Korg Forums

Windsofsoul wrote:Sorry it doesn't exist. This has been a sore spot for many Kronos' owners!

Windsofsoul wrote:Check it out

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... p?t=107885

19naia wrote:

Get a look at their rear ends and see which has more receptivity to all you can muster to give it. Memory? Disk storage? Routing? IFX?

I think 9 synth engines is more of a feat than i know even though they are all a bit scattered through the program banks and hard to find for new comers.

lcceo22 wrote:

19naia wrote:

Get a look at their rear ends and see which has more receptivity to all you can muster to give it. Memory? Disk storage? Routing? IFX?

I think 9 synth engines is more of a feat than i know even though they are all a bit scattered through the program banks and hard to find for new comers.

Rattling off a list of the things Kronos got right doesn’t change the things it got wrong.

Touting the feat of 9 synth engines does not change the lack if a piano roll feature for the sequencer. If anything it only compounds the problem since Kronos is primarily marketed as a do it all workstation. In many ways the depth of synth design it offers is actually a detriment. Simply cutting the decay and release of a pad patch in AL-1 is an absurdly over complicated process.

You also stated that sequencing is ‘going the way of the DAW anyways” and yet DAW integration is among the largest failures of Kronos. Using it in conjunction with a DAW is clunky at best and even with recent updates, in 2016, they still don’t have a 64 bit version of their editor. Roland MC 909, MV 8000 both have piano roll sequencers. The new MPC’s have piano roll/grid seqeuncers. The M3 and the Kronos’ little brother, the Krome, have piano roll sequencers.

So touting its strengths in the face of glaring, mystifying flaws has a ring of corporate shill to it IMO, particularly when older/and or lesser Korg products have implemented at least of those flaws quite well.

There’s not even a stripped down sound module available. For a flagship product with a 3K price tag being marketed on the idea that it “does it all” to lack such a basic function employed by even their own older products as well as lower end offshoots is inexcusable. It excels in many areas but it’s certainly not above critique.

danmusician wrote:It seems that for many users of the forum, the piano roll is more important than the many other features of the Kronos. If that's the case, you can save some money and buy a Krome.

The Kronos doesn't have that feature even though people have begged for it for 5 years. Don't you think that if Korg could implement it, they would have by now? One must assume that there is some reason that it's not there. Perhaps it puts a hit on processing power, who knows?

I sometimes wonder if some folks think Korg is keeping out the piano roll just to spite them.

GregC wrote:

lcceo22 wrote:
I don't think your name calling ( corporate shill) is what this forum is about.

No one is forcing you to read a post, if you don't like it. Lots of folks are interested in the strengths over the past 5 years. No one is going to change your mind to buy a Kronos if it does not work for you.

We have tossed around the pros and cons thoroughly, as you would expect for a + 5 yr old workstation.

Name calling? You can't possibly be that sensitive.

"has the ring of corporate shill" doesn't really rise to the standard of "name calling". it addressed the fact that the response avoided discussing what the Kronos lacked and deflected toward things it doesn't, which is a very corporate way of handling complaints.

It was a perfectly reasonable and accurate description of your post. Note how you took issue with my terminology and, yet again, sidestepped the actual content of my critique. Again, a very corporate response to criticism.

As for "no one is forcing me to read the post", you could say the same for mine. It's an empty statement, same as the baseless assertion of me "name calling". It's rhetoric that doesn't actually mean something.

What's interesting about this is that I showed far more respect for you than you showed me.

While you read my post and responded with vague, broad dismissals that avoided both the content and context of my post, I took the time to articulate a perfectly civil and reasonable reply that dealt specifically with the logic, context, and subject of you post.

Yes, lots of folks are interested in it's strengths. Lots of folks are unhappy to some degree with it's flaws.

Is this a site solely for zealots? If I missed some rule where Kronos is above criticism and no discussion of any flaws it may have are allowed, I'll happily conform. Otherwise, you're free to employ your own logic: nobody is forcing you to read posts that don't blindly worship every aspect of the board without question.

Oh, and I own a Kronos. I have no idea what information you used to arrive at the conclusion that I don't.

danmusician wrote:It seems that for many users of the forum, the piano roll is more important than the many other features of the Kronos. If that's the case, you can save some money and buy a Krome.

The Kronos doesn't have that feature even though people have begged for it for 5 years. Don't you think that if Korg could implement it, they would have by now? One must assume that there is some reason that it's not there. Perhaps it puts a hit on processing power, who knows?

I sometimes wonder if some folks think Korg is keeping out the piano roll just to spite them.

-People don't want a Krome. They want a Kronos. They'd just like to see them add a piano roll. further, there's zero merit to the conclusion that "if they could have, they would have'.


-1000

amit wrote: Kronos has enough connectivity options to facilitate a daw or iPad integration to use best of the best piano rolls if one needs. I don't see much use of piano roll in live situations , and in studio environment, I don't see why one shouldnt make the best use of the options available.
Rarely there's one thing that does all , and be real good at it.

Why do you assume people don't make use of the options available? I use it perfectly fine in Cubase. What's wrong with wanting and wishing it had better sequencer functionality for me to use in box?

I don't understand why so many people here get so defensive at any criticism levied at the Kronos. God forbid one speak ill of the mighty Kronos. I own it, love it, use it just fine in Cubase, and, OMG, GASP..... still wish they'd add a piano roll.