Why do you think KORG Isn't Remaking Vintage Synths?

[Yoa]

The title makes this pretty obvious. Why do you think KORG is not remaking stuff like their MS-20 (I don't think the KLC, even with the controller, counts), or maybe their PS series (3300, 3100)?

I personally see only a few things that could be stopping them: Most of these instruments, especially MS-20's, are readily available on eBay, it would cost too much to rebirth it (you know they would add new stuff), and there may be parts that were readily available when they were in production, but not so much anymore (or if they do, it would affect the soudn too much, and as we all know KORG is all about sound).

Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject?

[X-Trade]

Or perhaps they are interested only in selling mass-market products. Analog whilst popular is still a niche. They also have a significant amount of R&D resources tied up in software based development, having existing code and technologies built up over the years to leverage.

Also, for an engineer (like myself), there is far more excitement in developing new systems based on new technologies, than there is in rehashing an old product, usually. There are more opportunities too.

I don't want to get into the whole analog/vs/digital thing but from a engineering and development perspective it is a valid technology with many, many benefits, incredibly flexible, and can sound very good when programmed skillfully.

Korg are far from being inactive or lacking innovation. They are one of the more forward-moving organisations in this business.

[Stargazer]

Money talks. Such production will not likely be a financial success. Even splendid instruments sometimes end up being sold under value before their projected time, such as Kawai K5000 or Yamaha FS1R. I saw that in 90's even JD-800 was blown out for a cut price at the end of the production line.

[Ojustaboo]

I totally agree with the replies above.

Also there's the soft synth market.

I can play my ims20 on my iPad that cost something like £20 - £25 via my Triton Extreme 88 which means I get to use a full keyboard length.

Would I pay for an actual MS20, no as the iPad one sounds just fine for me.

For every person that insists true analogue sound is simply unobtainable via digital, there will be loads like me that are not convinced that's necessarily true if a digital synth is programmed properly, and even if it was true, I doubt most synth owners would be able to tell unless they heard them side by side.

Some people like to have racks of synths, those sorts of people may well be interested in such a thing, but with the advance of technology and things like the Kronos, I suspect the market would be very very very small.

Although saying all that, if I was rich, I would happily buy a good condition Jupiter 8 that I always dreamed of buying in my youth but even then, I think apart from the nostalgia side, I would get more out of my extreme and my soft synths

[billbaker]

Whu!?

There are 2 engines on the Kronos that do just that, no? AL1 and MS20EX

If you want just a resurrected MS-20, the iPad version gives you exactly that at a ridiculously low price, and you can hook the control knobs of your favorite USB controller to tweak your favorite performance parameters - no build required.

OK, I'll concede that those are "virtual" as opposed to hardware analogs, but they are both very low aliasing. Why not live in the now?


BB

[BasariStudios]

Actually Bill Polysix is there too and the DX7...why WOULD they MAKE Vintage Synths?

[billbaker]

PolySix is the EX part of MS20EX which makes it poly- vs mono-phonic. Didn't mention the DX engine because the OP was about analog specifically, and I don't consider FM in the same category... though why Yamaha doesn't make the DX7 again... no wait, they did (updated module at least).

Korg's been feeling their way into a new paradigm for synths over the last few years. Consider:

They've released KLC and iVA synths to feel out what the demand is for their non-hardware synths.

They are getting a better handle on the distribution and piracy issues that would stand in the way of their making a big push in that direction.

They've experimented with modularizing their synth engines to make fully controllable hardware and controller key-beds separate yet with a high degree of connectivity (M3, Radias).

They've put multiple engines on a single platform with a high degree of integration (Kronos) and the ability to run multiple (selectable) engines at the same time.

----------

Staring into my crystal ball I see a future that holds an even more flexible version of Kronos where the engines (more of 'em!) are user selectable, downloadable, upgradable and integrated, and a user cloud makes the sharing new of sounds and music part of the ownership experience.

Put that one in the time capsule.



