Korg Forums

sasori

I got my Oasys about 5 days ago. Although the sounds are great and the effects/audio matrix is nice, the sequencer is very lackluster.

Like the wavestation, Oasys is a great demo machine. But, when it comes to writing an actual song on it, it falls short. Mind you, I'm commenting about the sequencer only; not its attached audio routing matrix.

Sure, you can handily drone out B-movie Sci-fi soundtracks, like Johnny Moronic (spelling), but putting together a standard intro/phraise/chorus/wash/rinse/repeat is not something this thing is readily capable of assisting in.

Why bother adding a sequencer at all if all Japan's team could come up with is half the sequencer the triton gets? So bad is this sequencer, that I'm going to slave my $8k+, 2006 Oasys to my $1800 1987 Ensoniq ESQ1's sequencer to illustrate the direction the Oasys sequencer should've taken. Unfortunately, the ESQ1's ppqn is 96, I think. Still, its far more functinal for fast songwriting and scoring than Oasys, which is sad.

Another confusing thing is that although copying a combi to a seq is handy, I couldn't figure out how to set other empty tracks to midi channells to fill them with other instruments. I turnded off muti and the rec's for the tracks borrowed from the combi; but no luck. I'm sure this is just due to me not figuring out that facet of the sequencer, though.

I hope that Korg is focusing on a re-do of this sequencer. It should buy a ESQ1 and see how easily a song can be made on a workstation. I'm not saying the ESQ is the best, just better. Aside from that unit, I've also used Sequencer+, Cubase, FL Studio, etc.

MartinHines

ricky recordo · Guest

The ESQ1 has a very nice pattern-based sequencer... I used mine for years. Easy as pie to lay down tracks/sections/songs. But I gotta ask you with Martin here... how is the OASYS sequencer "half a Triton" sequencer?

Mike Conway · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:33 am Post subject:

Derm · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:06 am Post subject:

I've got to chime in here, I was saving this for another post but here goes.
My experience is almost identical to Sasori's, I came from the 1987 ESQ to the 1993 Ensoniq TS-12. The TS-12 is obviously more sophisticated than the ESQ sequencer and I used it for many years, its a highly intuitive system. The Oasys is my first Korg sequencer and I have to say I'm shocked at how clunky it is, so much so that I also am thinking of slaving the Oasys to the TS-12. This defeats my original intention in buying the Oasys, which was to stay as much as possible within one box.
The Oasys is my TS-12 replacement, and 13 years on and being such an innovative
product, it certainly is, except for the sequencer.
I was initially confused with the sequencer as I was looking for patterns to chain together.It took me about three days to realise that patterns as I knew them, just weren't there, quite a shock!
The Ensoniq range were probably the ony machines to have such large displays so when I saw the screen on the Oasys I thought sequencing was going to get even better. Im afraid not.
I guess it would be pretty difficult to rewrite totally how the seq works but with all the power of the Oasys and the size of screen sequencing needs to be a whole lot better
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/theparlezmusic
www.photoazure.com

Drew FM · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject:

Well I'm going on record and going anti-establishment in saying that I absolutely loved the sequencer in my old JV-1000. Every article ever written about it complains that the integration sucked, but I totally understood it. Plus, it had 8 assignable sliders that lined right up to your track/timbre parameters in the display and they would record anything as CC info (basically used it as an automated MIDI track mixer, but it could do more than just that). Too bad it only had 28 notes of poly.

Andy
_________________
Create to enjoy, not to destroy

Daz · Retired Joined: 01 Jan 2002 Posts: 10829

Daz · Retired Joined: 01 Jan 2002 Posts: 10829

It's interesting that in the 5 years of my Triton history that I've not read many people complaining about the Triton sequencer. Even when myself and others "stirred the pot" (let's face it Wink

) in an attempt to find supporters for improvements we wanted to see. A lot of people seem to find it okay and I've read/heard a lot of work people have successfully produced with it. I wondered if the lack of user comment regarding the sequencer may be because everyone was actually using an external sequencer and therefore didn't really care, because the SEQ mode was just a multi-timbral setup. In a poll that turned out not to be the case.

