A few questions about Korg MS2000

[microkorgy]

hi

1. Why did Korg stop making such a critically acclaimed synthesizer?


2. Is it true that the Microkorg 'is' essentially the MS2000? Or is it more of some marketing hype?


3. If so, does it mean the Microkorg really has an equal sound quality to the MS2000?

4. And so, if you own a Microkorg is there no reason to get the MS2000, other than for added features, which you could get through some other synth?


Or is the MK plus another synth no replacement for the MS2000?

[X-Trade]

1.
All products have a lifecycle. Whilst the MS2000 sounds awesome, it has been around almost/over ten years now. They needed a new flagship VA - which is the Radias, which whilst having a different sound character to boot, is considerably more flexible (if you think about most of the limitations of the MS2K, most of them have been enhanced considerably or removed).

2. & 3.
The microKorg has the same sound engine and synth parameters as the MS2000. Exactly. It also sounds more or less the same as far as anyone can tell, although I don't know anything about anyone having ever tried to put the two side by side. They are effectively the same synth.
The MicroKorg doesn't have the motion sequencing of the MS2000, however you can turn arp steps on and off. Also, whilst having the same vocoder, the parameters on the MicroKorg are reduced so you can only control the volume and pan of pairs of bands (effectively retaining definition whilst appearing to only have half as many bands).
The MS2000 also has more knobs, a screen, ability to show program name on the screen, etc. it also has an option to split the two timbres across the keyboard whilst the MK can only layer them.

4.
Read all of the above and make your own decision. Personally I'd say having an MS2000 makes the MicroKorg obselete.

[microkorgy]

1.
All products have a lifecycle. Whilst the MS2000 sounds awesome, it has been around almost/over ten years now. They needed a new flagship VA - which is the Radias, which whilst having a different sound character to boot, is considerably more flexible (if you think about most of the limitations of the MS2K, most of them have been enhanced considerably or removed).

2. & 3.
The microKorg has the same sound engine and synth parameters as the MS2000. Exactly. It also sounds more or less the same as far as anyone can tell, although I don't know anything about anyone having ever tried to put the two side by side. They are effectively the same synth.
The MicroKorg doesn't have the motion sequencing of the MS2000, however you can turn arp steps on and off. Also, whilst having the same vocoder, the parameters on the MicroKorg are reduced so you can only control the volume and pan of pairs of bands (effectively retaining definition whilst appearing to only have half as many bands).
The MS2000 also has more knobs, a screen, ability to show program name on the screen, etc. it also has an option to split the two timbres across the keyboard whilst the MK can only layer them.

4.
Read all of the above and make your own decision. Personally I'd say having an MS2000 makes the MicroKorg obselete.

That's very helpful info.


I just wonder if having the Microkorg makes having the MS2000 a bit redundant as well? Perhaps those $500 could be better spent on something completely different. Sort of like having a drum kit with 3 tom-toms, instead of getting another of the same drum kit except which has 5 tom toms, you get an electric drum kit or something.

[laikenf]

Being an owner of both (MS2K and MK) I can say the sound quality is 99.99% equal, however, for some reason the MS2K has the ability to produce a slightly grittier and (very slightly) dirtier sound altogether; and, as X-Trade mentioned, the MK lacks a motion sequencer and the ability to split timbers across the keyboard (something I often do with my patches). The MK is great though, portable and the sound coming out of it is just mind boggling, plus I also find that programing it is very easy and straightforward (the step arp. is a plus). But if I had a choice I'd go for the big guy- MS2000.

[microkorgy]

Being an owner of both (MS2K and MK) I can say the sound quality is 99.99% equal, however, for some reason the MS2K has the ability to produce a slightly grittier and (very slightly) dirtier sound altogether; and, as X-Trade mentioned, the MK lacks a motion sequencer and the ability to split timbers across the keyboard (something I often do with my patches). The MK is great though, portable and the sound coming out of it is just mind boggling, plus I also find that programing it is very easy and straightforward (the step arp. is a plus). But if I had a choice I'd go for the big guy- MS2000.