BB

[X-Trade]

Not true, Bill. PolySix is an entirely different engine and synthesizer. For a start it is not semi-modular and has no HPF. and the filter it does have has an entirely different character. It has two oscillators and the PolySix has one (plus subsosc). PolySix has a built in effects section.

On the Kronos, OASYS, and on the Plug-in software version, you can make the actual MS20 instrument polyphonic, which makes it technically equivalent to (actually, better than) a PS3300! It's an incredible advancement in technology.

The 'EX' part on the K/O just means that it is an EXi engine/instrument. You have both the PolySixEX and the MS20EX.


But I agree with everything else you have said

[andersborg]

As others have said, not profitable.

The route to take, if any, would be to make software synths (like Legacy Collection) or as sound engines for Kronos (that are completely in software). The prior would be accessible to the most people.

That way you could also get much more polyphony than on the original equipment, and e.g. the Korg M1 emulation got a filter with resonance etc.

Whether Korg will do more with this is an entirely different question.

Cheers,
Anders

[Yoa]

Alright, secondary question: Is KORG's new analogue line a good or bad idea? Their software I admit is pretty good (still, though, compare a real MS-20 to the KLC, it's an entirely different animal), and since everyone is software based now it seems odd for such a company to go analogue again, even with the resurgence.

[billbaker]

If analog is the question the knob is the answer. The trick is how to organize a knob based interface such that it could flexibly represent several different architectures.

Would you have colored LED's to divide a field of knobs into module areas? Would there be a way to have labels of those knobs change with each engine? How would you mix and match sounds across several engines (could you?) How would you set up presets or user voices.

I don't know.


BB

[Yoa]

So you think they started doing analogue stuff again for an easy interface and true analogue tone?

Well, with modular synthesizers, this is easy, so I would assume some sort of digitally controlled itnerface would make your ideeas a reality. Maybe a Microsoft Surface-like design, but with physical knobs. the screen around them has the look of a module.

[billbaker]

I think they started doing analog stuff for the sound.

I think they started doing second generation analog (like in Kronos) because they could get so close (now) with digital that the old complaints about stairstepping of waves and digital artifacts and aliasing are, if not gone, at least WAY down in the grass.

I think that there are a lot of users on either side of the analog issue because so far there's no bridge between digital's flexibility and a one method only hardwired unit. You can love the sound... but a lot of folks (like me) think that the thing that makes it great also make it a pain - a knob for every parameter, and where parameters are layered on a single knob the interface becomes a stumbling block.

I (personally) think analog is a pain because there are too many knobs, Herr Motzart. Thogh, I must say I do like the thought of maybe having 10 synths on a keyboard that are as straightforward and simple as my Moog Rogue was - a dozen or so knobs, without fifty more on the surface that just add to the clutter and confusion.

- so -

I think Arturia Analog Lab with the samples and screen and knobs, pads and sliders would be ideal in an all-hardware configuration that didn't tie up my MAC or PC or need a "key" and worked from "power on" without anything else cobbled on as bells and whistles and was, hey while we're wishing, was upgradable.



BB

[Yoa]

I agree, those artifacts are very nearly gone, but instead replaced with DSP and DSP-style problems.

I always thought that the one-knob-per-function deal was great, and easy. Granted, on more complex systems that would be hundreds of knobs, but you would have no menus nor windows. Digitally, I like things like the MK which use a simple matrix and knobs.

I always think of synths with many engines as just multiple separate synths. Together, yeah, the number of knobs and sliders and what have you is almost scary, but alone they are easy to handle.

I agree. Arturia has really set a standard, why not break their own standards? That would be great.

[dexfx69]

[quote="Ojustaboo"
For every person that insists true analogue sound is simply unobtainable via digital, there will be loads like me that are not convinced that's necessarily true if a digital synth is programmed properly.[/quote]

Sad but true. And if they don't have an analog synth to A/B to digital, they won't know the big difference.

Me, I hope Korg continues with the analog - the Monotribe is amazing fun and amazing sound.