Korg Forums

robosardine wrote:
You are right- it is indeed part of the fun. Maybe only the badly behaved amongst us will get the defective ones with the little gaps in when the presents are opened.

Santa knows us all.

Somewhat off topic?

Mfrs have long been divided on what to do when you switch sounds on preset instruments. In 1986 Ensoniq had the ESQ-1 switch only new notes, sustained notes did not change, the first synth to do this and it was a great feature...but the ESQ-1 had no FX processors.

Some mfrs have short mutes after patch changes to avoid glitches especially in the FX processor. Others have gapless switching but the sound glitches, sometimes spectacularly. Very few do true seamless switching because it burns CPU/DSP resources. It's not just hardware, try it on a softsynth some time and listen to what sustained notes sound like when you switch the patch.

My rule of thumb is don't play a note on the downbeat right after switching a patch. That's easy with linear sequencers where you can insert patch changes in a few beats early when no notes are sounding. With pattern sequencing try to avoid switching patches on every single track at pattern transitions if you want everything to sound right on the first downbeat. Don't write parts that need long releases and FX tails when switching patterns.

"Limitations breed creativity" right?

This is a $399 instrument. You can get seamless transitions including FX and sustained notes from a Kronos at 10X the price if you really need it or use software that has unlimited tracks so you never need to change the patch on any track.

meatballfulton wrote:Somewhat off topic?

Not all all off topic. The Gap is something many electribe-interested people are anxious about.

Digital gear tends to do something weird when you switch patches. Especially gear that is not multitimbral by nature.

I once had a Zoom G3 guitar effects processor. Nice inexpensive and well-designed piece of gear that could run 6 different effects or amp models. At the time, it boasted the "fastest patch change of any guitar effects modeler" - and it was right - there was no real gap between patches - if it was there it was tiny. Changing patches was pretty much instant. But you'd get a click - it was unavoidable. Going instantly from once sound to a radically different sound produced a snap in the output waveform, and killed the trails.

But if you switched from a patch that was identical except for one or two effects, the Click was subtle. There wasn't enough difference. It was like you hit a new effect on a stomp box.

Now, you could probably eliminate the click by creating a slewed transformation in the effects models, a half-second linear morph. But that's a huge DSP load. You'd have to over engineer the box with a much faster and more expensive processor.

The Alesis Ion had interesting multitimbrality. It actually had 8 monophonic voice chips inside to produce the 8-note poly. If you were holding a note while you changed patches, the old note would continue as you played new patches. You could hold up to 7 different sounds while you changed the eighth.

The Novation Bass Station II has totally instant patch changes. It's analog with digital control. Program Changes are so fast you can make a bass drum, a snare, a hi-hat - and feed the synth MIDI program changes from a DAW alongside the notes and play a mono analog drum set. But sounds snap if tails overlap.

Snaps are fine in a groove box - most multi-pattern songs are sequenced with complimentary sections. If there are radical changes with a lot going on, the snap is masked by the high-frequency drum audio.

The Gap is a little more alarming than a standard-issue click or snap. The Gap suggest that the process of loading the next pattern is too heavy a task for the DSP chip, or the OS. If it's the OS, then it can be fixed in firmware. If it's the chip, then come clever workarounds will have to be invented.

Since the electribe is electing to be paraphonic instead of polyphonic, it suggests the horsepower is too low to do it all. Even the effects will bite into how many paraphonic voices can be used at once - it's clearly running off a single core processor running as fast as it can to keep up with the average user's demands - and not the full specs.

Time will tell, and if the workaround is to program everything you need to do inside those 16 parts - that's not a bad idea. You could have 4 parts doing 1 drum pattern, 4 muted parts a totally different drum pattern, 2 synth parts doing an intro, 3 parts doing another pattern, 3 more synth parts doing a chord change, and keep mixing and matching and muting and breaking it down, building it up, playing effects and knobs until the cows come home.

But hopefully the gap goes away for pattern changes that are not overloaded. Most of us won't fill all 16 parts with poly and inserts.

meatballfulton wrote:.
This is a $399 instrument. You can get seamless transitions including FX and sustained notes from a Kronos at 10X the price if you really need it or use software that has unlimited tracks so you never need to change the patch on any track.

I don't care how much it costs- Korg have indicated through their representative- Mistabishi- that this will shape the future of electronic music production- and will continue to do so for years to come and that you could 'hold a crowd for hours'- they provide a sense that this is superior in so many ways and preferable to using a computer- THIS IS FALSE- if this gap is what it seems. They publicise it in advance describing it in this type of way and keep us all waiting- but fail to mention this unwanted feature- or what they are doing about it. I would maintain that very few people would have expected this or will find it acceptable. It is not justified in this day and age-nor can it be rationalised. Maybe they should have made it dearer- or not made it at all.

