Open architecture and Kurzweil VAST comparison

[Kevin Nolan]

I own, in addition to an Oasys, a K2500x and a K2600R.


I really enjoy VAST - to me, the idea of building algorithms in a serial fashion is very intuitive - as for the layers thing, it's easy enough to create one layer and copy it - you can have a 32 layer program, each with different filter settings.

I think this statement is misleading to the original poster -

If you're making discrete parameter settings to 32 layers; this will take a long time and hence it cannot be claimed to be intuitive. And in such instances you cannot simply copy settings actoss layers. Copying the EQ for the bass end layer of a piano is useless to a high end layer; for example. And this is a how you have to do it on VAST - each minute edit - numerically and manually. It's virtually returning tothe original DX7 mode of editing. So it typically takes incredibly long times to make even basic changes to sounds within VAST's complex algorithms; and indeed in many instances you don't even have a clear idea what it is you are adjusting without repeated reference to the manuals.

OK - if you’re a personality type who is happy to tweak parameters for hours on end then this may be acceptable or even enjoyable; but it is NOT intuitive and to imply that it is so is misleading. VAST is powerful, it sounds excellent at times; but VAST is NOT intuitive and has rarely if ever been claimed to be so. Indeed the opposite is the case and many have shied away from it because of its complexity and difficulty.

So to many, myself included, VAST takes too long – a effective ‘eternity’ in the realm of instantaneous thought that occures during artistic thought whether for sound design, composing or playing - and by the time you've made the change; the artistic moment is lost. I have experienced too often on the K2500XS where, for example, making even something as simple as a piano sound more mellow is near impossible. You have to stop what you are doing, go into multiple discrete and intricate layers and adjust several, if not many parameters – a nightmare for anyone who looks for realtime control or rapid editing. Not once have I been able to make one sound - from scratch - within VAST; and contemplating adjusting a sound during a performance is pointless.

Now in reference to the original post for a comparison to OASYS - VAST comes out incredibly poorly on the speed of modification of sounds; and also very poor by comparison on the intuitive front (I feel that STR-1 and MOD-7 could do with another 'round' of GUI development to harness them more easily). But overall, OASYS's range of synthesizers and its superlative hardware controls and touch-view screen provide a far more robust, intuitive and indeed appropriate interface, given its underlying powerful facets. VAST has many powerful features, but harnessing them is very difficult indeed.

In summary, it is far more straightforward and spontaneous to harness the power of OASYS than it is to harness the power of VAST within its current OS’s and interfacing.


Kevin.

[Barbenzinc]

So to many, myself included, VAST takes too long – a effective ‘eternity’ in the realm of instantaneous thought that occures during artistic thought whether for sound design, composing or playing - and by the time you've made the change; the artistic moment is lost

I don't think that when you make a sound from scratch, even with the Oasys, you get an instantaneous perfect result.
It's always the same problem, people buy and sell their synths faster than lightspeed and they want everything now !
The interface on the Oasys is great, no doubt about it.
On the kurz, if you know what you're doing, you can go very fast.

I have experienced too often on the K2500XS where, for example, making even something as simple as a piano sound more mellow is near impossible. You have to stop what you are doing, go into multiple discrete and intricate layers and adjust several, if not many parameters

Stop what ? You can adust everything while a sequence is running.
Your example with the piano is awesome, maybe a lowpass filter would do the job...

And for speed editing, there are a lot of shortcuts, page markers etc...
I suppose you know them and all the tricks for editing like holding the 'enter' button and selecting the modulator sources with the keyboard, or holding 'enter' and moving any controllers like wheels or faders to adjust the values...

Don't get me wrong, the K cannot compete with the interface of the Oasys, but when i read your posts, it only seems that you don't know how to use your K2500xs....

