Why Kronos ?

[rrricky rrrecordo]

It wouldn't be practical to use a DAW on stage, or to jam with some friends, etc... The only keyboard which would be close in that experience, it's the neKo, but there's no comparision possible because it's far to be a Kronos!

I find that a DAW works well for me live. I run Logic on my Macs, but for live performance Logic is overkill (although the Mainstage app is pretty cool), so I just set up a template in GarageBand, assign AU instruments to tracks and I'm good to go.

Sure, a 4 gb piano streaming from KRONOS' ssd is cool, but I don't really need that with Ivory (way more than 4 gb) and Pianoteq on tap just a mouse click away. Synths? Covered. Organs and EPs... same. And with the microSTATION as a controller - laugh if you will but I've done a few gigs with just it and the MacBook - it all fits into a guitar gig bag... cables, pedals, audio interface, everything except the keyboard stand, but I think I've got that licked too with a little mod to a Pearl S-900 snare stand, heavy little buggers tho them S-900s As Boris the Blade points out in Snatch - "heavy is sign of reliability"

[SpIdErWeB]

It's not even a question to know if you can or can't do gig with another setup or with a DAW, if it works for you. Because if it does, good for you then. It's even not a question to know if YOU need two 4.7 streaming piano sounds and all features of the Kronos.

It's a question to compare what's comparable. Is the MacBook equivalent of a Kronos? No... You will need to an audio interface, a touchscreen controller, a master keyboad, then buy multiple VSTs that would cover the 9 synthesis of the Kronos, build your own Karma application and your own VST Host application designed for touchscreen, designed your system of dynamic allocation of voices, etc...

Well you will redo everything Open Labs already did and end up with a $6000 setup... Which is twice the Kronos price.

So can you play gig or at home with your MacBook+yada, yada, yada.... Absolutely!

Is that better than the Kronos? Not all, for instance there's no Karma and well designed host... But yes for others because the DAW such logic, cubase, etc.. are way better than Kronos sequencer.

Does it make the DAW setup comparable to a workstation? Absolutely not! The only one I do know that is close enough, it's the Open Labs neKo. But it's freaking heavy, big, expensive and it doesn't have the SSD with VMT, and integration of controller could be better, so it's far from the Kronos. But it's the only thing that would act like a workstation, and anyone who owns one know the difference with a computer+stuff setup.

In the end, you will choose whatever you want to use, and honestly it's your setup so only you can know what is the best for YOU. But when it comes to compare stuff, we need to compare what's comparable...

Phil

[Kontrol49]

The name Chronos,The Greek titan who did some very unpleasant things to his kids?

Quite a fitting Theme for the new Workstation really....


So whats the Greek word for a Japanese Manufacturer who did unpleasant things to Oasys buyers...

[synthguy]

First of all, the whole story of having wiring that give a different sound you can't get on a DAW... Myth! You can get a lot of EQ, Compressor and other summing system plugin, even tubes and stuff. When you know how to mix ITB, it sounds as good as OTB. It's easier and faster OTB (and even funnier IMHO), but you can get the sounds done ITB.

There are a lot of studio engineers and musicians who do their own recording who will disagree with this. Evidently you do too, or you would have sold your hardware you mentioned.

The second that you don't have AL-1 or VAST on a DAW... Myth. Of course you don't this exact model but you can have a lot of great plugin with real sound and low anti-aliasing too... and can also have modular system such reaktor or so... I think you probably (as you said) just don't have enough experience in that domain to know, but it's OK.

While there are some fantastic software synthesizers and sample players, there is a wild difference in sound between the ITB solutions and a couple of decades worth of hardware instruments.

My Roland JD-990 can't be duplicated in software, even if you sample perfectly all the rom waves. Neither can my Ensoniq synths, nor my K2000 or Radias. I could do patches which sound similar, but even then, they wouldn't play quite the same. And of course, once again you agree, otherwise you wouldn't mention...

I do use outboard gear (Neve 1084, LA2A, 1176, etc...) on several boards, such a DDA or a SSL Duality. There are Moog, Virus, 808, 909, 303, Nord, etc... As well as lots of plugin. So I do use both world and know differences between a real thing and a bad emulation. Arturia is good but far from the real thing... And I do love Arturia anyway.

