 |
Korg Forums
A forum for Korg product users and musicians around the world.
Moderated Independently.
Owned by Irish Acts Recording Studio & hosted by KORG USA
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thekeymaster
Senior Member
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 367
Location: Stoke-On-Trent,England
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think the main problem with all this sequencer talk is the frustration felt by many users that an opportunity is being lost by Korg on this issue.
Korg improve their sample+synthesis playback engine significantly HD-1
They transport an organ model across to the OASYS. CX-3
Create an impressive VA with the AL-1
Then they add STR-1 ,port the legacy collection across creating brilliant sound engines and utilising the screens ability perfectly.
Karma gets a major update and is far easier to use using the OASYS's screen.
But then we come to the sequencer and it is basically a slight improvement on the Triton seq.Korg add audio capabilities but the sequencers workflow has not been given as much attention as the rest of the workstation.It does need an update,in fact I would say Korgs sequencer needs an update in all its keyboard range.It is time.
Roland have been mentioned a few times here and they have been improving their workstation seq's over many years.As far as hardware goes for me,they have always produced the best sequncers and the OASYS could learn alot from the Fantom X seq.
I would love to see Korg take the lead on this and have as much pride about the seq as they do in regards to their sound engines,if they did they could truly boast the best hardware products on the planet.
And I think we are treading on thin ice if we disregard the requests of owners who do rely on the seq for the creation of ideas.If the seq is just an after thought ,why include it in the first place.Is'nt this meant to be a workstation!!!!!!! I'm sure Korg would do something about the OASYS's sound creation abilities if people were complaining and I know Stephen Kay would do his best to improve an issue with Karma if many owners complained about important aspects of its operation.
I would argue the seq as had more threads and more discussion about it than any other aspect of the OASYS. That must count for something,dont ya think???
I'm off to the seq poll to vote......
_________________
Neil.
Cake Muncher |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
StephenKay
KARMA Developer
Approved Merchant
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2979
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daz wrote: | | StephenKay wrote: | | "some" is the key word here. |
I chose the word "some" carefully rather than "many" ... |
My apologies if I thought it sounded blanket, it just seemed slightly unfair, without actually knowing the internal situation over there.
I don't want you all to think I'm insensitive to this issue.
However, people should realize that changing the sequencer, the way people are talking about here, is a job that is many magnitudes greater than making a new EXi and slotting it in to the existing architecture. It doesn't really matter that Roland or Yamaha or CompanyX has such and such a thing, like a Piano Roll Editor - Korg doesn't at the moment. And, it's a totally different thing - engineers that are good at designing synth engines are not necessarily qualified to write sequencers, or edit the existing sequencer code-base. So if there are a bunch of engineers qualified to write a new synth engine, that's what they do, and Korg releases it - it's still driving further development.
Anyway, I'm sure that Korg is aware of it and would like to do something about it.
_________________
Stephen Kay - KARMA Developer • Karma-Lab - karma-lab.com
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Platinum Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 997
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What does it make so difficult to program a decent, average software-sequencer? I remember using Cubase-Notator on the Atari Mega ST. Remember: Mega ST ment ONE MEGABYTE! It came with a 12'' black&white screen and worked nicely. I even used it on stage: no freezes - no problems. That was about 20 years ago. Now we have a machine with 2 GB memory and a colour-touchscreen ... and no piano roll, no drum maps, occasional freezes ... absolutely amazing ... 
I admit: I do like the integration of all the modules on one platform. I stopped using any external sequencers. I stopped using any external stuff beside microphones and monitors. I might be the "ideal" Oasys-user. This integration was the very reason why I got my Oasys: have an All-In-One-Machine. But the sequencer really falls behind. One can live with it. One can live without piano roll, drum maps, 400something resolution, 64 midi tracks, decent audio editing ... but only if the rest of the modules is superb. However, the user interface of this sequencer is from 1980 and getting used to this historical level again was one of the sad experiences with my Oasys. 
PS: It is no big surprise there is a (large) number of people within Korg thinking there are only a few Oasys-sequencer-users.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daz
Retired
Joined: 01 Jan 2002
Posts: 10829
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO adding a piano roll editor, or other more graphical editors that can be invoked in the same way that the current MIDI Event Editor doesn't constitute re-architecting the sequencer. Not nearly as much as adding Drum Track I wouldn't have thought. Showing a graphic that indicates what the 5 different velocity curves are in the Modify Velocity dialog doesn't either. Nor would adding a diatonic transposition function or showing the meanings of various events in the MIDI event editor. These things would be simply finishing or improving the existing architecture.