[Kevin Nolan]

Fair points -

While I accept there are many short cuts and it always depends on how well you know your instrument; I still believe the basic point persists (and are important to the original poster):

- Of the many workstations, K2X series; while they sound fantastic because of VAST; are still ahead of themselves in terms of access to its power

- It is not possible to perform live and radically modify sound as you can on OASYS - there is genuinely no comparison.

- Synth programming should be made as musical as possible and the K2 series fail significantly in this.

I feel your point on wanting everything instantaneously is unfair. On the classic synthesizers such as the Prophet 5, Jupiter 8 and CS80, instant access to the sound parameters (and to sound design) was enabled by their stunning design;and not from a desire to appeal to shallow or unthinking sound designers. I'll throw that one back at you and suggest that too often, and especially on the K2 series (and also on OASYS's MOD-7), offering thousands of parameters and a less than suffuicient interface to interact 'musically' represents nothing more than incomplete designs and probably designs by engineers who are not musicians (or are not thnking like musicians when designing).

Apart from a few dedicated users; I would be very confident that virtually no owners of the K2 series; or of MOD-7, have created any sounds from scratch; and probably almost never even from existing sounds. On the other hand; sitting at a CS80 or Jupiter 8 is a living, vibrant experience of sound creation during performance that is pure nirvana. What's the point of offering K2's thousands of parameters if perhaps 99% of users never, ever access them?

You may know the K2 series well, but they are in actuality among the very poorest of workstations regarding their user interface and understandability - indeed even their Performance and Sequencer modes you refer to are incredibly odd and VERY difficult to interface to a DAW, for example (and I do own and program and aweful lot of synthesizers in my appraisal in all of this: http://www.knect.ie/List.html)

Kevin.

Kevin.

[The Keyboard Wizard]

I've made patches from scratch since circa k2000 and onward.
You can do ANYTHING with this machine, if you know how to use it.
Yes the OASYS has a fantastic interface, but even without a touch
screen, I can get around the PC3 just as quickly. In live performance,
you can preassign each of the 8 sliders or any of the footswitches any parameter. The K2600 was awesome in that you could make assignments to 6 footswitches.

With preparation, you could exceed the control of any Prophet 5, Jupiter 8 and CS80 in a live situation!

I have both the OASYS and the PC3X. Like I said before, speaking from a professional musician's standpoint, not a complete fanboy, they both complement each other very well and have their strenghts and believe it or not, weaknesses too! Together they make the ultimate rig.


FL
www.franklucas.net

[The Keyboard Wizard]

Here's a guy that made patches on the K from scratch
and he makes tons of real time controller changes AND
his sounds do NOT cut out when changing patches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr-spb0SETE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZhiYff7nM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-qFRjA9OXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5v_iwn ... re=related



FL
www.franklucas.net

[keego]

Here's a guy that made patches on the K from scratch
and he makes tons of real time controller changes AND
his sounds do NOT cut out when changing patches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr-spb0SETE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZhiYff7nM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-qFRjA9OXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c5v_iwn ... re=related



FL
www.franklucas.net

I notice jordan has 3 K2600R and a Triton in his rack too.
Yep Jordan is probably the best example of what you can create on the Kurz.

[Kevin Nolan]

The only real point I've been trying to make is that its important to let the original poster realise that many have found these instruments tough to program and that you have to put the time in.

VAST does sound fabulous - it's sawtooth emulation alone leads to a huge array of stunning voices, even its K2500 samples are still very respectible and no doubt hte PC3 sounds far better; but i felt it worth mentioning that it's definitely tougher to manage in general than the OASYS; and demands time.

[tcornishmn]

I've got both the Oasys and a PC3X. I'm not as advanced a programmer as some of you are, but I can get around OK on both. Here are a few observations:

Kurzweil is back. Period. Any kind of support issue that can be solved by people is done quickly and with quality. The folks that are doing support are those that build the instrument - that's a benefit of a small company - you can pretty much talk to the guy(s) that designed a particular feature and if they don't have an answer, there isn't one. I don't know the status of their parts supply - at the moment I've heard that it can be a little tough to get some accessories, but that's anecdotal. Parts for new products going forward will not be a problem.

