it any further,but what I do find odd,is that its been improved on with the M3,so they must be listening somewhere.

Kontrol49 wrote:
..., but what I do find odd,is that its been improved on with the M3,so they must be listening somewhere.

Hey, Korg listens and delivers. That's the proof. Very Happy

They listen for sure, as weve seen, but they simply delivered some of the useful things the users were requesting for the sequencer, like piano roll and audio track view, better sysex editing, etc, in the model who had less need for it, and not for the one which needed it most.

[Davidb]

I know it's too late for the Oasys, sadly, but ...

For me it's a bit early to give up. If Korg really wants to meet the interests of a considerable part of their users there would be ways which would serve both the interest of these users and Korg. Even in the economical situation as it is. Time will show what the position of Korg in this matter is.

-Frank-

+1

[Gargamel314]

So now, if OASYS is discontinued... What about the M3? it seems that Korg's pattern is to market a workstation, then release and market its expansions... then release a EXPANDED version of that workstation with all the bells and whistles (i. e. M1EX, T3EX, Trinity V3, Triton Extreme, M3-Expanded)... and then discontinue it to make way for their next big thing. Does this mean M3 is going off the market soon, and perhaps something new is coming from Korg?

[Davidb]

...
The problem is every time the subject came up, the responses were along the lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked", even though some folks were not actually asking for anything that even remotely looked like "totally re-working it". Just smoothing out the edges.

Along the same lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked" is the other favourite "It's never going to be like Logic/Cubase/DP, so what's the point ?". Again, a number of people really weren't asking for any such thing, just the addition of a few features that would make it polite.

That's why this conversation has gone on forever, because it's often seemed we were getting answers to questions we weren't actually asking.
...

+1

+2

Daz.
Brilliant mate.

Once more, as usual, you have expressed perfectly the point we all wanted to state the best and consistent way.

[AnthonyB]

As for the M3 update, it great to see such features being added, but again where are the basic functions ?. Piano Roll* is the last thing I need when I want to do something basic like delete CC#91 from all tracks.

Regards.
Sharp.

I think "Piano rolls", "Graphs", "Pictures," etc.etc all look better on Korg's website for advertising the M3 than for example "Shift-note option in pattern mode now available". More Eye-catching for the new buyer, who was perhaps thinking of a Fantom G....


*emboldened by me

Tony

[Sharp]

For what it's worth, here's a short video of me showing you around the Yamaha QY700.

Sorry about the camera work. I wasn't making a block buster movie

http://www.irishacts.com/misc/yamaha-qy700.avi

[Davidb]

I think "Piano rolls", "Graphs", "Pictures," etc.etc all look better on Korg's website for advertising the M3 than for example "Shift-note option in pattern mode now available". More Eye-catching for the new buyer, who was perhaps thinking of a Fantom G

Hi Anthony.

Well, I´ve tried the Piano Roll Editor Korg implemented in the M3 and I have to say they did a fantastic work with it, even more with the Drag & Drop featue. Fast to work, and easy to use, even in a screen the size of the M3.

Sure, its not like editing with Logic, but I have to say that loved it, I mean it.

I liked a lot how it works, and definitely its way better and faster for basic operations than just the Event Edit window of the OASYS, for sure!

I just envision how cool would be to have this Piano Roll editor in an screen of the OASYS, three times bigger that the M3. Well. *snif *