The Triton/Oasys forum areas are run by two people: Sharp and myself. We represent, I think, the two most opposing views on this issue. Sharp thinks the sequencer is good (whilst having some good suggestions for improvement) and has produced some incredible work using it. Conversely I think that it is functional enough but I really could not envisage completing a project using it.

Not just because I've been spoilt senseless by using Logic on a large LCD ... I also have other hardware sequencers that I find more comfortable with.

With the Triton/Oasys I just don't get the workflow ... for example ... as you can only play/record patterns for a single timbre in isolation how do you record a guitar part (that you wish to use in a number of places in the song) that is sympathetic to a bass line/drum beat that you have already layed down ? Are you supposed to do all this in the main sequencer area and then move all the parts to patterns and put patterns to tracks ?

The Event Edit function with it's number format for note positions/lengths combined with the inability to edit or view events in realtime is something I struggle with. Of course the much larger and colour rendering of the sequencer on the Oasys is way more attractive than the Triton and when sketching I've definitely felt more comfortable in there.

So, in fairness, it seems to suit some much better than others, reflecting our differences in working styles/practices ... so it's not just a case that it's bad period.

Finally ... some grotesque speculation Wink

The Oasys in it's current incarnation is an improved Triton shell with radically improved/re-worked synthesis/effects/karma pieces. The focus thus far was very definitely on sound and performance/usability. Disk mode and seq mode have had less attention. In an upcoming OS I imagine that these other areas will receive far more attention and that work will become the basis for all future products just as the Trinity shell led to the Triton shell and all the products we have today.

Daz.

sasori

sasori · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject:

Nice to see the comments from Derm. I believe many of us bought this workstation as an upgrade to the past... and are dissappointed that things have not improved at all in nearly 20 years(!!!!!!). I mean, thats just pathetic of the industry (sequencing segment).

Piano-roll? The MPC and the ESQ didn't rely on depicting music from a form of playback automation developed in 1863(!!!). The unimaginitive idea that piano-roll was the most modern way to depict music composition, starting around the early 1990s) illustrates an industry that, I believe, doesn't understand the craft of songwriting.

It seemed that once the computer took over the role of sequencing music, the hands left the synth and moved to the mouse, and we became more involved with working with the computer than with the synth (I use 'synth to differenciate from computer 'keyboard'). The concepts started by Ensoniq (I'm not sure about the sequencers from Emu; my E3 is busted, so I can't check) and roland(MPC) were lost.

Daz, nice joint you got here, your point about laying down a long part (typically, as you pointed out, sprawling guitar parts) is the reason I mention bringing the final arrangement to a longform sequencer for final production. Making leads bridge two verses was somewhat of a hassle. Having tweaks of different verses just meant copying a verse and making changes to it. but, this is not the initial part of getting the song down. this is the part where you've moved from composition to arranging.

The only software sequencer that I've found that understands this concept and puts it to code is FL Studio; a program I tried to make sound good before opting for the OASYS. Currently, I'm attempting to slave the OASYS to FL Studio. It will probably be weeks before I have a setup that streamlines the process as best as possible.

Unfortunately, I can't hire a programmer to make a songwriter's sequencer. However, I know exactly what is needed and how the interface should work. I saw the triton's and it needs streamlining as well. Too bad Ensoniq is defunkt. A complete software emulation of their boards would've been a brilliant move.

I don't have confidence in the Japan team being able to 'get it'. I've worked with Japanese companies and go to Japan 3 times a year; things move slow and deliberately over there. They are still the embodiment of isolation. What comes out of that team will be their inflexible impression of what they think a music sequencer should be and they will wrestle with it for a very long time. I think it would be a good idea to move the OASYS sequencer development to either California or New York. Maybe a 3rd party needs to do it.

I heard that one of the project managers for Ensoniq moved to Korg. Perhaps he should have some input on this subject.

Daz · Retired Joined: 01 Jan 2002 Posts: 10829

Sharp · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:

sasori · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject:

Orchestra?
Yea, I could totally see how someone could write a complete classical works solely on this unit. Rolling Eyes

Sharp · Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject:

Yeah, just dismiss the idea completely, just like the Sequencer.

Sharp.

Daz · Retired Joined: 01 Jan 2002 Posts: 10829