VAST is really powerful, and the PC3 does WAY more than any previous K series did as far as programming goes. They've made some pretty substantial changes to how things work to simplify certain aspects - especially the effects chains, but some other things did get more complicated, like being able to cascade 32 layers together.

Can you make a simple patch with a couple of layers in a hurry? Yes. No one is holding a gun to your head to use all 32 layers.

The PC3, for the most part, sounds great too. I think the pianos, Epianos, and orchestral sections are the best in the business. Their KB3 organ isn't as good IMO as the CX3 in the Oasys (but they're still working on that - 1.3 software is supposed to have KB3 improvements), and the Oasys has a broader range of patches than the PC3 does.

I'm awaiting the PC3 editor software with great interest. There's no question the interface of the Oasys is easier to use in general - you can get so much more information on a screen. The graphics are more and better too.

I had a K2600 and sold it for the Oasys because I got so lost trying to build performances and get the effects right. The Oasys was just cake. The Oasys was the first synth that I could get everything I wanted pretty much right away. I understood the structure, the implementation was good, and the thing just has so much power as far as simultaneous effects and polyphony. Nothing can match that aspect of the Oasys.

I believe the PC3X is a superior MIDI controller. I've never liked the way Korg uses the global channel. With the Kurz implementation, I can assign one slider to do multiple things - for example, I can have one slider simultaneously adjust the volume of two zones in a setup.

The PC3 is a great instrument, and I prefer it for some things to the Oasys, but neither replaces the other for me. Part of that is that I have the 76-key Oasys and the 88-key PC3X, and part of it is my greater experience with the Oasys, but I'm going to be keeping and using both.

[Kayemef]

In a nutshell, could say that both synths really kick ass ? - And M Rudess did do some pretty amazing things with the O also

I was considering selling my O to buy a PC3x, I did a test run and posted my O for 5500 $ (CAN) on a few classified ads and had 3 very interested buyers in less than a few days. Considering the fact that I could've ordered a PC3x for a little less than 3000, that would'Ve left me with 2500 spare to get some pretty neat soft synths... Maybe even an M3 rack if I really needed the KARMA stuff.

The idea seamed very interesting at the time but I decided to keep the O instead of tumbling down the incessant "gear quest" syndrom. I think that for some of us who simply don't have the cashflow to buy two of the best keyboards on the market, its simply a choice of sticking with your guns and trying to get the best out of what you have.

If I would've needed the money, I would have definetely considered the trade-off more seriously... But I don't want to start a debate on "is the O too pricey", its been discussed thouroughly in previous posts and usually people tend to get very sentimental about those things. Nevertheless, I think its very important to consider the fact that the "street price" of the PC3x is about half the one of an Oasys. Something that comes to mind when you have to pay the rent.

Thanks for all your very knowledgeable replies.

Pierre-Andre

[Megakazbek]

Kurzweil Operating Systems are utterly cumbersome. For example, to edit the filtering on a piano, you have to change multiple settings, just for one layer. If there are several layers, you have to do all of that, separately, for each one.

But it's absolutely the same on OASYS or any other multi-layered synthesizer. The main difference is, on OASYS you have just 2 "layers" in a program, but you still can't simultaneously change the filtering of both of them.
Also, you must always remember that Kurzweil's layers can have totally different structure, so it's absolutely impossible to do "synchronised" layer editing because, for example, one layer could have a 2-pole low-pass filter, another layer could have four one-pole filters without resonance, and a third layer may have no filter at all. How can you simultaneously edit filtering on layers with such different parameters?

Furthermore, the parameter names are not obvious

What parameters, for example?
I'm somewhat surprised that this is a problem for you, because to me VAST always was very logical and consistent, and unlike some other much simpler synths (like yamaha Motif, for example), I've been able to learn VAST almost without looking in the manual, even though it's so complex in features.

yet the K2500XS, as much as I like it (and use it) is unbelievably impenetrable for actual sound design and sound editing.

