Korg Forums

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:08 am**

Interesting read,

I would like to see long file names. I honestly can't remember what ACDWJ-12.SNG is, without loading it into memory. Too bad for me if I forgot to save those patches I've been working on for days.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:55 am**

domc wrote: - frustrated that the current seq is in many ways a decade behind where you could imagine it to be (based on current hardware and software products)
- frustrated that even things that should be very easy to implement (ff/rew in stop mode, more locators, pattern edits alla sharp) haven't been done
- frustrated that the synth engines surpass all other products out there, but they're not teamed with a likewise capable seq system and that you often have to turn to other things to sequence them, play with them
- frustrated that we were sold the concept of a standalone "open studio" which in most ways it is, but when you get into it you realise you can't do some basic things in the sequencer that you take for granted on other systems
- and frustrated that despite thousands of posts, that there is such a lack of decent dialogue about this subject when many believe that an improvement in this area would lead to increased sales of the Oasys to the benefit of everyone including KORG.

Spot on Domc, in fact the first point is most valid and this is why I keep saying Korg are missing out here and should look at it with more detail.

Lets look at a simple example shall we.....I fully understand from a programmers perspective what Stephen is saying in regard to altering architecture for changing what is seen as something simple ie. 480ppq but we the customer genrally have no idea what it must be like to code for the OASYS,we just think it must be very simple but......and there always is one...

....why as it taken Korg until the M3 to get round to improving its sequencer resolution.Other companies have had this feature for many years before Korg and regardless of whether company x is doing this or that would'nt it be in KORG's best interest to stay at least in competition with these companies and not lagg behind.Really if were gonna be hyper critical this should have been done years before.

So with that in mind lets track back to 2005....Korg releases the OASYS and every aspect of it screams 21st century but there is still that seq tucked away in the unit given a little few enhancements here and there,its not a bad seq but wait this is software based,open architechture so the customer looks at the OASYS in a totally different light.It is marketed as not just a product for now but for years to come,wow the possibilities could be endless.Some would say"buy for what it can do for you now not what is promised" but wait a sec,hold a minute...it is Korg who are selling it for what it does now and what it will be capable of in the future.Its the anchor to its marketing.

I dont mean to come across as though Im ripping into Korg or anyone behind the OASYS team because I love the machine and Korg are a great company but and I'm sure some will agree on me with this one that the "Open" tag to the OASYS is only ever gonna apply to the "E" suffix.As for the OS itself it will only ever see minor improvements and that is a dam shame.

From comments left here by people who know more about coding and development than us I think we can take that to the bank.

I still say the OASYS has the ability to host the best hardware seq on the market,if Korg have the will to improve it,somehow though I dont think they have.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:52 pm**

Money talks. Korg sees Oasys as simply not feasible to run the piano roll seq with higher PPQ yet. I bet the sale of Oasys has not met the expectation to justify the cost of R&D for a whole new sequencer. Also, I have a feeling that korg is spending more than its share on costly oversea operations as well. But it still has a few empty banks left to fill in. That's an easy cash inflow opportunity for Korg to implement such mouth salivating synth and organ patches. Not to mention same ol' arppegio scheme thoughout. Last but not least, we've had too many owners and non-owners of the Oasys on this site who did their best to supress the complaints another legit Oasys owners had. So it makes sense for Korg not to pursue major improvements on seq for now. Someone certainly will take their own bitter cup of medicine.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:09 pm**

Synergy wrote:Last but not least, we've had too many owners and non-owners of the Oasys on this site who did their best to suppress the complaints another legit Oasys owners had.

Who is suppressing our complaints/feedback ?

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:16 pm**

Who is suppressing our complaints/feedback ?

Daz, I guess killing his cat was not enough. This one is still talking!

You had better send in that Irish kid. Im sure he can bring him around to our point of view.

:3devil:

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:26 pm**

Daz wrote:
Synergy wrote:Last but not least, we've had too many owners and non-owners of the Oasys on this site who did their best to suppress the complaints another legit Oasys owners had.
Who is suppressing our complaints/feedback ?