So I guess in the end, we ultimately do agree with each other.

And on the KRONOS as well. While The K won't replace any of my hardware, I can easily see that, like my M3 did, it became the only composing tool I needed to turn on when I wanted to flesh out some music. Except KRONOS will do it much, much better, and I will need my other hardware instruments much less. Until it comes time to lay those tracks.

And by the way, Arturia's Moog's were close enough to be endorsed by Bob Moog himself, seeing as he helped out with their development.

[SpIdErWeB]

There are a lot of studio engineers and musicians who do their own recording who will disagree with this. Evidently you do too, or you would have sold your hardware you mentioned.

Oh yeah, endless debate on forums... In real world, anyone knows there's good plugins and bad plugins as well there's good outboard gear and piece of crap gear... And, if we talk only about sound, it is more than possible do have a mix done ITB that sounds as good as OTB. But outboard gear is funnier and quicker to find the sweet spot... But ITB is more convenient when you work on several project at the time and don't want to spend 2h everytime to recall the board and use the recall sheet to setup the outboard gear... That's why 80% of the mix at the studio are done ITB.

My Roland JD-990 can't be duplicated in software, even if you sample perfectly all the rom waves. Neither can my Ensoniq synths, nor my K2000 or Radias. I could do patches which sound similar, but even then, they wouldn't play quite the same. And of course, once again you agree, otherwise you wouldn't mention...

I disagree... Any sound module could be reproduced in software, including imperfection on components or weak DAC, etc... It's matter of power and CPU/DSP cycle. Dan wrote a very good article about that btw...

The Oasys or Kronos sounds are made the same way than a VST, using different OS, difference algorythmns, etc... but not differently of any VST... It's a piece of software that is creating the sound... But that's good stuff and well done the same there's good VST also. Look, the MS20EX is a great example of software version of an hardware unit.

Again the point is not to know if we can or can't have similar sounds, because we virtually can have any sounds... The point is to know if we can have any "all-in-one" solution that is providing the same features and quality of the Kronos, regardless if it's a hardware keyboard or DAW setup... And the reply is: NO

Regarding the Moog, I do hear differences with Arturia, which is still really good and I like it (because it's still very usable). They should redo it with today's power to be even closer on imperfections... Again, it's all matter of power to reproduce to the point human being can't gear any differences... It's virtually possible and the case sometimes. The Moog might be close but I hear differences... The same way I hear differences between a Chandler "1073 replica" and a real authentic 1073, or between a new UA 1176 and the original Urei 1176...

So I guess in the end, we ultimately do agree with each other.

I agree that a keyboard such the Kronos doesn't have an equivalent, both hardware or DAW solution.

I disagree to say we can get in software the equivalent sounds of an hardware machines. It is possible but it will require power, good programing, good sound designing, etc... And that's what I expect to get when I pay for a Kronos which has all of that.

It's maybe just semantic or details for you, but everything is in the details

Phil

[synthguy]

Spider, I can certainly sympathize with what you're saying, but I think you're shooting your argument in the foot when you bring up Arturia. You go on and on about how wonderfully all this modern software replicates hardware, but then say,

Regarding the Moog, I do hear differences with Arturia, which is still really good and I like it (because it's still very usable). They should redo it with today's power to be even closer on imperfections...

Well, they are using it with today's power. I have an Origin which uses some of the latest technology, at least of M3 vintage. And it does sound amazingly close, so close that I'm not stashing pennies away for a real Moog, or ARP, or other synth.

But the problem is when you dismiss others saying the Waves software is darn close, but still something's missing with their emulations, or any other software clone you could bring up. A number of guitarists love to use the virtual amps of one make or other, but many of them also refuse to use them and insist on miking up a prized guitar cabinet they own because the virtual stuff just doesn't play exactly the same. Very few serious studios would dream of using mike modeling over the real deal.