Nice. I appreciated your answers, definitely has helped getting a much better idea of how the two stand in relation to each others . I kind of expected that the MS2000 would have better sound quality and capacity, but apparently not so.

[magicd]

I bought the MS2000 because I wanted analog synth sounds, plus digital programming.

My next synth will be an actual analog synth with digital control.

The limitation of an older VA device such as the MS2000 or Roland JP8000, is that the processor is linear and relatively slow. If you want to change a filter and a waveform at the same time, the processor has to split those jobs up. Add in LFOs, polyphony, effects, etc, and it's a big job for the CPU. The sound suffers and the ability of the synth is limited.

With an analog synth, each part of the circuit is independent. A filter sweep has nothing to do with what an oscillator is doing. An analog synth is running parallel processes, not a single linear process.

I've been told that the Radias is amazing (haven't checked it out yet). I would think that in general, a digital synth made now would have a faster CPU than a ten year old machine.

I'm learning to love the MS2000 for what it can do. I've definitely hit some limitations on the machine, and I just recognize those limitations as part of the charm of the instrument.

I passed on the micro because I wanted full sized keys.

The motion sequencer is very cool.

Dave

[microkorgy]

I bought the MS2000 because I wanted analog synth sounds, plus digital programming.

My next synth will be an actual analog synth with digital control.

The limitation of an older VA device such as the MS2000 or Roland JP8000, is that the processor is linear and relatively slow. If you want to change a filter and a waveform at the same time, the processor has to split those jobs up. Add in LFOs, polyphony, effects, etc, and it's a big job for the CPU. The sound suffers and the ability of the synth is limited.

With an analog synth, each part of the circuit is independent. A filter sweep has nothing to do with what an oscillator is doing. An analog synth is running parallel processes, not a single linear process.

I've been told that the Radias is amazing (haven't checked it out yet). I would think that in general, a digital synth made now would have a faster CPU than a ten year old machine.

I'm learning to love the MS2000 for what it can do. I've definitely hit some limitations on the machine, and I just recognize those limitations as part of the charm of the instrument.

I passed on the micro because I wanted full sized keys.

The motion sequencer is very cool.

Dave

Cool. The mini keys haven't bothered me that much. I've been more bothered by the sound focus of the machine in general, which are noises, space alien types, impressing me if I was still a teenager, by not while serious about music. The impression I got was that MS2000 is better targeted for actual music, not just some limited sub techno genre like the MK's patches. But perhaps the MK is programmable to achieve MS2000 patches though. O well.

The Radias hm, something other I've questions about, for another post. The bottom-line is, I'm sure not alone, is I prefer to be impressed by the presets. When you're a musicians, you're not that into programing you just want to play and record. But it's cool to program sounds if necessary, is why I got the MK. But the presets plain often suck. The MS2000's sound better.

[laikenf]

I bought the MS2000 because I wanted analog synth sounds, plus digital programming.

My next synth will be an actual analog synth with digital control.

The limitation of an older VA device such as the MS2000 or Roland JP8000, is that the processor is linear and relatively slow. If you want to change a filter and a waveform at the same time, the processor has to split those jobs up. Add in LFOs, polyphony, effects, etc, and it's a big job for the CPU. The sound suffers and the ability of the synth is limited.

With an analog synth, each part of the circuit is independent. A filter sweep has nothing to do with what an oscillator is doing. An analog synth is running parallel processes, not a single linear process.

I've been told that the Radias is amazing (haven't checked it out yet). I would think that in general, a digital synth made now would have a faster CPU than a ten year old machine.

I'm learning to love the MS2000 for what it can do. I've definitely hit some limitations on the machine, and I just recognize those limitations as part of the charm of the instrument.

I passed on the micro because I wanted full sized keys.

The motion sequencer is very cool.

Dave

Cool. The mini keys haven't bothered me that much. I've been more bothered by the sound focus of the machine in general, which are noises, space alien types, impressing me if I was still a teenager, by not while serious about music. The impression I got was that MS2000 is better targeted for actual music, not just some limited sub techno genre like the MK's patches. But perhaps the MK is programmable to achieve MS2000 patches though. O well.

