Roland and Yamaha are on notice!!! after Namm 2013

[jimknopf]

The whole discussion about the processor is a complete non-issue.
It's really not even worth debating, as long as the Kronos can be used as good as it is, at the present present price range - with all the goodies it delivers.

[chilly7]

Water cooling isn't really practical for a gigging board.

Workstations are giging boards?!


Even if so, Water cooling was not realiable first when it came i think,i might be wrong but the pioneers was Apple with their Power Macs computers...
But today a high quality water cooling is very realiable i think, so it must not break...

[chilly7]

I'm not sure what the issue is with the Atom processor, the korg designers needed a low power, low heat DSP/control processor combination so they went with an Atom with SSE3 rather than a dedicated DSP/control processor combination.

They probably went this way as it was easier for them to run the OS on the same processor as the DSP code, with a dedicated DSP chip they would have had to use another processor for OS duties.

Seems like a sound choice to me.

year, but Atom is not powerful CPU at all....
Yes they did the best what they possible can do to optimise software to be able to run it on Atom but with a powerful CPU for example like Xeon they could do alot more better, quality wise and quantity wise...

P.s. I am not going to wine here about that issue and i do not need to conwinse Korg in using them, because Mac Pro has Xeons CPU and even two of them and i can use all it's power.

[BobTheDog]

The whole discussion about the processor is a complete non-issue.
It's really not even worth debating, as long as the Kronos can be used as good as it is, at the present present price range - with all the goodies it delivers.

I think your right here.

[JonSolo]

I'm not sure what the issue is with the Atom processor, the korg designers needed a low power, low heat DSP/control processor combination so they went with an Atom with SSE3 rather than a dedicated DSP/control processor combination.

They probably went this way as it was easier for them to run the OS on the same processor as the DSP code, with a dedicated DSP chip they would have had to use another processor for OS duties.

Seems like a sound choice to me.

year, but Atom is not powerful CPU at all....
Yes they did the best what they possible can do to optimise software to be able to run it on Atom but with a powerful CPU for example like Xeon they could do alot more better, quality wise and quantity wise...

P.s. I am not going to wine here about that issue and i do not need to conwinse Korg in using them, because Mac Pro has Xeons CPU and even two of them and i can use all it's power.

Do you own any Korg equipment?

This IS Korg forums. Just curious.

[Kevin Nolan]

Its worth pointing a few things out that are important:

- The choice of Atom was carefully deliberated - cost (hugely significant) and functionality - namely in this instance being able to run the OASYS originated reduced version of Linux and all that comes with that as the OASYS/Kronos OS.

- Remember - even though the debate of the use of the term 'open architecture' was interpreted by many as meaning open to third part development, remember also that the Kronos has a significantly more sophisticated operating system than any other hardware workstation, with a significantly different and better overall synthesis capability through the various discrete synth engines. It is my view that this capability and far reaching reliability could only have arisen if Korg made the architecture 'open' in the sense of modular, consistent (from design to APIs and interfaces), efficient and so on - meaning that it was 'open' for them so they could compartmentalize /modularize the development of the instrument (for example have different teams work on different aspects of it and then all join up eventually) or releasing new additions to the OS subsequently such as new synth engines. All of this was enabled by the choice to be open (internally to Korg!) and a large part of that was the choice of a reduced Linux kernal. So while the choice of Atom over a more powerful variant may be debated - the choices made - of a generic processor - was central to enabling the entire design philosophy of OASYS / Kronos and hence enables this wondrous workstation that is significantly superior in virtually every respect to all other workstations.

- Remember that the Atom delivers even better capability than the OASYS because its two cores allow for full polyphony even when effects are engaged (on OASYS when more effects are engaged the polyphony drops)


- Irrespective of the power of other processors on PC/Mac, they have to contend with far bigger operating systems with far more layering in the device chain. Kronos is vastly more specialized and hence vastly more efficient - so you get about 170 voice polyphony (HD1 engine) and 16 effects processors at hardware latencies. You'd be hard pressed to get that at the same latency from even a quad core i7 on a PC or Mac.


- THE overwhelming constraint on Korg (surely) was that Kronos could not cost more than Motif of Fantom. If it did, people would not buy it. So - given this constraint - and the requirement to include (and indeed better) all that was in the $8000 OASYS into Kronos, the Atom processor was integral to keeping those costs down while achieving such superlative capability.


Overall, the existence of Kronos was enabled by there being available a cheaper but utterly effective (for Korgs needs in this instance) processor in the form of the Atom processor. What do you get - hardware levels of latency with computer quality synths derived from OASYS and sample streaming (for starters).


The choice of Atom was therefore an extremely sophisticated choice, enabling the existence of the most sophisticated workstation ever built to be sold at the same cost as the rest of the mainstream instruments in the field all of which have significantly less sophisticated heritage and capability.

Kevin.

[EvilDragon]

Water cooling isn't really practical for a gigging board.

Workstations are giging boards?!

Yes, they have ALWAYS been gigging boards as well as studio boards. Ever since M1.