See, they're saying the same thing you are about Arturia's synth modeling. And we both agree that if I had a Voyager handy, or even an Andromeda, or say a Matrix-12, I should use that instead of relying on my Origin to imitate it. Okay, I don't, and the Origin is close enough that the differences are almost meaningless in musical terms. Mix it in with other instruments galloping along, and a Moog owner might be hard pressed to know the difference. It certainly sounds closer to a Moog than my Virus, which does sound great too, but not quite as close. But if I didn't have my Origin, I'd sure use it.

It's true that my digital synths are all software riding along in a custom built computer made just for hosting it. But Reaktor couldn't recreate my JD-990, and I don't care for Reaktor anyway because I'm not fond of the filters. And its filters sound nothing like the ones in the JD. And this is what you'd need to recreate the JD-990 right, the original JD-990 code and wave samples, or as close as you could fudge it.

But then, if you fudged it, it might not sound quite right. Different filter formulas are going to produce different numbers, and those will make different sounds. Just like even with Bob Moog himself working with Arturia until he was happy with the Moog Modular emulation, you can still hear something that isn't there, or isn't quite right. Fortunately, I haven't been around a Moog for years, so I'm plenty happy with it. Just like you're happy with all your software you use, because spending the money to get the original gear might cost a king's ransom.

There have been a few who say the original MS-20 sounds just a scouche different to the MS-20 in the OASYS. But most agree that it's just about the same, so why quibble? Especially when you don't have to have a tech fuss with it every few years. I own an old CS-50, and man, does it need to be fussed with...

Anyway, the point of all this is to say that software is awesome and all, but even if it emulates to the point of hair splitting differences, it doesn't do it all. I have hundreds of patches on my old gear that no software will ever be able to duplicate, because there is no direct equal of any of it in any softsynth. The only stuff that can is the Yamaha FM recreations. But there are no Kurzweil emulations anywhere, no Ensoniqs, so I keep them and use them in ways no one else will ever be able to, even if they had the same synths. It's my way of having my own musical identity. So when I get my KRONOS, I intend to dive in head first and explore all these "nine synth engines" and start making original sounds, so that save for a patch here and there, the sounds it makes are uniquely my own. The pianos... well, I'll see what I can do to personalize them just a bit.

Music is all about making pleasing sounds anyway. The hardware - and software - are just tools, and there's no right or wrong tool. Well, mostly, but misusing tools gave us guitar feedback, after all.

[SpIdErWeB]

I won't quote/reply every single detail, because it will probably take forever and even more off-topic that we already are, however, I think there's a lot of misinterpretations/misunderstandings:

- I haven't and won't pronounce myself about Origin, because I don't have it, and even if I do know Arturia's CEO and did test the Origin quickly during a trade shows, I don't have enough experience with it and haven't compare it A to B with the real instruments for instance. I'm talking about the Moog VST, compared to the Voyager.

- "close enough"... well, that's a subjective argument. So if one hasn't been close to a real Moog, one could easily think it's "close enough" to the real thing... the same way that not everyone hear the same and one could hear stuff other don't. True!

- In Practice: from what I heard on A/B test myself on studio, there's differences I can hear. If you use the Arturia VST for pads or background stuff in a mix, it will be great (and that's why I love Arturia), but if you want use it for a bass/lead, one could hear differences. When I did a song for a Pussycat dolls last year, we end up to re-record the leads I did at home with plugins, with the Voyager and the virus... because on this song WE (not only I) could hear the difference during the mix. In the other hand, I did other songs for other artists, using plugins only and there was no need to record synth again. Is that better on the Origin, I have no clue so I won't pronounce myself on that product. It surely looks interesting, at least for the flexible modular routing system...

- In Theory: there's no reason a software version of a synth wouldn't sound as good as the hardware version, when you reproduce every component, including imperfections. That's actually what you claim yourself with the Arturia and Moog... So why would it be different in the case of your JD-990? You can read a great article well written by Dan, I discover lately, here ( Myth 7 & 8 ): http://emusician.com/mag/emusic_debunki ... dio_myths/

I quote the conclusion of Myth 8:

There is no theoretical reason why hardware should sound different from software. Any differences you encounter are most likely the results of comparing apples and oranges, because few products are offered in identical hardware and software forms.

And that's why there's no comparison between the AL-1 (for instance) and a DAW, because there's no DAW version of the AL-1, the same way there's no DAW version of the VAST and so on.

