Kevin Nolan wrote:The AL-1 does not cover the same ground as the Radias. DO NOT REPLACE YOUR RADIAS!!!!
I'm an OASYS owner and lover, but the Radias is special for its own reasons and cannot be replaced by the OASYS.
...
But all I can say to you at this stage (as a non-Radias owner but who has tried out several times) - the Radias must stay!! (and having two of them requires no qualification if you see a use for them).
Kevin.
I'm curious to hear what you think it is that makes the Radias unique and "special". Particularly over AL-1.
I've considered numerous times that from where I am now (with a number of rack/hardware including the Radias and software synths controlled by the KARMA workstation), the only upgrade path for me would be to sell everything and replace it with the M3 or the OASYS. Naturally I find the OASYS more of an interesting option as I fell in love the moment Korg announced it.
Personally I think keeping everything in one box is a good idea so what would be lost in replacing the Radias with the OASYS' AL-1?
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
The key difference is "Formant Motion" (though there are others too). The Radias uses significantly unique filtering technology to implement this feature and it isn't on the OASYS. From the 2 to 3 hours spent on a Radias (I don't own one); I could hear that the Radias was capable in ways that no synth engine on the OASYS (or the likes of the Virus) can match.
The Radias sounds, to me, 'alive' and 'luminous' because of this technology. It is quite unique among hardware synths and if I hadn't invested heavily in other necessary technologies I'd have a Radias already (and fully intend acquiring one eventually). So I'd recommend not to sell your Radias - it is a gem of an instrument.
Don't get me wrong - the AL-1 is magnificent. Its oscillators and filters are among the very best among virtual-analogue synths. From the low-alias oscillators to the incredibly smooth and flexible filters and huge modulation possibilities, the step sequencers etc, the AL-1 is simply magnificent. But the Radias is something different - its got its own unique, strong character that I'm confident that if you replaced it you would miss it.
If you don't mind me commenting on your consideration to repalce gear with an OASYS - I'd recommend that you check out the OASYS first before you do that. I think the OASYS is great but it certainly is not replacing my other instruments, and again I'd be careful about such replacement without checking the OASYS out first.
Just my two cents on this topic. I owned an Oasys 61 for years. I concur with all of the praise it has gotten here and elsewhere. Eventually I sold it due to financial issues, and having so much money tied up in a keyboard just seemed unreasonable at that time. Yes, I regret having sold it ever since!
However, recently, in better financial times, I purchased a brand new M3 with Radias EXB. I have to say, it is about 90 percent or more of the essence of the Oasys in my humble experience.
Many have talked about the Oasys sound quality.....but remember....the M3 has a SPDIF output. I run mine into an Apogee converter, and the sound is fantastic compared to its onboard analog outs. Much of the Oasys sound quality is due to its far superior convertors. But with a digital output, I can run the M3 sound rom, which is essentially the same as the Oasys sound rom (I know there are some important differences) through better converters than the Oasys. And the result is fantastic, one might argue equal or better, albeit not ITB.
Sure, I miss the AL-1 and some other integrated features of Oasys. But frankly the Radias EXB sounds fantastic and is remarkably versatile and alive! And its fully and wonderfully integrated into the M3, which makes a huge difference (the Radias rack is NOT at all, so don't make the assumption that this is an easy fix if your an Oasys owner seeking to add a Radias).
On a VERY subjective note, I think the M3 is a beautiful looking instrument, with its white and silver color scheme, curved lines, tilted full panel (not just screen), and the wood side panels. In fact, I never thought the Oasys was that attractive of a synth. JMHO. Sort of a keyboard ala Triton era with a laptop screen bolted onto it! Yet, that large screen was da bomb in practice! However the M3 screen is still quite nice, especially with the XY controller.
The sequencer in the M3 Xpanded is outstanding.....best hardware sequencer in any workstation keyboard! Totally usable for pro results. That was my biggest gripe with Oasys.