Synergy wrote:Even those blinded Oasys fanatics who used to witch hunt for people who complained anything about the Oasys including the sequencer are complaining about the sequencer.

Synergy wrote:It's unfortunate that some unwise decisions made this otherwise a perfect instrument a half empty and fueling depreciation. By the way, it looks as if though a well known Korg follower is wagging a tail between his legs.

A year or two ago, there was a lot of witchhunting. But, it was coming from critics. If you are an owner, who actually likes the OASYS (me!), you tend to build a thick skin, so you can even talk about it. I thought it would be safe to do so on an OASYS dedicated forum.

Just for the record, I have responded to quite a few OASYS comments, here, Sweetwater, Harmony Central, KLF. I'm probably one of the persons that you elude to.

I don't lie about the OASYS and I don't get into arguements, over at Harmony Central, as I actually like most of those people and do understand where they are coming from. Any synth geek is someone I admire. On that forum, my responses are pretty technical or revealing something about the instrument that people don't know about. Over here, I'm comfortable, so I let the enthusiasm flow, more.

No sense in arguing about the price. I admitted that the OASYS should be less, etc. My favorite VA is the Virus and I've been dreaming about the Q+ Phoenix (and its analogue filters, which can make 8 pole sweeps, when chained). On the other hand, I love having 3 VAs, on the OASYS, as that helps quench my analogue cravings. Per my examples, I'm not going to say that it can sound like everything else, though.

What may sound like "tail wagging" about the sequencer, is the fact that while I'm asking for improvements, I have also worked on about 130 songs on it. That kind of repetition has helped me find a workflow, with what tools it has. It has definite advantages, with Tone Adjust and sysex knobs, sliders, switches, which is why I say it surpasses the Triton sequencer. I try to share that kind of info.

My Yamaha/E-MU loyalties have shifted firmly to the Korg camp. While the Motif XS has gone totally rompler and dropped FM and Physical modelling, Korg is making engines that I like.

Bottom line, the OASYS is the only synth I actually need, but not the only one I'm G.A.S.sing for.

I have to admit, I have been known to "tail wag," in the past. I turned into a dog, once:

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:40 pm**

Witch hunting, cups of poison, transfiguration ... LOL, have you boys been hitting the Harry Potter a bit hard or something

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:08 pm**

Mike, the tail I was implying don't even look like yours. The truth is you have one heck of a tail (and fine set of fangs & paws). Rather I was implying hyaena like tails. You'll know who they are as these hungry packs can smell blood hundreds of miles away and start to circle around you.

Posted: **Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:48 pm**

Gotcha, Synergy. I'm pretty vocal, so my guilty conscience was kicking in. Sorry. I couldn't resist the "wag" opportunity to post some pics, though.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:47 am**

StephenKay wrote:
Daz wrote:
StephenKay wrote:480 ppq? A fundamental change that affects every single function of the sequencer.
As we're talking about this from a programmers perspective ...

I am surprised that the PPQN resolution figure isn't just defined as a constant somewhere in a shared header file and all the related math is driven off that constant. Having changed the constant you run your scheduler 2.5 times faster and you should be done, as long as your processor is able to keep with the higher resolution timing.

Daz.
It's absolutely not that simple, don't ask me why. I know for a fact it took a whole bunch of time and work when they did it for the M3.

Probably, a lot of it had to do with legacy code written a certain way. I mean, I know updating from 240 to 300 BPM was a larger change than one might expect due to the fact that 240 is within the range of a byte and 300 is not (takes 2 bytes). Older embedded processor code (from which the OASYS sequencer is descended) tends to be written in a very "stingy" fashion (as opposed to stuff you or I might write for Mac OS X.)

192 is within range of a byte. 480 is not. Likely this is a large part of it. The ripple effect from having to check every single function for loops that use bytes as counters, variables that hold the results of calculations based on 192, all would have to be checked and rewritten in some cases....

Note: I'm only speculating, I'm not sure how much of an issue that this is.

But obviously, if they *could* just change a constant and recompile it, and it works, they would do that.

I forgot to say ... thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Whilst, as you say you're only speculating, it was still very useful information.