Editing programs in multi-mode, that's definitely a re-architect for Korg, I appreciate that.
I do understand about the "internal situation" thang though. Point taken.
Daz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kontrol49
Platinum Member
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 1280
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnthonyB wrote: | | Kontrol49 wrote: |
Touchscreen makes things more pleasant,but it takes so long and round the houses,that by the time I've done it I have lost all enthusiam, |
Funny thing Kontrol49, but thats how Some people (including OASYS owners) describe Cubase/softsynths etc etc 
The OASYS was meant to make these things simple, and keep the workflow in "one domain" these Roland MV sequencers ain't cheap, that's for sure (£1,300 ?), but if its needed and it's the only option, then so be it - i guess
***SHOULD*** it have had to come to this (in your example - at least)?
- not sure it should have TBH 
AnthonyB |
Simple Fact is No it shouldn't but currently I have no other choice,I bought a 5K synth and ended up with 80s sequence technology,whilst it may be acceptable to some people to use software as well,I 've come to the point where I want to return to my old days with NO software...
you can sort of swallow the slim sequencing duties on perhaps the Triton,being a mid range workstation in comparison to the Oasys,but as my demands get larger so does my Workflow need to follow suit.
I'm no fan of softsynths,having used most of the major players software they never gave me the Interaction of a hardware equivilant,I only utilise software for sequencing(Cubase VST and SX3)
For a long time I wanted to go back to my old Roland MC50 or Akai MPC60 Days with a smaller setup and a hardware only based studio,I was kind of hoping the Oasys could replace that setup with a larger interface and more options,sadly it fell short(Although meets the needs of everything else),and There is very little if any machine around now that gives you all the flexibility of software without cutting major corners for Hardware domain
I've not bought the MV8800 out of frustration with Korg,because simple fact is I have had my eye on the Roland for a while now before I had looked at Purchasing the O,and I was well aware of the limitations of the Korg way before
I just didn't want to jump in only to find that the MV wasn't what I needed,after many visits and helpful staff at my local store,I was finally happy with it meeting the challenge of my sequencing needs,after seeing loads of Demos in the Roland sites and also on You tube
If Korg update the sequencer then so be it,I won't regret buying the MV,I would have bought one whether I had firstly bought the O anway because after using for a couple of days know its what I have been after in a hardware sequencer,9I'm glad i did wait as the price is a whole lot lower than when I First laid my eyes on the MV)but I also have the option to run it very much in a software flexibility too,and In anycase I doubt the Oasys will even have a patch on the features of the MV sequencer modes,at the current moment the MV is also far more productive to use standalone(without the Mouse and VGA) than the Oasys anyway,if only it had a touchscreen
I don't regret buying the Oasys neither,the Oasys and Karma are an integral piece of my setup along with a handful of decent synths,the intergration of the MV has allowed me to return to my original work ethic,so what if its cost me more cash,I have had an overhaul of the studio in recent months anyhow so the money raised from those items sold is only going back into it for investment purposes to buy newer technology.
I have always invested money into the Studio because its part of my Income,and have always seen it as Like a craftsman reinvests in newer tools to allow him to do the job easier and less labourously
the Oasys has given me a better sound pallet but the MV will give me the sequencer I need.
It would be interesting to see Korg overhaul the Sequencer to a sort of standard that many would like to see and still offer it as a free OS upgrade???
I find it a Joke that there's a charge for the Legacy collection upgrade for the Oasys,after paying £5K for a synth after already having bought the Legacy collection for the PC,there should be some sort of "Privilige" pass to Oasys owners
And if Korg choose to do that to the sequencer upgrade(If there is one) I would rather invest in a further hardware unit Like the MV8800 that cost me £xxx more that satisifies all my needs than a sequencer that only retains a few things I need,cos its very doubtful that should it be upgraded to that standard without a major overhaul of its OS That it would be offered for free.
I'm not turning my Back on Korg,I never would,I always had the ideology that if Korg don't make something I need,then it maybe doesn't exist,and one of the reason I have always used Korg is there sounds....
there workstations have always been ample for previous work ethics just on this occasion I have needed to look in other directions.And I most certainly would Buy another Future Korg workstation,but the sequence section on it will have a direct influence on whether or not I would buy it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davidb
Platinum Member
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daz wrote: | IMO adding a piano roll editor, or other more graphical editors that can be invoked in the same way that the current MIDI Event Editor doesn't constitute re-architecting the sequencer. Not nearly as much as adding Drum Track I wouldn't have thought. Showing a graphic that indicates what the 5 different velocity curves are in the Modify Velocity dialog doesn't either. Nor would adding a diatonic transposition function or showing the meanings of various events in the MIDI event editor. These things would be simply finishing or improving the existing architecture.
|
I´m agree with Daz on that.