[chilly7]

I'm not sure what the issue is with the Atom processor, the korg designers needed a low power, low heat DSP/control processor combination so they went with an Atom with SSE3 rather than a dedicated DSP/control processor combination.

They probably went this way as it was easier for them to run the OS on the same processor as the DSP code, with a dedicated DSP chip they would have had to use another processor for OS duties.

Seems like a sound choice to me.

year, but Atom is not powerful CPU at all....
Yes they did the best what they possible can do to optimise software to be able to run it on Atom but with a powerful CPU for example like Xeon they could do alot more better, quality wise and quantity wise...

P.s. I am not going to wine here about that issue and i do not need to conwinse Korg in using them, because Mac Pro has Xeons CPU and even two of them and i can use all it's power.

Do you own any Korg equipment?

This IS Korg forums. Just curious.

I used to own Korg TR and Korg Triton classic :)

[chilly7]

Its worth pointing a few things out that are important:

- The choice of Atom was carefully deliberated - cost (hugely significant) and functionality - namely in this instance being able to run the OASYS originated reduced version of Linux and all that comes with that as the OASYS/Kronos OS.

- Remember - even though the debate of the use of the term 'open architecture' was interpreted by many as meaning open to third part development, remember also that the Kronos has a significantly more sophisticated operating system than any other hardware workstation, with a significantly different and better overall synthesis capability through the various discrete synth engines. It is my view that this capability and far reaching reliability could only have arisen if Korg made the architecture 'open' in the sense of modular, consistent (from design to APIs and interfaces), efficient and so on - meaning that it was 'open' for them so they could compartmentalize /modularize the development of the instrument (for example have different teams work on different aspects of it and then all join up eventually) or releasing new additions to the OS subsequently such as new synth engines. All of this was enabled by the choice to be open (internally to Korg!) and a large part of that was the choice of a reduced Linux kernal. So while the choice of Atom over a more powerful variant may be debated - the choices made - of a generic processor - was central to enabling the entire design philosophy of OASYS / Kronos and hence enables this wondrous workstation that is significantly superior in virtually every respect to all other workstations.

- Remember that the Atom delivers even better capability than the OASYS because its two cores allow for full polyphony even when effects are engaged (on OASYS when more effects are engaged the polyphony drops)


- Irrespective of the power of other processors on PC/Mac, they have to contend with far bigger operating systems with far more layering in the device chain. Kronos is vastly more specialized and hence vastly more efficient - so you get about 170 voice polyphony (HD1 engine) and 16 effects processors at hardware latencies. You'd be hard pressed to get that at the same latency from even a quad core i7 on a PC or Mac.


- THE overwhelming constraint on Korg (surely) was that Kronos could not cost more than Motif of Fantom. If it did, people would not buy it. So - given this constraint - and the requirement to include (and indeed better) all that was in the $8000 OASYS into Kronos, the Atom processor was integral to keeping those costs down while achieving such superlative capability.


Overall, the existence of Kronos was enabled by there being available a cheaper but utterly effective (for Korgs needs in this instance) processor in the form of the Atom processor. What do you get - hardware levels of latency with computer quality synths derived from OASYS and sample streaming (for starters).


The choice of Atom was therefore an extremely sophisticated choice, enabling the existence of the most sophisticated workstation ever built to be sold at the same cost as the rest of the mainstream instruments in the field all of which have significantly less sophisticated heritage and capability.

Kevin.

Year a agree with u mostly but the only thing i will dissagre is that u over estimate the OS usage on computer. Well i cannot speak about PC but on Mac on Mountin Lion on my mother Mac Book Air 2012 moddell ,the operation system takes only 3-5 % when i do nothing, but on Mac pro it must be even less, about 1 % usage... The rest goes toward programs u running...

P.s.
Maby it was in the old days when operation system on computer take 20-25 % of CPU usage on idle but nowdays CPUs are very powerful while Operation system are not that more hungry...

[Kevin Nolan]

Totally separate note - I notice you have HD800s and so do I. I just bough a Benchmark DAC to drive them. What do you think of them?

I find their detail truly staggering, though I have found them to be very bright (admittedly I was not driving the properly as my Benchmark DAC has literally arrived in the past few days so I'm hoping that will improve matters on the bass end and with over all driving them)


Kevin.

[jimknopf]

Water cooling isn't really practical for a gigging board.

Workstations are giging boards?!

Yes, they have ALWAYS been gigging boards as well as studio boards. Ever since M1.

Exactly!
And nowadays workstations are MAINLY gigging boards, with the sequencer helping you to sketch ideas for song writing, and in delivering backing tracks live - besides giving you the opportunity to practise band arrangements with minus-one backing tracks on board.

[chilly7]

Totally separate note - I notice you have HD800s and so do I. I just bough a Benchmark DAC to drive them. What do you think of them?

I find their detail truly staggering, though I have found them to be very bright (admittedly I was not driving the properly as my Benchmark DAC has literally arrived in the past few days so I'm hoping that will improve matters on the bass end and with over all driving them)


Kevin.