I guess my overall point is...FOR THE MONEY (which is an important consideration for many who might be shopping for a workstation keyboard), a brand spankin new M3 is very much a "poor mans" second hand Oasys. And calling it poor is missing the point. Its a wonderful keyboard, that brought me >90% of the way back to Oasys ownership, with some very essential and important enhancements....most notably Radias EXB and the Sequencer/DAW integration.
And through its digital output into a pro converter, it sounds right up there with Oasys.
JMHO of course.
Ron
EDIT: I should have said Oasys 76 key....not 61 key. Oops. : )
Last edited by RonF on Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I know that me coming back here just to type "LOL" at your reaction seems idiotic but I was seriously busting up that you got a laugh outta that! Too fuuny!
I don't get this. NO ONE has mentioned sound quality here! This BAFFLES me!"
I agree. The question was a comparison and this was left out of a fast and direct first answer.
My M50 does things (few) better than the OASYS...but it's sound quality said to be exactly the same as the M3 is way below the OASYS and to most people sound quality is what matters or should matter first and foremost and this was being left out of THIS answer which should be put in front of all other answers and this does not baffle me it worries me as the OASYS has “real” sound quality.
The OASYS will be old soon but if we don't demand its sonic qualities and let Korg see us as deaf or dumb it will remain the best sounding keyboard ever made when Korg can even make it better. My WS AD has a very deep tone most things miss. Hard to describe but Korg salesmen called the Trinity the Tintity setting next to it and I was surprised how weak (despite other improvements) it sounded like thinking the WS a great path Korg was on and only OASYS surpassed ALL the past qualities of the older boards.
Sound Brother…nothing sounds as good as an OASYS. Short direct answer to the man’s most important question he was asking about. What will stand out most side by side.
All of the talk about the sound quality of the Oasys, I do understand....but have a few problems with nonetheless.
No doubt, the O sounds fantastic. Out of the box its arguably the best sounding digital keyboard ever. For LIVE USE, this is a huge feature of the O. BUT......people tend to elevate the importance of this to mystical levels, as if it somehow singularly justifies the cost and ownership experience of an Oasys (over say an M3), when in fact there are obvious reasons for sound differences between these keyboards.
Again, I understand that after spending huge dollars on an O, having the M3 come out with nearly the same EDS sound ROM (yes, I know there are differences between HD1 and EDS...but not huge), and some essential enhanced features which the older Oasys just simply lacks, can be frustrating. But in the end.....the Oasys, the M3, and any other digital keyboard are just an assembly of component parts, much like a computer. The sound ROM being essentially the same....the difference is in the D/A conversion. That's it!
And the M3 having a SPDIF output....skips the digital conversion entirely and allows the user to apply ones own choice for D/A conversion, including that which is BETTER than the Oasys. I'm just saying that the Oasys does not have some mystical sound quality. It just has expensive converters (and perhaps an enhanced conversion engine/process). A completely different situation than say the Wavestation, which had its certain sound out of the box....and NO Digital I/O....so its sound was its sound....what you got was what you got....and perhaps it sounded better or warmer than a Trinity for example.....but there were no digital I/O options, so what you got was what you got, and that IS a relevant argument.
But in todays world (not the 80's), with digital I/O and USB, arguing about the the sound quality is a red herring IMHO. I hear lots of folks do the same about how a VSTi may "sound".....and who knows how it really sounds???? Its all just a matter of the components installed on THAT users computer which leads to HIS sound. My instance of the same VSTi may sound spectacular on my top of the line system with Apogee convertors, digital clock, and first rate monitoring.....versus the next guy who is using the same VSTi with a SoundBlaster soundcard from the 80's and some earbuds! With a digital keyboard...we all basically get the same product....and out of the box the O sounds better than any! But with a digital output.....suddenly we are back into the realm of the individual users systems dictating the final result.