Nobody is expecting a totally seamless change in patterns- but an advance in what the old EMX managed (which was reasonable) would not be too much to ask. This actually seems worse and more noticeable than the older model. It's more of all stop- all start as opposed to a less than smooth transition-is it not?

As for the historical perspective- I seem to remember the (now old) Roland MC 505 managing to change patterns without any obvious glitches- even with a ton of delay on- the much later MC 808- failed completely in this department- in a similar way to the new electribe it seems.

Don't play a note on the down beat?- come on- that is a compromise that should absolutely not be necessary.

Do Korg- read this forum? Do they care? Could they answer this- and other concerns with a simple YouTube video and allow us make a choice on the matter? Or will they just get out of bed at lunchtime- dust the cornflakes off their chin then announce in the middle of a yawn, a stretch and a fart that it's gone back by another month. What about this electribe family (us) that gets mentioned- the kids are hungry & starved of attention- but you are ignoring them

Considering how glitchy today's music is, the question is will anyone really notice anyway?

It could be a feature in fact.

its not about anyone else noticing, its about YOU noticing. If you know something sounds sloppy or wrong, you're not going to be satisfied, no matter how many fans or admirers tell you otherwise.

Oh c'mon, do you really think I was serious?

sorry, i must have been having an internet moment

I wonder if the sampler version will suffer from this gap issue as much, since it wont be taxing the cpu as much as the synth version?

Buska wrote:I wonder if the sampler version will suffer from this gap issue as much, since it wont be taxing the cpu as much as the synth version?

That's a great shout.
Could some salvation be at hand?

robosardine wrote:

Buska wrote:I wonder if the sampler version will suffer from this gap issue as much, since it wont be taxing the cpu as much as the synth version?

That's a great shout.
Could some salvation be at hand?

There is no information avaible at all about the Sampler. Was the ESX's gap smaller than the EMX's?

I used an ESX1 for hunderds of full tunes. The only similar issue i ever encountered was FX tail-cut off when a pattern changed in song mode. It didn't always do it either, only here & there. Nobody else would have ever noticed it but to me it stood out like a sore thumb but that was only because i was actually listening & i didn't ask the machine to do it... It just did it !

I think that korg should have called these new machines something other than Electribe because lets face it, they are not Electribes as we we know them. These to me are a new product in their infancy & are based on the Electribe concept but also re-thought. Looking at them in that light, we should only expect a new experience & not the next step in evolution of Electribes, more like the first model in a new series.

Pity really because i thought for a while that Korg had ditched the Electribe so when i first saw these i thought there was hope. Turns out they're a new animal. Perhaps they will be a great new animal though..... I'm looking forward to some serious youtube demos & reviews before i make the purchace.



Just to edit this, I might be slow on the uptake here but it looks like the sampler model won't be with us until next year ! Looks like i'm going for the synth version then !
I do really fancy having a go with the synth version but if they both came out together i would go for the sampler first. As it goes though i'm so excited about them that i can't wait til next year. Early synth christmas present to myself it is then, haha. Happy daze.

DrHoo wrote: I think that korg should have called these new machines something other than Electribe because lets face it, they are not Electribes as we we know them. These to me are a new product in their infancy & are based on the Electribe concept but also re-thought. Looking at them in that light, we should only expect a new experience & not the next step in evolution of Electribes, more like the first model in a new series.

What do you mean by saying "not the next step in evolution of Electribes"? Besides song mode, there are very few things which have not been improved. I assume that the new electribe can reproduce 90% of the EMX sounds, plus adding at least chords and better drum sounds to the party. Also, you can assign drum or synth to every of the 16 parts and assign fx independly. Dont know why that should not be considered as an evolution.

Olivander12 wrote:

DrHoo wrote: I think that korg should have called these new machines something other than Electribe because lets face it, they are not Electribes as we we know them. These to me are a new product in their infancy & are based on the Electribe concept but also re-thought. Looking at them in that light, we should only expect a new experience & not the next step in evolution of Electribes, more like the first model in a new series.

What do you mean by saying "not the next step in evolution of Electribes"? Besides song mode, there are very few things which have not been improved. I assume that the new electribe can reproduce 90% of the EMX sounds, plus adding at least chords and better drum sounds to the party. Also, you can assign drum or synth to every of the 16 parts and assign fx independly. Dont know why that should not be considered as an evolution.

Well, i kinda meant what i said really. I see them as a new product based on the electribe concept. It's only fair to point out that these are just my thoughts on them & at this stage nothing i think is conclusive, i havn't laid hands on one yet. When i get one i'll decide for myself weather or not they're a next step. Right now they look like something else.