Well i am very piky abou music equipment so if there is a problem i am going to tell about it...

At my opinion HD 800 are not perfect but they are the best what u can get on the market right now for music recording and i prefer them over any other headpones here is why:
1) They do not have perfect a flat( natural) frequncy response but they are the most natural sounding headphones out of all i saw. ( because i do not like coloration even when i listen to music, because i like to hear the sound as it was recorded, but also it is good for recording )
2) They are very comfortable, i can wear it all day while withother headpones i tries i have a big pain because my head sking is very sensetive.


Disadvateges
1) The headpones do not satay on head very well. Ofcause if u sit always strait it is fine but if u move ur head up and and down the headpones move...
2) They olmost do not cancell the out side noise( so u need to ask awrybody to be quite
3) they does not reproduce sub bass between 20-35Hz wery well
4) The cable is quite long for me, i would prefer a much shorter cable

So as i seid it has some disadvantages but at my opinon this is the best headpones right now on the market because they are most natural sounding headponess out of all...


Also it is importent to say that HD 800 as i know hand made so awry pair of HD 800 differs a bit in frequancy responce...

Also the advantage of HD 800 is binaural sound, ofcause u can do it on normal headpones but the ring drivers on HD800 are better for biaural sound. Ofcause unfortionaly there are not many recording done on Binaural, most of what u have are stereo, but at my opinion binaural sound is even better then sorround on speakers, because the sound can also go up and down and binaural sound takes the all advantages of human hearing.

The ring drivers does not need breakege like nornal conne drivers...

Ofcause if u ask me about what ideal headpones at my opinion will be , i think headponess which has the best clarity and respons but in the same time totaly flat frequancy reponce and 0 coloration, unfortionaly HD800 are not like that but they are the closest to that out of all headpones i know for any price point.

Hd 800 sound more like studio monitors then hifi speakers.
Because the studio monitors ieally must show the sound as it is,
while HIFI speakers must sound good and musk all mistakes and usualy they add coloration which i do not like.
So on HD 800 u will hear all flaws and mistakes in recording if they are there…
so i think it is good because if u see mistakes u can correct them.
and as i seid i even prefer them to listen to music, even thouh that i can hear all flaws and mistakes in all recording, i prefer and enjoy the natural sound and want to hear music as it was recorded.

Speaking about DAC, i do not know anything about Benchmark DAC. I have Lynx Hilo and i really like it, also before that i used to own RME UFX and UC, and i think Lynx Hilo is much more better with HD 800


P.s. i think Sennheizers work on a new HD800 replacment headpones for already a fwe years, but they can be this year or can be in five years we do not know. As i know for Sennheizer it toke them 5 years to develop HD800...

[Kevin Nolan]

Interesting comments on the HD800s - thanks.

Yes - extraordinarily detailed - listening to Daphnis et Chloe Suite 3, for example, was an extraordinary experience - I could literally hear details that I couldn't pick out even on my HD650s! Amazing.

Asking even headphones like these to go to 20Hz is a big ask - but agree -0 they are not totally flat and feel they are a tad weak in the bass end. But I must break them in still - I've only listened on them for a few hours and never with the Benchmark DAC.


The Benchmark DAC is a DAC used in mastering studios. Extraordinary capabilities and industry leading headphone preamps too.

The latest version of it just released claims that THD is immeasurable! If you need an exquisite DAC to power your monitors and headphones - the Benchmark DAC is among the best of ways to go.

Kevin

[chilly7]

Interesting comments on the HD800s - thanks.

Yes - extraordinarily detailed - listening to Daphnis et Chloe Suite 3, for example, was an extraordinary experience - I could literally hear details that I couldn't pick out even on my HD650s! Amazing.

Asking even headphones like these to go to 20Hz is a big ask - but agree -0 they are not totally flat and feel they are a tad weak in the bass end. But I must break them in still - I've only listened on them for a few hours and never with the Benchmark DAC.


The Benchmark DAC is a DAC used in mastering studios. Extraordinary capabilities and industry leading headphone preamps too.

The latest version of it just released claims that THD is immeasurable! If you need an exquisite DAC to power your monitors and headphones - the Benchmark DAC is among the best of ways to go.

Kevin

I am happy u like HD800!

P.s. Thank u for the DAC advice but i am not shure if it is better then my Lynx Hilo, but i will cheak it when my pocket says ok for that

[Kevin Nolan]

Did Yamaha even bother to turn up at MusikMesse?

What saddens me most about the demise of Yamaha as a synthesizer innovator is not that they no longer innovate in any way or in the ways that only they uniquely can; nor is it that they do not give a damn about that loss or a damn about their own legacy - what saddens me the most is that you just know there's nobody there that is even aware of their lousy situation or that there is a user base of Yamaha synthesizer players/users who do care. They actually think they are doing quite well in that regard. They think that the odd little 'sweet voice', the occasional 5th rate 'workstation' or vocal harmony package is innovation. It's like the company has Alzheimer disease.