Kronos Editor/Plug-In Editor and OS v1.6 are now live.

[music_avijeet]

Hi all, I intend to download and install the update but have just a quick question as I haven't had much time in the last two months to go thru the manuals.

* Do i need to back up my Set List data and Combi presets before I update from 1.5 to 1.6 or will those not get erased?

* If yes how do I back them up please?

Many thanks.

[blinkofanI]

I didn't encounter any loss of data upgrading 1.0 to 1.5 and 1.5 to 1.6 but to be on the safe side you should backup. Just use a USB stick and go to Disk Mode. Select your USB stick on the lower left, then SAVE tab and then upper right arrow... Save PCG. It will save all your Prog, Combi, Set List, etc. You can name it with the usual menu.

Blink

[JimH]

I haven't used the editor for very long yet (or the plug-in at all), but I noticed a couple of things.

Pro: Editing envelopes by dragging the points. This is much better than editing numbers.

Con: Is there no compare function? I haven't seen one. It's very useful when editing. Is there some technical reason it couldn't be implemented?

Con: Hitting undo (CTRL-Z) bounces me back to the Main/Play page. What's up with that? Then I need to go find my place again each time.

It would be nice if someday a later version the editor could do some of the sample management and automatically handle the parent-child associations with multisamples the way it does now with combi/programs.

-------------------

If MIDI/SysEx is a limitation in making good editors/librarians, then it's a shame in this day and age we can't get better mechanisms. I assume it's partly because manufacturers can't agree on standards. I think Yamaha's mLAN was great. We need technology that's' more like that. But after that died, who's going to take another chance? So we stay with what we have for even longer. I guess it's like using Windows Notepad and ASCII text files for writing all your documents.

[aron]

MLAN was a terrible fiasco. What a joke!

[phenaste]

The editor is released ! Great ! BUT, after I'd try it, as many of the others users, I'm really disappointed.

Other KORG editors bring more than the simple copy of keyb's on-screen.

Okay, on a small device such as the Kronos, it's a good solution to organise the sound edition in many tabs.
But I had hope that the editor brake this limitation and make a more intuitive editor as their previous software editors like M3.

[rderderian]

I did the update with no problems and then connected to the Editor with no problems. Then loaded all the data from the Kronos to the Editor in one swoop.

The editor is faster than using the keyboard (mouse vs hand).

[EddyDeegan]

MLAN was a terrible fiasco. What a joke!

The idea was great, it was the implementation, the poor take-up by other manufacturers and the poor ongoing support from Yamaha that ruined it. Yamaha have abandoned MLAN in favour of FW16 and it seems likely they'll drop support for that at some point too.

In its later incarnation (YSFW16 version 2) it works well on the XS, allowing you to route up to 16 channels of audio down a firewire cable simultaneously into a DAW, with 8 (I think) return channels to the synth for inputs.

I used it for a while on my XS8, the only problem was the low levels of each channel. It gave pristine recordings but I had to normalise in the DAW to punt the signal strength up to a high enough level to drive the plugins in the DAW. The alternative was to manually max out the levels in the sequencer, which even then didn't give really high signals.

Personally, I think if it had been able to auto-raise the levels on each channel to a decent strength, and the design allowed for 16 stereo channels at this level to be delivered intact to the DAW it would totally rock.

The other problem I had is that the drivers present FW16 to the DAW as an interface in its own right, which would be fine if you are working with one workstation but when you have a roomful of them (as I do) you keep having to switch interface in the DAW (although Logic does at least allow you to specify separate input and output interfaces so I could always monitor through my Apogee Ensemble)

So, yeah, I'm not a fan of the implementation but as a feature, had it been done better, I think it's pretty awesome tbh.

If it had:

- A greater take-up so that other manufacturers used it
- Supported by soundcard manufacturers (Apogee etc) on their interfaces so you could treat FW16 as 'just another input'
- Hotter outputs (ie: you'd use the DAW to mix, not the workstation sequencer)
- 32 channels instead of 16 (so you could dump 16 stereo tracks at once)
- Massively better commitment and ongoing support from Yamaha

It would be world class. Just a pity that the implementations were lacking and fairly frustrating to use, despite excellent results.

Eddy

[Davidb]

The editor is released ! Great ! BUT, after I'd try it, as many of the others users, I'm really disappointed.

Other KORG editors bring more than the simple copy of keyb's on-screen.

Exactly phenaste.

The M3 editor is, IMHO the point where Korg had to start with, and it seemed not the case.

[MarPabl]

Is it safe to upgrade from 1.5.2

[Melodialworks Music]

The M3 editor is, IMHO the point where Korg had to start with, and it seemed not the case.

Same thing can be said about the sequencer. The M3 sequencer is the point where Korg needed to start. However, the Kronos is indeed a repackaged OASYS . . .

[SeedyLee]

Whilst I'm very happy that an editor of some form has been released, I can't help but feel disappointed with the design and usability. Having a larger screen to edit on should have opened up a world of possibilities with respect to editing workflow, but alas we are presented with the same limited UI as found on the KRONOS itself. The UI on the touchscreen does an admirable job with the given screen real-estate - but on a large PC monitor, it is lacking.

