Korg Forums

Interesting thread and never having the privilege of owning an OASYS, I can only say that I find the sound of the Kronos quite stunning. And this thread begs the question of whether the people who matter MOST - our listeners - really CARE about the rather trivial differences that we musicians perceive. It even further begs the question that if matters so much to musicians, why are MANY musicians - and I mean the top pros too - still using older and "not as good sounding" instruments? Last I checked for instance, Paul Shaffer still uses a Fantom X7 as part of his rig from heaven.

My local Kurzweil dealer last year sold a bunch of Kurzweil's for Billy Joel's tour - not the new PC3 but its predecessor the PC2!

Look, I would be an idiot not to concede that there ARE differences in sound quality in ANY instrument. There is a HUGE difference between a Casio and a Kronos. Acoustic engineers and scientists have been slaving for years to figure out what Stradivarius did to make his masterpieces so distinctive. But the majority of concert masters do not have a Stradivarius and yet these artists are creating breathtaking music.

It's cool to compare of course, and as I stated, I have never owned an OASYS. But, after listening to the samples provided by Leo, I find the difference to be minuscule at best and I really doubt that audiences who have even less of a frame of reference than I would even care.

So I ask - and I ask politely - wouldn't it be more interesting to compare OASYS to the Fairlight CMI-30A? This is a 20,000 AUD instrument. I realize that perhaps one half of one percent on this forum could afford one of course. (I suppose we could TRY to get Sir Paul McCartney or Alan Parsons on here. )

Ahimsa,
Vlad

PS: If the OASYS does indeed sound "better" than Kronos, then cool!! You folks shelled out big bucks for it and I am pleased to read the pride you have in your babies. Had I owned an OASYS, I would probably be on the other side and agreeing with you folks. But, I never will own an OASYS and I have to make the best music I can for my audiences with what I have.

Finally, I THANK all of you OASYS owners for your wisdom! It has and continues to help me understand Kronos a LOT better. So, I give a deep bow to you!

Interesting point of view vlad77! And totally fair point you raise.

I gues it is similar to the best nylon guitar thread we have in the Kronos section.

To what extent can the audience tell between a Motif, Kronos, OASYS, JP-80, etc to the real thing.

My guess is how it's played and what else is going on (sonically) at the time. If the piece has a highly exposed piece for nylon guitar, then probably best get a real guitarist!

To answer your question, I have no doubt that without seeing the keyboard, no-one in an audience could tell the difference between the Kronos or the OASYS.

I guess this thread is about how we feel when we're on our creating our music. Having played the Kronos (demo) for several hours, for me, the O sounds better. Don't know why, but it does!

It's definitely more of an academic point for me - I never owned nor will own an Oasys, and I already ordered my Kronos and know that I will be very happy with it. I'm 100% sure that my audience won't hear the difference and I won't be bothered by it myself at all. I'm fairly certain that even my bandmates think that the Nord Stage I have right now is pretty capable for the job.

I'm just puzzled and therefore intruiged as to WHY the Kronos would sound different even in the pure software domain. Since, at least on the surface, it seems the OSs resemble each other so much. And even if they had to incorporate new features and engines, I can't see why they would affect the sound quality of the older ones.

By the way, I think the reason people keep older equipment is very simple; they are busy making music, not learning new equipment. The best machine for the job is the one that you know through and through. And those guys have realized the same thing we do; that at some point it's not very relevant to the task at hand if the new version of the nylon guitar sounds slightly better than the old one.

SanderXpander wrote:It's definitely more of an academic point for me - I never owned nor will own an Oasys, and I already ordered my Kronos and know that I will be very happy with it. I'm 100% sure that my audience won't hear the difference and I won't be bothered by it myself at all. I'm fairly certain that even my bandmates think that the Nord Stage I have right now is pretty capable for the job.

I'm just puzzled and therefore intruiged as to WHY the Kronos would sound different even in the pure software domain. Since, at least on the surface, it seems the OSs resemble each other so much. And even if they had to incorporate new features and engines, I can't see why they would affect the sound quality of the older ones.

By the way, I think the reason people keep older equipment is very simple; they are busy making music, not learning new equipment. The best machine for the job is the one that you know through and through. And those guys have realized the same thing we do; that at some point it's not very relevant to the task at hand if the new version of the nylon guitar sounds slightly better than the old one.

Same here played Kronos for a hour and love it ,is it something that the 9 band graphic EQ can change in Setlist

Personally I'm not too bothered whether Oasys sounds slightly different to a Kronos or vice versa and for me has nothing to do with whether audiences might hear a difference (unlikely).

Kronos has little more to offer than Oasys in terms of my own requirements. If Kronos had an amazing sequencer I might think differently, but it isn't an improvement on Oasys and any additional sound engines I can very easily live without. And of course the big screen on the Oasys is far better for my ageing eyes

Well, I am bothered because it's like if you write a MS Word document and save it on one computer, then open it from another computer and find out to your amazement that words and phrases you used have changed to different ones. Just as Word will display your document the same way no matter on what computer you will run it, output from a synth algorythm should be the same no matter whether it's running on OASYS Pentium 4 or on Kronos Atom. And if it actually does not... it's like if laws of Universe don't work anymore!
I think, before making any conclusions, it needs to be checked that ALL of the parameters in Kronos and OASYS actually are the same (i.e. that the programs or combi weren't tweaked in any way and also that the Global settings are the same).