The Radias hm, something other I've questions about, for another post. The bottom-line is, I'm sure not alone, is I prefer to be impressed by the presets. When you're a musicians, you're not that into programing you just want to play and record. But it's cool to program sounds if necessary, is why I got the MK. But the presets plain often suck. The MS2000's sound better.

But the beauty of ANY synthesizer lies within it's programmability, that is what they are for. A factory preset on any instrument will hardly ever give you that sound you are listening to in your head, because it is your sound that only you can reproduce. I've been able to get beautiful sounding patches out of my MK with very little effort, and as a matter of fact creating patches often leads me to great ideas for a song or track.

My point is you should learn how to patch no matter what synth. you choose to get, it will give you better control of what your overall sound will be like and it is also something that will only make you a better keyboardist; it's kind of sad when you listen to an artist and then notice THAT patch you've heard on other instruments or other songs (I've seen and heard plenty of those- youtube is full of them).

[magicd]

But the beauty of ANY synthesizer lies within it's programmability, that is what they are for. A factory preset on any instrument will hardly ever give you that sound you are listening to in your head...

My point is you should learn how to patch no matter what synth. you choose to get, it will give you better control of what your overall sound will be like and it is also something that will only make you a better keyboardist...

Amen!

The patches I use are generally based on stock presets, but have been heavily modified. Also, when I'm playing the MS, I'm usually changing parameters like crazy. Then I run it through a talk box and a guitar amp. Very organic.

Dave

[X-Trade]

But the beauty of ANY synthesizer lies within it's programmability, that is what they are for. A factory preset on any instrument will hardly ever give you that sound you are listening to in your head, because it is your sound that only you can reproduce. I've been able to get beautiful sounding patches out of my MK with very little effort, and as a matter of fact creating patches often leads me to great ideas for a song or track.

My point is you should learn how to patch no matter what synth. you choose to get, it will give you better control of what your overall sound will be like and it is also something that will only make you a better keyboardist

+1

Whats the point in buying a synthesizer if you don't want to synthesize? I think its kind of missing the point if you buy a synth for its presets. Most of the presets are usually too show-offey and not useable in a track anyway, they're there to show you what a synth can do.

Obviously with a budget synth like the MK there will always be people buying it expecting to get acoustic piano or for it to have loads of presets and not knowing anything about synths. The difference is between those that don't want to put any effort into getting the sounds they want, and those who are prepared to actually understand their instrument.

I've said this before too:
You wouldn't buy a guitar and not learn how to tune it would you? or buy pedals and not actually try to adjust the sound to get what you want? A synthesizer is not much more than a guitar and a bunch of pedals.

[microkorgy]

But the beauty of ANY synthesizer lies within it's programmability, that is what they are for. A factory preset on any instrument will hardly ever give you that sound you are listening to in your head, because it is your sound that only you can reproduce. I've been able to get beautiful sounding patches out of my MK with very little effort, and as a matter of fact creating patches often leads me to great ideas for a song or track.

My point is you should learn how to patch no matter what synth. you choose to get, it will give you better control of what your overall sound will be like and it is also something that will only make you a better keyboardist

+1

Whats the point in buying a synthesizer if you don't want to synthesize? I think its kind of missing the point if you buy a synth for its presets. Most of the presets are usually too show-offey and not useable in a track anyway, they're there to show you what a synth can do.

Obviously with a budget synth like the MK there will always be people buying it expecting to get acoustic piano or for it to have loads of presets and not knowing anything about synths. The difference is between those that don't want to put any effort into getting the sounds they want, and those who are prepared to actually understand their instrument.

I've said this before too:
You wouldn't buy a guitar and not learn how to tune it would you? or buy pedals and not actually try to adjust the sound to get what you want? A synthesizer is not much more than a guitar and a bunch of pedals.

Yea, I'm hoping learning to program it will give a better impression of it than now with its severe limitations! No piano, no beats, no what else? Knowing the Alesis micron has beats, sequencers and more. But I've heard that the MK can host MS2000 patches. Now, that'd be cool.
-cheers for all the advice