The adition of, for example, new graphical editors doesnt change the existing architecture of the curret sequencer, but will refine and improve the way of working so much.
The same can be said of the increase of the PPQ resolution, the adittion of more MIDI tracks to control external gear, etc, etc.
_________________
Regards.
D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StephenKay
KARMA Developer
Approved Merchant
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2979
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Davidb wrote: | | The same can be said of the increase of the PPQ resolution, the adittion of more MIDI tracks to control external gear, etc, etc. |
No, it can't. Ever since I learned how to program real computer software, I'm amazed at how most people think engineers can just snap their fingers and magically add stuff to a completely working system. More tracks? Huge change in architecture. The MIDI spec only supports 16 tracks of MIDI. You have to get into additional ports, additional MIDI outs, etc. 480 ppq? A fundamental change that affects every single function of the sequencer. True, they did it for the M3, which took several years of engineering before it was released (altogether). So likely it can be done for the OASYS. But still...
I don't really expect anyone to agree with me. You want what you want, you want it now. OK. As a programmer though, I know what it's like to add things to an existing architecture without breaking what's already there.
Actually, before I learned to write computer code, and actually became involved in development of a hardware-based product, I used to always say things like "How hard can it be to <insert favorite wishlist item here>?" Now, I know exactly how hard. 
_________________
Stephen Kay - KARMA Developer • Karma-Lab - karma-lab.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unknown Sound
Full Member
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 129
Location: On a small island just off the coast of an island not to far from Antarctica
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| StephenKay wrote: | | Davidb wrote: | | The same can be said of the increase of the PPQ resolution, the adittion of more MIDI tracks to control external gear, etc, etc. |
No, it can't. Ever since I learned how to program real computer software, I'm amazed at how most people think engineers can just snap their fingers and magically add stuff to a completely working system. More tracks? Huge change in architecture. The MIDI spec only supports 16 tracks of MIDI. You have to get into additional ports, additional MIDI outs, etc. 480 ppq? A fundamental change that affects every single function of the sequencer. True, they did it for the M3, which took several years of engineering before it was released (altogether). So likely it can be done for the OASYS. But still...
I don't really expect anyone to agree with me. You want what you want, you want it now. OK. As a programmer though, I know what it's like to add things to an existing architecture without breaking what's already there.
Actually, before I learned to write computer code, and actually became involved in development of a hardware-based product, I used to always say things like "How hard can it be to <insert>?" Now, I know exactly how hard. |
Yup. I face this on a daily basis. Add to this budget/resource constraints, skill sets of your developer base, state of legacy code, customers expectations of time to market. Dev projects can be a nightmare to manage. 
No company has unlimited resources, heck, look at Microsoft->Vista...ouch! Also, Korg have a history of bringing 1.0 products to market relatively bug free. They must have a huge investment in QA.
Personally, I think the one thing that's hurting them at the moment is their policy of no pre-release information on updates. Just a hint that the Sequencer will receive updates in the future may quench this uprising.  ...yeah yeah commercial sensitivity.
Just my thoughts.
-US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charlie
Platinum Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 997
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think I understand the "big change" in architecture due to more Midi-tracks or a higher resolution. However, I don't really understand it for a piano roll. Isn't that more like a "different view of the same architecture"? If so it should not be that difficult to implement it ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JamieC5361
Junior Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: sequencer |
|
|
| I really don't get it. I came form a Cubase background. I can't believe you people think that the sequencer in the Oasys is "bad". Actually, my workflow is a lot better with it than with the piano roll. You have to learn to work around it and learn how to bring up clones of songs to cut and copy your phrases, but the end results with the sequencer are nothing short of amazing to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davidb
Platinum Member
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some people, me included, have said that the Sequencer mode can be better, and in some areas *might* be better.
Most of us conclude it needs better MIDI and audio edition, for example. Other people also aks for more resolution, more MIDI or Audio tracks, 24/96 Khz support, etc. Fine.
AFAIK I havent seen or read anyone saying or writing that the O sequencer is "bad", yet.