Daz.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:46 am**

Posted: **Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:26 am**

Sina172 wrote:And in response to Stephen Kay, the goddess of the OASYS that made it what it is today (you know what I mean ), you sound like it's too difficult or time consuming in Korg's defense.

Ermmm...attempting to follow in the spirit of your enthusiasm, that would be "god" (unless my sexuality is in doubt, but I haven't ever had any confusion about that aspect, I'm happy to report.)

Well, I suppose I did dress in "kind of women's stuff" in one-glam-rock band in the 70's or 80s', but hey, I was just "doin' the gig."

I'm not trying to hand Korg a cop-out, I'm just trying to alert people to the fact that this stuff isn't easy, no matter how much you stomp and say "but it's easy, everybody has it!" etc. I would like changes too. My personal pet-peeve is that you can't record a track into the sequencer of simply chords, let's say, and then send that track into a KARMA Module and use it like a plug-in. I do this all the time with MOTU on the Mac (my external sequencer of choice at the moment.) So I would like to see change as well, but being somewhat more on the inside than most of you, I also have the perspective of knowing that none of this stuff is "simple". That's all.

Posted: **Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:49 am**

Sina172 wrote:
domc wrote:
thekeymaster wrote:
Having said that, I've been using the OASYS sequencer a LOT in the last few days. It's definitely easier to work with (thanks to the enormous 10.4" screen ). It's not necessarily a "bad" sequencer. It just needs SO much more. Part of the reason why the O:

Sina..

With reference to your other post in another section about the Roland MV8800,I bought one of these recently,because I needed a better sequencer per se,I've been using the Korg stuff since the M1,but have become "Bored" with the sequencers,there pretty dire nowadys and even more so now the Oasys still has no more advancement into a studio realm designed platform,yes it is easy to use,but I have never got into a decent workflow with them whatsoever,there was always a limitation within each W/S that prevented me from taking the sequences to the next step,I always had to manipulate them via a PC platform,which I never really wanted to do,I'm hardware fan through and through,the MV8800 has given me back that wish and desire to return to a totally Hardware based system,even though it still utilises a Mouse and VGa if you still wish to operate like that,but theres the choice and thats what I liked

But beleive me,if you can afford the MV8800,buy it,you will not be dissapointed....

after using this a week or so,I have finally realised how poor the Korg workstation sequencer is,Yes the MV8800 may not have a touchscreen or a screen even as big as the Triton,but take it from me,its a damn site easy to work with and far more logical to manipulate,and has as much defintion to its menus as a software based application,I mean the Oasys doesn't even allow the writing of System exclusive codes FFS.

There is a drum editor which works in a typical Electribe or Roland TR style and you can input the notes like the Electribe system with each of the 16 pads represeting a step in the bar,something that maybe the Oasys could have on the 8 pads(if there ever will be an included drum editor matrix)

The Oasys way of doing things is very slow,sure it can do possibly about 70% of what the MV does,and the MV is a dedicated sequencer whereas the Oasys has more to it,but by the time you have got round to achieving the same result you've lost your idea or got fed up setting it up to do a simple task,the MV is immediate and thats where the workflow and ideas work together easily and without losing track of what your doing,each function has a logical way to how its structured and this helps you to keep working without losing concentration or losing where you are.

when I was starting out writing with the M1 in the early 90s this was fine,but as my work methods have become more demanding the Sequencers have lagged behind,I kind of stuck with them becuae I didn''t want to learn a new way of working,and then find that maybe I had wasted so much time relearning that I could have stuck with the typical Methods and carried on with my work flow

I can do what I want within the Oasys,but I don't have time for fiddly methods I want a better graphical representation and want to manipulate my ideas without having to kill my enthusiasm in the process,I love the Touchscreen,but thats not enough,I'm quite happy to work with a smaller screen so long as the unit its working for me,not against me,I have never had any problems using the Triton, or Oasys or any of the other Korgs,I'm just sick of the dinosaur methods,Personally Korg have got to the point where they place more focus on sound Quality than presenting a real sequence users tool,which Ok,I want a machine that sounds nice,but I also want a decent sequence platform,not have to still rely on a Computer,which in all fairness is ok for most,but I thought the apsect of a workstaiton is that its a self contained environment,but over the years the workstation badge has moved further and further away from the all in one ideology.