However, when manufactures want to do it, they can do it. We could for instance compare the MS20 VST with the MS20 on the Kronos (both applied directly on WAV internally to not take the different DAC in count since Oasys/Kronos DAC are not separately available for MAC/PC).

The factor of "being as close as possible to the real thing" is only a matter of calculation power. If Roland tomorrow decides to recreate your JD-990 in VST, they could do it as close to your real expander that you and I won't hear the differences if they well do the job.
The question then is: Do we technically have the power? Well, today I think so... I did work with (not for) EMU R&D, back in the days, to use the Proteus software, I actually did a compare with my old racks at the time (Orbit, Mo'Phatt, Xtreme Lead, Virtuoso and Proteus 2000), it was actually pretty good. I did a blind test A/B compare of same sounds on two different tracks and show it to people to try to find which one is the hardware or the software... results were surprising. Even thought the software itself wasn't well written, at least the filters and all audio signal path were pretty good.

- Another example, since you mention Waves, I have done test at the studios (and I'm not the only one) to compare the Duality 48 Channel Strip to the Waves SSL Channel Strip, and in this case they are close enough for majority of pro users... so close than even SSL themselves use it with the Duende.

- Some of us don't hear differences between a dog and a cat, some do hear differences, even between two different versions/revisions of hardware. So, it all depend how your expectations are, how deep you want to go to be as close to the real thing... and all of that will just consume more power. That's why some crappy Sample Player plugin can have 512 voices of polyphonies when the HD-1 will "only" got 172 voices with the same CPU... But in one hand the sound won't be as good as the HD-1, and won't have low anti-aliasing and crystal clear sound... Because all of that features do consume CPU/DSP cycle and requires knowledge in R&D that not every bedroom developers have.

- In the case of Guitar Amp, there's not a single solution that I know close enough. The only two products would probably be the Axe-FX from fractal design, and the promising Kemper profiling Amp (but nobody did real A/B compare it yet in real situation, but I will surely do and compare it to the Mark V, Twin Deluxe, Lonestar and other Amps available in the studio).

Anyway, the point of all this is to say that software is awesome and all, but even if it emulates to the point of hair splitting differences, it doesn't do it all. I have hundreds of patches on my old gear that no software will ever be able to duplicate, because there is no direct equal of any of it in any softsynth. The only stuff that can is the Yamaha FM recreations. But there are no Kurzweil emulations anywhere, no Ensoniqs, so I keep them and use them in ways no one else will ever be able to, even if they had the same synths. It's my way of having my own musical identity. So when I get my KRONOS, I intend to dive in head first and explore all these "nine synth engines" and start making original sounds, so that save for a patch here and there, the sounds it makes are uniquely my own.

Again I agree but I think you're missing the point in explication. Having custom/personal sound/patch could again be remade on a software version if one would absolutely find his personal patches, so it's not relevant...

The point is here: YES, there's no Kurzweil emulation the same way there's no Kronos emulation... and that, I fully agree and that's what I'm debating here since day one.

Even if some aspects of the keyboard could be find here and there, close or far from the real thing, equivalent or not, better or not, there's nothing that is proposing the equivalent to the whole keyboard by itself since some parts/features/etc... are just not available... period.

Phil

[synthguy]

Again I agree but I think you're missing the point in explication. Having custom/personal sound/patch could again be remade on a software version if one would absolutely find his personal patches, so it's not relevant...

While I agree with you on that point, Phil, that's the problem, isn't it? There are no software replications. And we're actually discussing two different things here.

On the software side, yes, all digital synths use software, and thus in their core are software. Likewise, digital reverbs, EQs, compressors and other effects are just very clever programs. If Lexicon decided to sell their proprietary effect code, then someone made their own plugin, then yes, they would have the same sound as someone who used a PCM-80 and recorded it digitally. Likewise, as you mentioned, if Roland decided to repackage the JD-990 in a new synth, and didn't change the code, it would sound exactly the same if recorded digitally. The same with Ensoniq synths. Code is code, and samples are samples, if they remain unchanged.