My point is......(remember I am a former Oasys owner), today I would take a fully upgraded M3 with all of its enhancements (Sequencer, Radias, etc) and an Apogee Ensemble.....all at a new retail cost of thousands less than the original O.....all day long over a used Oasys. My sound quality will be arguably BETTER or at least equal to the O, and I get the new enhanced features of the M3...and the diversity of Apogee I/O for my whole system, plus major dollars still in my pocket.
Now if you want to compare the other features of the O, such as Al-1, CX3, STR1, or hard disc recording....then I can relate to those comparisons. But arguing about the sound quality seems a somewhat emotional argument to me (unless you are live gigging and need the ITB convertors as essential.....albeit being somewhat contrary to the concept of a "workstation" which IMHO is more geared towards studio or compositional use).
No disrespect to any Oasys owner. But Capitalism marches on, and Korg releases new products. Even though the M3 has its deficiencies under the O, its newer and in many ways better features, PLUS digital I/O, makes the M3 the better overall purchase for me.
RonF wrote: But in the end.....the Oasys, the M3, and any other digital keyboard are just an assembly of component parts, much like a computer. The sound ROM being essentially the same....the difference is in the D/A conversion. That's it!
And the M3 having a SPDIF output....skips the digital conversion entirely and allows the user to apply ones own choice for D/A conversion, including that which is BETTER than the Oasys. I'm just saying that the Oasys does not have some mystical sound quality. It just has expensive converters (and perhaps an enhanced conversion engine/process).
It's a common myth that converters are somehow the most important aspect of synth quality. In general, I find that differences in algorithms typically dwarf differences in converters. This isn't to say that converters (and the output stage as a whole) aren't important, but at least in the current market the algorithms are a more significant factor. A few of the main differences are:
* interpolation for sample playback oscillators (affects aliasing)
* bandlimiting of VA oscillators (also affects aliasing)
* frequency range of resonant filters
* update rate of modulation sources such as LFOs and envelopes
There are many other differences of course - these are just some of the bigger ones.
For more details on some of these, see "Myth No. 7: All digital synths and effects sound the same" in this article I wrote long ago for Electronic Musician magazine:
Aliasing, in particular, is still a problem with many synths, both hardware and software. I find it to be quite noticeable in a wide range of products. Since better anti-aliasing costs CPU cycles (or transistors in custom silicon), audible compromises are often made.
The M3's sample playback interpolation is quite good, btw, though just a bit shy of the OASYS (the latter has an additional octave of high-quality pitch-stretching).
Best regards,
Dan
Dan Phillips
Manager of Product Development, Korg R&D
Personal website: www.danphillips.com
For technical support, please contact your Korg Distributor: http://www.korg.co.jp/English/Distributors/ Regretfully, I cannot offer technical support directly.
If you need to contact me for purposes other than technical support, please do not send PMs; instead, send email to dan@korgrd.com
I sincerely appreciate your comments in response to my post.
But a question please....
Wouldn't you agree that the elements that you speak about...the algorithmic qualities....are elements OF the sound engine? So these algorithms are an integral part of EDS and/or HD-1 synthesis.
Assuming this is the case, as I understand it to be, then all other aspects being essentially equal....in comparing the M3 to the O, the converters play a significant role when comparing the sound quality between THESE TWO keyboards.
My prior post acknowledges the known differences between HD-1 and EDS. Ultimately these sound sources are highly similar, inclusive of each inherent algorithms.
Definitely NOT stating that all "digital" sounds the same....on the contrary, my argument is limited to the M3 versus the O.....which have very similar sound engines. The key difference therefore IMHO, IS the conversion.
Side by side, the O through its analog outputs vs the M3 through an Apogee converter, yields VERY similar results. I might argue the M3 wins....but very subjective at that point.
All in all....I simply challenge the common if not automatic Oasys owner position which seems to cast the Oasys as having some mythical sound quality.....when the complete M3 package through a superior D/A is a very impressive package in the same relative league....with enhanced features the O will never have, at a cost new of significantly less money.
Comparing any other digital gear is pointless....as too many other variables come into play. But with EDS based so firmly on the O's HD-1 synthesis......the comparison is inevitable.