I'm sorry if anyone feels I shouldn't be slating the Oasys or any other W/S,I'm not its the sequence aspect that sucks thats all,And I challenge any of you who say you enjoy the Oasys or Triton sequencers to go and check out the MV8800 for yourselves,you'd realise how limited and wimpy the Korg really is in comparison,and Korg have a lot to answer for,I'm a long time Korg user,having some 17 years under my belt so,although many of you may sneer or look down your nose at my opinions on the W/S ,those points I address are not based on a Quick go on a workstation,I have many years using them,I still have 6 Korg workstations,and countless other Korg synths and I for one would not base my view lightly unless I meant it,I don't work or have any connection with Roland So its not like its a promo to sales by Hype

check one out for yourselves,the MV is a breath of fresh air in the sequence stakes.. And don't be influenced by its Rap or Hiphop badge,I don't make any of those types of music,but the way it works suits me perfect

Yes sure the MV8800 has the external VGA and Mouse and these are brilliant,plus the MV controls work as a sort of control surface as well whilst you are running the VGA/Software work route,so you can still work in a hardware type of way interacting with the VGA method,something that maybe the Oasys could benefit from(seeing as there is a monitor port on the back???)

the best of both worlds option is great because you can run it in software mode with Mouse and VGA but not be tied to using the Mouse all the time,the controls on the Unit still work in the same way if you run it with the VGA or standalone,so although you can run it in a software method the way it interacts means you can learn to use it standlone and then not have to learn another system for the menus etc, when running the VGA,a very logical system,a good Stable Hardware based system that works like a PC,without having to rely on a computer...

I'm not slagging Korg off before anyone flames me,I will always retain a certain amount of respect for Korg after all it was the sounds that got me into their gear anyway,but I'm afraid unless they take a look at other designs to there workstation sequencer Platform or seriously update the Oasys,my studio will never see a future Korg Workstation again,and for someone whos been an Avid Hardcore Korg user for 17 years and always stayed Faithful to Korg in that time,that is a very hard decision,I so want Korg to be the top of the line for Sequencers But sadly the Flame is starting the flicker into Oblivion unles something radical is done to bring the Sequencer up to date.

Ok I appreciate that it can't be done overnight,but Korg have worn the Workstation badge since the M1,Which was almost 20 years ago!!!yet the sequencer itself hasn't advanced that much past the Trinity stage,Ok if it isn't broken then don't fix it,fair comment but thats not to say you can't improve upon it,the fact that this thread has run up to 9 pages already and I dare say will continue for a while yet,there are so many users frustrated with the sequencer,that surely Korg can take some points on board.
I so want Oasys to be the best thing on the market and be the centre piece of my studio,hopefully with the Open architecture it can be,but for the time being I can only sit back and dream and carry on sequencing with the MV8800

Posted: **Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:19 pm**

Thanks Stephen for your comments. Ok, so its complex to work on the existing code of the O's sequencer, and Korg have specialist engineers who have produced the best Exi, Exs, and still to come, Exf, and the sequencer has been ported over from the previous models.

What of the future then in terms of the next generation Os and Ms ( M3 M4? ) Will Korg make a move to build a new sequencer (from the ground up) for the next generation of Synths ( say by 2010, 2011 - which incidently isnt that far away ) Looks like they need to employ a sequencer specialist

Actually, can a new sequencer be built for the current O? Dis-engage the existing sequencer and drop in a new sequencer with an upgrade?

Billy

Posted: **Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:01 pm**

Kontrol49 wrote:There is a drum editor which works in a typical Electribe or Roland TR style and you can input the notes like the Electribe system with each of the 16 pads representing a step in the bar,something that maybe the Oasys could have on the 8 pads(if there ever will be an included drum editor matrix)

At least on the Triton you could use the arp editor to cover that essential function. I just don't understand why they removed that when adding KARMA. As the Oasys brief was "S-Class" surely it wouldn't have been over the top to include the luxury of both KARMA 2.0 and dual arps.

Daz.

Korg Forums

Sequencer might be good for demo's... but thats about it.