SanderXpander wrote:...By the way, I think the reason people keep older equipment is very simple; they are busy making music, not learning new equipment. The best machine for the job is the one that you know through and through. And those guys have realized the same thing we do; that at some point it's not very relevant to the task at hand if the new version of the nylon guitar sounds slightly better than the old one.

Your statement is true. The great Joe Zawinul for example, played even his old Korg M1 until his last day on stage, like in this video from a concert in 2007, just four month before his death:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6SbaYPU2LA

There is not just THE sound quality, but there are many different qualities to a sound. The legendary Roland D-50 for example, which is still in use in many studios (as in my own) because of it's unique sound quality, has a terrible noise tail, so it has a very poor sound quality in a technical sense, but a good and timeless sound quality in a musical sense...

This is also the reason why Joe Zawinul had made for example the M1 piano sound to his very personal and unique sound by his playing style and his modulation. The new SGX-1 piano has obviously the better sound quality, if quality means the perfect reproduction of a piano, but the M1 piano has its unique musical quality, if a music titan like Zawinul puts his spirit into it. (This original M1 piano sample is available in Kronos and OASYS, as well)

Zawinul playing the M1 piano, from 1:25 Min on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRQ5NmtbhPY

-

Megakazbek wrote:I think, before making any conclusions, it needs to be checked that ALL of the parameters in Kronos and OASYS actually are the same (i.e. that the programs or combi weren't tweaked in any way and also that the Global settings are the same).

Let me know how you get on....

TonyGen wrote:

Megakazbek wrote:I think, before making any conclusions, it needs to be checked that ALL of the parameters in Kronos and OASYS actually are the same (i.e. that the programs or combi weren't tweaked in any way and also that the Global settings are the same).

Let me know how you get on....

And also the recording parameters are equal (mixing settings, same cables).

Sometimes science can be too scientific... ! How about then making sure all tests use my OASYS (as opposed to someone else's) because build might be slightly different... and then doing comparative tests with all working OASYS out there...

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I work on how something strikes me - in the gut, in the heart, in the mind, whatever. My impression is that the O sounds better and sonically feels better. If that's down to a millionth of an amp being different in one of the circuits if you use a particular set of cables between the hours of midday and 15:00, it doesn't really add anything measurable in the gut sense. Well, for me anyway.

I'll continue to listen and judge with my heart

@Cello: that's the best way to do it ... if you can hear it, that matters most for you personally. If a scientific test the sound would be better either 0,01% or 10% but both ways it's not audible, it probably doesn't matter (except for scientific purposes).

Btw, most PA speakers, mixers and especially after putting a band through the complete mix, even a synth of a few generations back cannot be compared to a Kronos or Oasys. It's more for studio/recording purposes.

cello wrote:Sometimes science can be too scientific... ! How about then making sure all tests use my OASYS (as opposed to someone else's) because build might be slightly different... and then doing comparative tests with all working OASYS out there...

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I work on how something strikes me - in the gut, in the heart, in the mind, whatever. My impression is that the O sounds better and sonically feels better. If that's down to a millionth of an amp being different in one of the circuits if you use a particular set of cables between the hours of midday and 15:00, it doesn't really add anything measurable in the gut sense. Well, for me anyway.

I'll continue to listen and judge with my heart

This is special case, because original poster said that the recording was done internally to HDD, so everything was done entirely in digital domain.
Digital is completely deterministic, there is no possibility at all of "slightly different build" in particular OASYS or "a millionth of an amp being different in one of the circuits". Digital processes don't have any hidden random factors that we cannot account for and they always strictly obey the exact logic given to it. To make a digital synth process sound differently, an explicit change to its design has to be introduced, it cannot just begin to sound different if we don't "tell" it so.
So there are only two ways OASYS and Kronos could sound different:
1. Somewhere there is a difference between user-editable sound generation parameters
2. Korg engineers introduced some explicit modification to OASYS algorithms in Kronos
And the important part is that 1st issue is easily fixed by making all parameters on Kronos and OASYS equal. 2nd issue is also fixable, but we need Korg's engineers to revert back some of the changes they did, so in reality it would be very hard to convince them to do so.
So the point is, if we don't just listen, but understand how that difference is happening, we may find that it's actually possible to make Kronos sound exactly like OASYS, so that the whole K vs O sound quality issue won't be relevant anymore.
I'd still like to hear any comments from Korg about this. They should know better what exactly they've changed, or what settings could produce the difference.

what happens when you drop the m3 in the equation... where does it fall (i'm sure at the bottom), but would you all feel the same way as to say audiences could not tell the difference with that machine also?

I agree with Megakazbek, and he explained the issue better than I did.

As for the M3, it runs on an entirely different engine and OS. There are plenty of comparison and discussion threads about the difference or similarity between the two. The issue here is between the Kronos and the Oasys who at first sight have the same OS but now seem to differ in more ways than just the hardware and the two engines.

Hi Leo,

Interesting thread. Thanks for the examples, I hear the differences. Do you want to reveal the sources?

For me 12 maybe sounds slightly better than 11 (or the opposite?), but 14 is better than 13. The Particles & Waves obviously sounds better from O but maybe only because of the higher level.

You played similarly named factory Combis on Kronos and OASYS, and it shows a difference. Have you tried to load an OASYS sound (PCG) directly in Kronos to see if the difference still exists with the two similarly named settings on the same instrument?

Do you have experience with EXi Programs on O and K, too?

Thanks and regards,
Akos