Lets discuss Kronos BUILD QUALITY:

[RonF]

Just to make one last point.....

When we talk about loose fader caps and loose data wheels.....this may not be a KORG issue at all! It may be a shipping issue. We only assume that the units left the factory in this condition. However, due to the early nature of the units already being sold....most of them have been delivered via retail shipping services....rather than an in-store P/U. And even the retail in-store sales are post-factory-shipment. It could be the issues are coming from either rough handling.......and/or that the fix is nothing more than better/revised packaging.

Just sayin.....

[BasariStudios]

You are right again probably more then i am but again, raises another
concern...KORG are the most WELL KNOWN company for ALWAYS screwing
the first batch of EVERYTHING...remember PA800 RAM? 2X LEDS? And so on.
And when someone experienced 2-3 times he will be scared again.

[RonF]

And when someone experienced 2-3 times he will be scared again.

Fair enough, my friend. Your personal experience is YOURS, and no one can take that away from you. Its very unfortunate and I do feel for anyone who gets disappointed like this. My only intention is to bring some balance to the conversation. But if I were YOU....I would be leery too. I personally have owned so much KORG gear over 25 years that it would make you laugh. I have NEVER had one problem that was not properly resolved (knock wood!). My perception is therefore different.....as I suspect is the majority of KORG customers.

[aron]

> loose fader caps

Are the fader caps loose or just not seated all the way. I count 10 fader caps. Just push them down and be done with it. Unless they are actually loose and ready to fall off - them there's some sort of problem. The data wheel is a problem. For all we know the tape was supposed to "dry out" and make a stronger bond than it has.

The best news for someone that is really, really unhappy is that I bet you can sell it for what you paid and not have to worry about it anymore.

[StephenKay]

For those stating that "It's ok for it to be cheap because it's a powerful oasys in a cheap box", well, the reason you're getting an "oasys" for this price is because computer power and touchscreen technology are cheap these days.

...and because Korg didn't have to invest in software design and developement for the Kronos, since the investment had already been done for the Oasys; they didn't even update the sequencer.

Against my better judgement, I must respond to this statement. (Dan and Rich are smarter than myself in this regard; hence they never comment on this kind of stuff).

With all due respect, this kind of attitude and point is clueless. Nothing personal to the people who said them.

Let's take one new feature in point: SST (Smooth Sound Transition): the ability to change programs or combis and have sustaining notes hold over, complete with the effects of the previous programs. Everyone would, I guess, admit that this is a powerful and useful feature, that people have been asking for forever. And it works really well on the Kronos.

This single feature, which may seem just one item on a bullet-point list to most, touches every single aspect of the software, every single sound engine, every single technology in the keyboard, such that major changes and revisions and testing and bug-fixing (i.e engineering resources and $$$) were required to be spent on everything that already existed. It was not just a case of taking existing OASYS software and plugging it into new hardware. The addition of a *single* feature like this required significant re-engineering of everything in the keyboard.

Let's take, just for a moment, KARMA - my thing. KARMA in the Kronos is the same (feature-set-wise) as the M3 and the OASYS. But I still had to work for over a year and a half implementing changes to the source code and engine such that it worked correctly with SST (not to mention other architectural changes).

Another would be adding the Drum Track feature of the M3, to the OASYS, in the Kronos. Again, a bullet point to you - to the engineering teams, many, many months of redesigning and reworking the software. This costs money, and time. Let's not even talk about the Set List feature.

And these are only several examples. It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development, other than people who actually design workstation keyboard software. (Those of you involved with other kinds of software, other kinds of computerized devices, please recuse yourselves. You have no opinion here, until you've gone swimming in this pond.)

One could say that the OASYS represented about 10-15 years of software development for Korg (if you look at the failed original OASYS and all of the time spent on that leading up to the released OASYS). The Kronos represents maybe an additional 3-4 years of software development. But it's not nothing. That's the time a company might normally spend on an entirely new product. You've gotten a bargain.

This response does not address build-quality issues, nor do I intend to. Not my job. But when I see people say ridiculous things about the software aspects of projects, such as "the software cost nothing, they already had it, they should have bought better knobs/fader end caps" , I feel I have to speak out.

[jahrome]

End of hijack, with apologies. I've seen a lot of bitching without perspective, and I finally hit tilt. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic.

As I have lived in Japan for 15 years now...I know first hand about the devastation caused by the earthquake and tsunami. It negatively impacted me and my family. But these events did not have anything to do with poorly designed knobs....

Why are they poorly designed? FWIW....mine is not poorly designed....it just works. Its not "Design"....its "Quality Control" deficiencies from the factory....which may in fact have underlying causes which stem from the natural disasters. You pick the best built most durable keyboard you can think of....I guarantee you that a certain percentage of THOSE products had QC deficiencies out of the box. And to THOSE buyers....the build quality of THAT keyboard was poor as heck. Its all perspective from your individual user experience. But its really too early (both in time and reliable statistics) to rate the QC fall-out or the durability of the KRONOS. A fully "on-par" unit from the factory, without any deficiencies, has excellent build quality. It just works as designed.