Of course both of these examples depend on whether or not these concepts were realized in hardware, then DAC quality would come into play. Lexicon and Kurzweil are renowned for using superb converters. Roland's reissued JD could be better or worse, depending on how much they wanted to spend on quality output electronics. So on this point, we agree.

But then comes this hardware emulation stuff. This is a completely different picture from replicating software with software. As you yourself said:

Another example, since you mention Waves, I have done test at the studios (and I'm not the only one) to compare the Duality 48 Channel Strip to the Waves SSL Channel Strip, and in this case they are close enough for majority of pro users... so close than even SSL themselves use it with the Duende.

And,

some do hear differences, even between two different versions/revisions of hardware. So, it all depend how your expectations are, how deep you want to go to be as close to the real thing... and all of that will just consume more power.

And,

In the case of Guitar Amp, there's not a single solution that I know close enough.

You mentioned using a Virus on a track or so for the Pussycat Dolls along with a Voyager to replace stuff you'd done with software at home. Now, if someone were looking for advice on a Moog, most people would either recommend one of the Studio Electronics rack clones, a Voyager or a good used Minimoog. Probably not a Virus or an Origin, even though you like the Arturia stuff, and could get close enough with a Virus.

When I got my Virus KC, I enthused that it could almost out-Moog a Moog, because it can have one more oscillator for crazy powerful leads and basses, and the Moog filter does sound very good. I got my Radias sometime after, and was even more delighted because I thought I had a fantastic combo which could capture just about all the flavors of synthesis in two instruments, from Moog and Prophet, through Oberheim, Roland and ARP, with even some CS-80 thrown in.

A CS-80 owner took me to task on that, telling me that neither one sounded anything like a CS-80. Sounds familiar. And to be sure, if I had a CS-80 on hand, I really doubt I could nail anything perfectly on either synth. Or a Moog on the Virus, or an Oberheim on the Radias. But as with your music example you posted, I think I can get close enough. I thought both synths sounded pretty darn analog.

Or I thought they did... until I bought my Origin. I thought the Arturia softsynths sounded just dandy, but from the mp3 demos, I wasn't hearing anything that made me think I was listening to an original Mini or Modular. But when I had the unit itself, and could fiddle with it, my eyes were opened.

You think Arturia didn't go far enough, and that's fine. You found a sound that was a little better for whatever reason on your Virus, and I can see that. It is very good. But I notice you still have a Voyager.

And I think this is the hair-splitting point. I'm not quibbling about the value of all these software emulations. The tube and tape saturation emulators, vintage compressors, Massenberg and Oxford EQs, SSL channel strips, the virtual guitar amps and synthesizers, all serve us well and are way more convenient than their hardware counterparts. Especially as you mentioned that when you call up a session, the computer remembers everything just as you left it. And variations on all of them are a preset away.

And listen, I'm there with you. I do my stuff on my friend's Pro Tools rig, and after I get my KRONOS and speaker situation sorted, I'm considering going the Cubase route with a Presonus mixer front end, along with a bunch of plugins.

But, if my pal had an SSL or Euphonix system, I'd forget all that and just use his studio in his free time. Because, even though theoretically, any audio software should be able to replicate any sound perfectly, all these vintage units still in use around the world are testament that it's still not quite a reality.

While my Origin won't perfectly replace a Moog Modular, there's no way I could afford one right now. I have to scrounge up the cash for a KRONOS sometime this spring as it is. And then, my K won't replace my Origin, or anything else I own, but I'll be happy to see how much less I need those other toys as I see how far I can push The Big Guy.

[SpIdErWeB]

Just a little misunderstanding: When I did my track I did use the Arturia and another vst supposed to have sounds "like" the Virus... And in the end, we used the Voyager and the Virus to replace both of them... I haven't use the Voyager to replace the virus, or vice versa...

For the rest, I think we agree, code is code, and differences comes then to imperfections which include things such DAC, 'random' oscillator stability, etc...

For instance, Lexicon did release a plugin and it's actually pretty close to the 480L... so, it's all about being "close enough", I agree. Don't get me wrong, I don't critic anyone, and surely not Arturia... the Origin and the new Spark are on my Wishlist...