I simply do not agree. For me, it's quite easy to edit and design sounds on a K2xxx or a PC3, it just takes some time to get used to it. There are certainly some inconveniences, like having to switch to different pages frequently, but it is only a minor problem and doesn't make it "unbelievably impenetrable". Actually, if I already thinked of some idea of how to design a particular sound, then implementing it would usually take no more than a minute (maybe a few minutes if it's a complex sound that needs to have a dozen of layers). It's a bit more cumbersome to just experiment with different parameters, algorithms, etc, without a particular goal, but still it's not a major problem for me.
Yes, the editing may be MUCH easier on OASYS, but it doesn't mean that it's hard on Kurzweil.

[Kevin Nolan]

Hi Megakazbek

You make fair points - and I have taken them on board from other posters. I personally find the K2500 tough to program, though I have many synthesizers and much experience. I genuinely find it dreadfully cumbersome - tough to make even minor changes to programs. But that's my experience I accept. But I totally accept that many have found it more straightforward after time well spent on it. And I think Kurzweil synths and VAST sound wonderful.

Actually - the discussion here has definitely triggered my interest in the PC3 - I'm very keen to try that out. While I gripe about programming the K2500, I do like it an awful lot and the PC3 sounds great.

I wonder can you (or someone else) give advice on this - is the PC3 keyboard action as good as the K2500XS keyboard action? I absolutely love the K2500XS action (even though its not graded hammer action). But its exceptionally robust, reassuring and natural. But it looks, from the Kurzweil web site blurb, that the PC3 is lighter, to accommodate synth and organ playing. Can anyone comment on this? For me it would be a huge disappointment if the PC3 keyboard action is lighter on it 88 note version than the K2500XS as I am a piano player and just love that keyboard action.

Cheers,
Kevin.

[Daz]

I really like the idea that you can select a field that has modulation source assigned to it and then jump straight to the editing page for that modulation source (LFO, EG etc.), make a change to it and then fly back with a single button press. There are many shortcuts that make programming VAST very quick indeed.

With regards to multi-layered Programs (not something I use a great deal personally) ... with the Oasys you would need to combine a number of Programs into a Combi to have many layers, and then see how much you enjoy editing individual layers and also being mono-timbral

For me the key thing about the Oasys from a sound design perspective is the lavish modulation arrangements. Very generous in the EG and LFO departments, something which I find lacking in other instruments including VAST. Oh and it sounds --ing great too

Daz.

[Daz]

For me the key thing about the Oasys from a sound design perspective is the lavish modulation arrangements.

I am thinking of the EXi there, rather than HD-1 Would like to see an HD-2 with a little more in the modulation source department and of course the wonderful multi-filter from the EXi. Once you've played with MS20EX or MOD-7 you get spoiled !

Daz.

[Megakazbek]

I wonder can you (or someone else) give advice on this - is the PC3 keyboard action as good as the K2500XS keyboard action? I absolutely love the K2500XS action (even though its not graded hammer action). But its exceptionally robust, reassuring and natural. But it looks, from the Kurzweil web site blurb, that the PC3 is lighter, to accommodate synth and organ playing. Can anyone comment on this?

Of course, keyboard feel is a personal thing, so it is always better to try it yourself. But to me, the PC3X keyboard feels better than my old K2600X (which, I think, has the same keyboard as in K2500X/XS), it has more piano-ish feel and is definitely not lighter, maybe even a bit heavier. By the way, you should distinguish between PC3X which has a hammer-action (piano-like) keyboard and PC3 which has semi-weighted synth-action keyboard.

[Kevin Nolan]

Hi Megakazbek

- Thanks - you've cleared up the confusion - I was reading the blurb for the PC3, which I wrongly thought was the 88 note version. Excellent - I will definitely try this out.

Thanks!
Kevin.