Why are they poorly designed? You have to ask the folks that decided to use "TAPE" to keep the data wheel in place. I repeat..."TAPE." This is a design flaw. This has been acknowledged by Korg. They are sending out new data wheels not "TAPE" with better adhesive.

But if it makes you happy, I will agree that its quality control. Korg should have used stronger glue to keep the wheel in place.

[irtehyar]

<snip> But when I see people say ridiculous things about the software aspects of projects, such as "the software cost nothing, they already had it, they should have bought better knobs/fader end caps" , I feel I have to speak out.

Which is exactly why I didn't say it costs nothing. Merely that getting something powerful isn't an excuse for physical cheapness. I've been a pro programmer for 25 years, so I have a pretty good idea what software costs. In fact I'd say that it's a little sad to house such a brilliant piece of engineering in a lesser housing. But again, I only say "lesser". It's not terrible, just questionable. Korg is still most definitely top of the heap with this beasty.

EDIT: It probably just comes down to expectations. With my M3, the previous Electribes I've owned, M1, O1/W, several others, they were built like tanks. This piece just doesn't feel.... Korgy. I guess they set the bar pretty high for themselves.

[michelkeijzers]

And these are only several examples. It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development, other than people who actually design workstation keyboard software. (Those of you involved with other kinds of software, other kinds of computerized devices, please recuse yourselves. You have no opinion here, until you've gone swimming in this pond.)

For the most I agree to Stephen Kay, however I think I can have an opinion here. Altough I do not have experience with software design of a synthesizer, I have a lot of experience with all software design of other electronic devices.

Synthesizer software designs are probably not the only complicated designers there are, but I have to agree they are very difficult. The reasons are (actually equal to the products I work on):
- realtime (the software has to be fast and respond within ms, in this case to minimize the latency)
- history (as Stephen indicates, development has been going on for 15 years, and I assume a lot of history 'buildup' has occurred, including a lot of software parts not being redesigned for maintainability meanwhile)
- everything is related (almost any aspect in a synthesizer is related, meaning that every software part is dependent on another, making testing everything difficult)
- hardware cannot be changed easily (if hardware is built, it cannot easily be redesigned, so software sometimes has to 'fix' hardware problems if possible, making those designs not nicer)
- big teams (when a big team is creating software designs/implementation, then the overhead will be quite a lot and time to communicate with each other increases, also miscommunications can happen, let alone version control problems).

Probably I forgot many aspects that make both synthesizer and other difficult embedded software so complicated.

Example: when I have to change an on/off setting it can take as long as 2 weeks. That's one line of code changed, and the rest of the time spend to changing documentation, changing test software, creating patches to be tested, run integration tests, execute the software, let others check if I did not break anything, putting everything into the version system, keeping the administration of changes etc. updated, communicating everything etc.

[irtehyar]

<snip> It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development, other than people who actually design workstation keyboard software. (Those of you involved with other kinds of software, other kinds of computerized devices, please recuse yourselves. You have no opinion here, until you've gone swimming in this pond.)

For the most I agree to Stephen Kay, however I think I can have an opinion here. Altough I do not have experience with software design of a synthesizer, I have a lot of experience with all software design of other electronic devices.
<snip>

I found your self-contradicting statements here a little confusing.

However, I disagree. Any development of a system that delivers custom software in a custom-developed hardware unit simultaneously is going to go thru the same kind of developmental difficulties. (i.e. the hardware guys blame the software guys, and vise-versa, lol )

[jahrome]

And these are only several examples. It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development, other than people who actually design workstation keyboard software. (Those of you involved with other kinds of software, other kinds of computerized devices, please recuse yourselves. You have no opinion here, until you've gone swimming in this pond.)

And these are only several examples. It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development....,

True. And the same is true for the software that runs your PC, Mac, X-box, Play Station. Most customers and potential customers don't really care about the hard work and effort that goes into making these products. They will always have opinions. And as long as they are the ones keeping these companies in business...their opinion does matter. Company heads can choose to listen or not. Consumers can choose to spend their money or not.

[michelkeijzers]

<snip> It seems people have no idea what goes on with keyboard software development, other than people who actually design workstation keyboard software. (Those of you involved with other kinds of software, other kinds of computerized devices, please recuse yourselves. You have no opinion here, until you've gone swimming in this pond.)

For the most I agree to Stephen Kay, however I think I can have an opinion here. Altough I do not have experience with software design of a synthesizer, I have a lot of experience with all software design of other electronic devices.
<snip>

I found your self-contradicting statements here a little confusing.