But, if my pal had an SSL or Euphonix system, I'd forget all that and just use his studio in his free time. Because, even though theoretically, any audio software should be able to replicate any sound perfectly, all these vintage units still in use around the world are testament that it's still not quite a reality.

Well, it's indeed not yet the case for absolutely everything or every single piece of gear... but after a while, you realize than only for few major projects you really need and want to use the console with all outboard gear.

And BTW, I still have gear, because I don't resell anymore... I had to resell stuff to buy something new and resell it later to buy another one, etc... I did this little "dance" so many time by the past, now I'm just tired and just prefer to keep everything, even if I need more time to buy any new stuff...

Phil

[synthguy]

Okay, I understand you now. And I'm sure in agreement with you on not selling gear anymore. I've regretted every sale I've made, and hope to buy it all back in a year or so.

As for recording... well, everything I do is a major production. I refuse to record guitars in mono. So I go through the hassle of toting recording hardware to my cramped bedroom studio, run extension cords to far outlets, turn on way too much stuff, and have at it. While nothing is ready to share just yet, and may not be till after I get the KRONOS, I intend to throw myself into it and have at least a part of two new album projects done this year. My brother married a Japanese woman who's classically trained on the piano, and I hope to coax her into helping with this stuff. Maybe a KRONOS would impress her. After all, she likes the M3.

Anyhow, to bring this all back to the question, "Why KRONOS?" I think you answered it pretty well. Nothing in the KRONOS can be duplicated except by an OASYS, and not completely even that. Just the thought of having access to the AL-1 and MOD-7 run through an effects rack with up to 16 effects is it?... has me all giddy with anticipation. And then there are those other 7 engines to blow my musical doors right off their hinges.

Does the question even seriously need to be asked anymore?

[robinkle]

Comparing Analog synths with their Software companions is very much impossible. Take Minimoog from the 70s. Compare two original Minimoogs and they won't sound the same. Back in the old days they used the components they had availbale, and often not the same, but similar. I'm pretty sure the Arturia Minimoog V sounds about the same as one of the Originals.

[jimknopf]

I doubt the latter very much, but we can agree we are happy how close emulations have come meanwhile.

[robinkle]

I doubt the latter very much, but we can agree we are happy how close emulations have come meanwhile.

Then try for yourself then. Compare two minimoogs and take a look at their circuits like i did.

[rrricky rrrecordo]

It's a question to compare what's comparable. Is the MacBook equivalent of a Kronos? No... You will need to an audio interface, a touchscreen controller, a master keyboad, then buy multiple VSTs that would cover the 9 synthesis of the Kronos, build your own Karma application and your own VST Host application designed for touchscreen, designed your system of dynamic allocation of voices, etc...

True - maybe - but many Mac users - myself included - have been in the music biz for quite some time and have amassed some serious hardware and software arsenals along the way. Dude, I run five Macs and a shitload of plugins in my studios, so something like the Kronos - or the OASYS for that matter - just doesn't turn my crank. I have controllers. I have interfaces. Soft synths galore. Drum machines. Twenty-something hardware keyboards - 2 Wurlies, Hammond, a Petrof grand and a Samick upright, lots of synths and workstations from days gone by. I can do many things with my setups that would be impossible to do on these two monster workstations; and surely they can do some things more easily that I can do.

As for building my own Karma application, no need - Stephen Kay has built me a more advanced version than that found in either OASYS or Kronos - Karma 3 for Motif XS/XF. If he sells me a copy, that is

Ya, Kronos is a shiny new and highly capable workstation, but it ain't for me. If I was just getting into music for the first time though, I'm sure I'd have pre-ordered one by now

But live, all I need is my Macbook Pro, UA-101 and either my Motif XS or microSTATION to control it all, and for me that's as good as it gets.

[jimknopf]

I doubt the latter very much, but we can agree we are happy how close emulations have come meanwhile.

Then try for yourself then. Compare two minimoogs and take a look at their circuits like i did.

A misunderstanding:
I don't doubt the difference between Minimoogs at all, since I know that very well. I still doubt that Arturia comes as close, as two Model Ds would, despite their differences. Arturias Mini is close, but not THAT close for my ears.