Being able to use the full size of my PC's monitor is omething I would have loved to have seen. Been able to see alternative representations of the parameters, such as a modulation matrix, or all enevelope generators at once would have been amazing. Linking each parameter to the relevant pages in the manual would have been astounding, or at the very least offering the same excellent online help the KRONOS itself offers. The editor should have been an opporunity to allow users to explore the KRONOS and her complexity with unprecedented ease.

The use of SoundQuest software is also a little troubling. As a rep from SoundQuest himself said, modifications had to be made to accommodate the KRONOS's vast collection of parameters. If the product wasn't up to the task, why was it selected by Korg?

I am still baffled as to why Korg didn't simply port the UI from the Kronos - which already has all the Sysex mapped in - to a VST and editor. KORG already had a servicable graphical editor built in to the KRNOS, so why was it necessary to reinvent the wheel? Certainly I could understand if they were wishing to develop an editor with a completely different look and feel, but all they have successeeded in doing is reimplenting the same UI they have already developed within a different third-party product.

My guess is that they simple gave SoundQuest the task of creating an editor and said "mimic this", pointing to the KRONOS UI, in an attempt to minimise the time and cost in producing something innovative and truly useful.

That all being said, I am grateful that we have an editor at all, and the VST does allow some nice options around total recall and automation. I suspect I will have much greater use for the VST plugin than the editor itself. But I just can't help but feel that Korg management out-sourced this project and took a very hands-off approach, relying on the expertise of SoundQuest to build something as similar to the existing UI as possible.

[aron]

> I can't help but feel disappointed with the design and usability

I agree.

>If the product wasn't up to the task, why was it selected by Korg?

Who else is has an editor/librarian that is cross-platform and is a 3rd party ready to go? As has been said before, the only other keyboard remotely like the Kronos is the Kurzweil - modifications need to be made for special-case keyboards. Nothing new.

> port the UI from the Kronos - which already has all the Sysex mapped in

Are you sure that the UI is talking to the Kronos engine with sysex? Do you have inside information on this?

> My guess is that they simple gave SoundQuest the task of creating an editor and said "mimic this", pointing to the KRONOS UI, in an attempt to minimise the time and cost in producing something innovative and truly useful.

Look at the other editors in SoundQuest. Do they have alternate forms of screens or do most of them look like what is already there?

[SeedyLee]

Who else is has an editor/librarian that is cross-platform and is a 3rd party ready to go? As has been said before, the only other keyboard remotely like the Kronos is the Kurzweil - modifications need to be made for special-case keyboards. Nothing new.

Why the need to use a third-party librarian in the first place? I see this all too regularly these days in the IT industry - projects that are outsoruced to the provider with a "good enough" off-the-shelf product, usually resulting in a tremendously sub-optimal user experience.

Are you sure that the UI is talking to the Kronos engine with sysex? Do you have inside information on this?

Not at all, however there is a mapping (whether direct or indirect) between UI elements and sysem as when you modify a UI parameter on the KRONOS, Sysex is sent, and when Sysex is received, UI element states are altered. Whether the KRONOS uses Sysex internally is irrelevant. Someone has already taken the time to make this happen in the KRONOS, then Korg have paid Soundquest to go and do it all over again.
> My guess is that they simple gave SoundQuest the task of creating an editor and said "mimic this", pointing to the KRONOS UI, in an attempt to minimise the time and cost in producing something innovative and truly useful.

Look at the other editors in SoundQuest. Do they have alternate forms of screens or do most of them look like what is already there?

From my experience, most of them look substantially different compared to the UI presented on the device. However, these devices are substantially less complex. It could have taken SoundQuest months just to understand the KRONOS in sufficient detail to desgin an innovative interface - mimicing what already existed would have been substantially simpler from SoundQuest's perspective I would imagine.

[aron]

> Why the need to use a third-party librarian in the first place?

There's not enough return. (Of course this can be argued), but in general, for the time I takes to make an editor (which is longer than most people think), the return is not enough.

> My guess is that they simple gave SoundQuest the task of creating an editor and said "mimic this", pointing to the KRONOS UI, in an attempt to minimise the time and cost in producing something innovative and truly useful.

I don't have any knowledge re: this, but I doubt that's what was said. Could be though.

> From my experience, most of them look substantially different compared to the UI presented on the device.

When I look at most editors lately, they seem to try and mimic the way the device looks, or just throw up a bunch of parameters.

Anyway, I agree that it could have been more - but at least we got something. It can always be improved I guess.

[SeedyLee]

There's not enough return. (Of course this can be argued), but in general, for the time I takes to make an editor (which is longer than most people think), the return is not enough.

Soundquest obviously thought there was sufficient return in it. Either way, Korg spent money on the creation of the editor and they had a choice whether to in-source it or outsource it.

I'm by no means saying the editor is bad, I just think it could have been a whole lot better, and I must admit I was pretty disappointed when I saw the SoundQuest logo as I've never had a particularly good experience with any of their products or OEM editors. I think a much better job could have been done if it was developed by Korg internally, and I think it could have been done more efficiently if Korg leveraged the existing codebase they've used for the Kronos UI.

If Korg don't have the expertise in-house to create an editor for their own product - a product which they are the subject matter experts on, a product which they have access to the existing code for - then I think that's a troubling sign.