Korg Forums

Hi Ron,

RonF wrote:Wouldn't you agree that the elements that you speak about...the algorithmic qualities....are elements OF the sound engine?

Yes, exactly.

RonF wrote: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.

Some of the algorithmic differences between the HD-1 and the M3's EDS:

* lossless compression (OASYS) vs. compressed (M3) samples
* speed of EGs, LFOs, etc.
* an extra octave of high-quality transposition on the OASYS

The first two, in particular, result in differences which I find significant. Your mileage may vary, naturally!

This is aside from the various HD-1 features not included in EDS, such as Wave Sequencing and per-voice vector.

For me personally, the OASYS is much more than the HD-1; I use the AL-1, PolysixEX, MS-20EX, or MOD-7 more frequently.

None of this matters if you're making good music with the M3! They're both great instruments.

Best regards,

Dan

Dan, thanx for the link to emusician - that was a very interesting article!

Can't get the article to load here.

Thanks Dan,

As always, you've made fair and important points, and have wonderful knowledge of your products!

As I said in my first post on this topic....I know there are differences between HD-1 and EDS. The Wave Sequencing and Vectoring being high on MY list of cool features which the M3 does not have (though Karma makes a good approximation of both!).

However, this discussion is focused mostly on "sound quality"....which by its very nature is subjective. In my personal experience, having owned an O for approximately 3 years, and then replaced it with an M3....the glossy sound quality of the Oasys is clear when you compare it to other digital gear. I am confident that I get that same glossy sheen from the M3 though the right converters. The quality of the M3 output through the outboard converter, versus from its own dedicated analog outs is remarkably superior. For me it was an eye opening experience the first time I heard it (similar to the experience I had the first time I heard my O). I think at some point, we are splitting hairs once the quality is above a certain level. Is it even audible in real world settings? Subtleties perhaps.....

In a live or ITB situation, the O reigns at the top of the heap with its dedicated sound output. However, reverting to the original subject of this thread....any prospective buyer of a high end Korg workstation would be missing, IMHO, quite an option were they to automatically yield to the common "the O sounds better than anything" position, rather than considering the full M3 package plus a high end converter.

Each has pros and cons.....I say the M3 wins with ITs features, and competes directly with the O on sound quality, albeit perhaps not in certain specifications as Dan has pointed out.....but certainly to MY ears!

YMMV.

Ron

I am with Charlie, great article Dan! With a nice sense of humor. And very informative, although nearly 10 years "old".

... "near" and "virtually" ...
“20 bits — with 6 bits of marketing.”..

Peter

Yes, thank you Dan for the article link. I don't see the mentioned Figures (they don't appear) but the text is still clear, understandable and interesting. Very good explanation.

Akos Janca wrote:Yes, thank you Dan for the article link. I don't see the mentioned Figures (they don't appear) but the text is still clear, understandable and interesting. Very good explanation.

Thank you. Re the figures: EM doesn't seem to have them up for archived articles. If you missed them, let them know!

Best regards,

Dan