However, I disagree. Any development of a system that delivers custom software in a custom-developed hardware unit simultaneously is going to go thru the same kind of developmental difficulties. (i.e. the hardware guys blame the software guys, and vise-versa, lol )

What do you think is self contradictory?

However, not every hardware system is so 'realtime' as with synthesizers. In synthesizers, timing needs to be in nano seconds probably to get the max. 10 (or so) ms latency in the end. For most real time systems timing is not THAT critical.

Also not in every hardware system everything is related to each other.
E.g. a calculator respond to keys. After a key input it calculates something and that is going to the display. The calculation itself is only depending on the last input keys and the current state of the calculator. It's not possible to intervene during the calculation.

In opposite to a synth: The user presses keys (like white/black keys to make sounds or controller keys). However, after keys are pressed the calculations to make the sound start BUT when sound is going on more key presses come in intervening with the current sound. Everything also has to be handled within like 10 ms to minimize latency. This is what makes a software design for a synth so complicated.

But synth designs are not the only designs having this behavior.

[irtehyar]

What do you think is self contradictory?

However, not every hardware system is so 'realtime' as with synthesizers. In synthesizers, timing needs to be in nano seconds probably to get the max. 10 (or so) ms latency in the end. For most real time systems timing is not THAT critical.

Well, it looks like you say that anyone who hasn't worked on keyboards doesn't deserve an opinion, then immediately say that even though you haven't worked on keyboards you deserve an opinion.

Try writing software to simultaneously interact with active gas pumps, credit card pin pads, credit card networks, and a point of sale system, and tell me real-time interaction and timing isn't important. This is a case where the software has to respond to a flurry of hardware-triggered events, not just lazy user-triggered keypresses. (this is just one simple example, I could name many many more)

[michelkeijzers]

What do you think is self contradictory?

However, not every hardware system is so 'realtime' as with synthesizers. In synthesizers, timing needs to be in nano seconds probably to get the max. 10 (or so) ms latency in the end. For most real time systems timing is not THAT critical.

Well, it looks like you say that anyone who hasn't worked on keyboards doesn't deserve an opinion, then immediately say that even though you haven't worked on keyboards you deserve an opinion.

Try writing software to simultaneously interact with active gas pumps, credit card pin pads, credit card networks, and a point of sale system, and tell me real-time interaction and timing isn't important. This is a case where the software has to respond to a flurry of hardware-triggered events, not just lazy user-triggered keypresses. (this is just one simple example, I could name many many more)

Kay said that anywhone who hasn't worked on keyboards doesn't deserve an opinion. Initially I accidentally copied a part from his quote to my own text double. I edited that.

Gas pumps also need very realtime design, credit cards not within milliseconds (nobody would complain if it would take like 50 ms before responding occasionaly).

But I understand your point, there are a lot of critical real time applications/software designs. However, it's the combination of some items I mentioned (big history of code, critical real time system, lots of items/components related to each other).

[irtehyar]

But I understand your point, there are a lot of critical real time applications/software designs. However, it's the combination of some items I mentioned (big history of code, critical real time system, lots of items/components related to each other).

Gotcha. My point would be that in 25 years I've never worked at a company that didn't suffer from all of those same issues you mention. It's not a unique or even uncommon situation. Legacy code and hardware, team size and dynamics, realtime interactions of complex separate systems (in fact a self-contained keyboard has it easier in this regard)... these are all common and normal problems.

[michelkeijzers]

But I understand your point, there are a lot of critical real time applications/software designs. However, it's the combination of some items I mentioned (big history of code, critical real time system, lots of items/components related to each other).

Gotcha. My point would be that in 25 years I've never worked at a company that didn't suffer from all of those same issues you mention. It's not a unique or even uncommon situation. Legacy code and hardware, team size and dynamics, realtime interactions of complex separate systems (in fact a self-contained keyboard has it easier in this regard)... these are all common and normal problems.

You are completely right. But I see you have a lot of experience with it. I think we are on the same level. Maybe I better could have said that making a design of a (hardware) synthesizer is not a simple task and it suffers from all the issues. As you know (and other may not realize in such extent), is that the bigger project, the more serious these issues become. And designing a synthesizer (like the Kronos) is a big project.

So if people think that 'nothing' has been done since the Oasys, please look back to Kay's post.

(btw, wondering how large the software engineering and design team from Korg is). Since Kay said he worked for a year for the changes for Kronos, I think that he's very fast and/or he has a very good design and maintainable software and/or he means his team (and himself) developed for a year. In each case, we all should appreciate the work that has been done by Korg and Kay/Kay's team.

Also as written before (don't know if it was in this thread), Korg synthesizers are very flexible and that costs a lot of design/programming effort to support all the options (and combinations of these options). And still we like even more flexibility (as always).