_________________
Regards.
D.
Last edited by Davidb on Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davidb
Platinum Member
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 1592
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| StephenKay wrote: |
I don't really expect anyone to agree with me. You want what you want, you want it now. OK. |
I dont think its a matter of be agree or not.
Its been asked some upgrades to Sequencer Mode. Its one of vital areas to improve.
Now? ... or when it would be possible, if it is.
No less no more.
I think this is the kind of feedback we (at least I) want to give to Korg.
_________________
Regards.
D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
domc
Full Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 137
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thekeymaster wrote: | I think the main problem with all this sequencer talk is the frustration felt by many users that an opportunity is being lost by Korg on this issue.
.. |
I think this is v.true and it really sums up all the discussions we've been having. We're all v.frustrated on a number of levels.
- frustrated that the current seq is in many ways a decade behind where you could imagine it to be (based on current hardware and software products)
- frustrated that even things that should be very easy to implement (ff/rew in stop mode, more locators, pattern edits alla sharp) haven't been done
- frustrated that the synth engines surpass all other products out there, but they're not teamed with a likewise capable seq system and that you often have to turn to other things to sequence them, play with them
- frustrated that we were sold the concept of a standalone "open studio" which in most ways it is, but when you get into it you realise you can't do some basic things in the sequencer that you take for granted on other systems
- and frustrated that despite thousands of posts, that there is such a lack of decent dialogue about this subject when many believe that an improvement in this area would lead to increased sales of the Oasys to the benefit of everyone including KORG.
You can go into the wishlists and disect for ease of implementation, you can argue that the skills to write synth engines compared to sequencers are different, but if all comes down to if Korg decide they want to make it happen they could and would.
It's just a shame that despite years now of comment (this is clearly one of the top issues) it doesn't look like a decent seq upgrade is on the near horizon. And for those who've come to recognise how powerful the studio is, many of us feel that an upgrade to this part of the studio would be more beneficial (to creativity via better pattern/editing/karma sequencing facilities and workflow via better editing facilities) than a new EXi. This attitude seems to have been confirmed by the small but still meaningful survey being conducted. [And this is in no way to detract from the fabulous EXis that I love using- STR1 is just the most amazing engine I've ever come across period.]
Jerry / Dan, surely there must be a better way of easing some of these frustrations so that a wouldbe purchaser is not put off? Doesn't some kind of comment about Korg's intentions on this subject make sense given the attention this subject gets?
_________________
Oasys 88
Kronos 88
Virus TI Keyboard
Octopus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daz
Retired
Joined: 01 Jan 2002
Posts: 10829
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| StephenKay wrote: | | 480 ppq? A fundamental change that affects every single function of the sequencer. |
As we're talking about this from a programmers perspective ...
I am surprised that the PPQN resolution figure isn't just defined as a constant somewhere in a shared header file and all the related math is driven off that constant. Having changed the constant you run your scheduler 2.5 times faster and you should be done, as long as your processor is able to keep with the higher resolution timing.
Daz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StephenKay
KARMA Developer
Approved Merchant
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 2979
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daz wrote: | | StephenKay wrote: | | 480 ppq? A fundamental change that affects every single function of the sequencer. |
As we're talking about this from a programmers perspective ...
I am surprised that the PPQN resolution figure isn't just defined as a constant somewhere in a shared header file and all the related math is driven off that constant. Having changed the constant you run your scheduler 2.5 times faster and you should be done, as long as your processor is able to keep with the higher resolution timing.
Daz. |
It's absolutely not that simple, don't ask me why. I know for a fact it took a whole bunch of time and work when they did it for the M3.
Probably, a lot of it had to do with legacy code written a certain way. I mean, I know updating from 240 to 300 BPM was a larger change than one might expect due to the fact that 240 is within the range of a byte and 300 is not (takes 2 bytes). Older embedded processor code (from which the OASYS sequencer is descended) tends to be written in a very "stingy" fashion (as opposed to stuff you or I might write for Mac OS X.)
192 is within range of a byte. 480 is not. Likely this is a large part of it. The ripple effect from having to check every single function for loops that use bytes as counters, variables that hold the results of calculations based on 192, all would have to be checked and rewritten in some cases....
Note: I'm only speculating, I'm not sure how much of an issue that this is.
But obviously, if they *could* just change a constant and recompile it, and it works, they would do that.
_________________
Stephen Kay - KARMA Developer • Karma-Lab - karma-lab.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
