Mipa 2012 Kronos the best workstation !!!

[JPROBERTLA]

Workstations are no longer relevant? Lets not forget that until recently workstations were the flagship keyboards for most mainstream manufacturers. So if you wanted the best keyboard a manufacturer had to offer, you bought their workstation. Thats more than likely explains more than anything the reduction in workstation sales as a share in the keyboard market; now you have good non-workstation keyboards. Only time will tell for sure, but it appears that workstations will sell when they are good.

[Bruce Lychee]

Workstations are no longer relevant? Lets not forget that until recently workstations were the flagship keyboards for most mainstream manufacturers. So if you wanted the best keyboard a manufacturer had to offer, you bought their workstation. Thats more than likely explains more than anything the reduction in workstation sales as a share in the keyboard market; now you have good non-workstation keyboards. Only time will tell for sure, but it appears that workstations will sell when they are good.

Nobody is saying they are no long relevant. Just less so.

3 years ago if you wanted to buy the best Roland synth, you certainly did not buy their workstation... You bought their V synth GT. Nor do I remember any point in time that you would by the Motif if you wanted Yamaha's best stage piano.

Yes the Fantom and Motif were flagships... Flagship workstations. Neither company has ever put all their best keyboard technology into their workstations.

I assume you feel the Kronos is more than good. Do you think the Kronos will achieve sales figures anywhere close to how the Motif sold at one time? I highly doubt it. In any case it is great that Korg leveraged the technology they had in the O and created the Kronos. I do wish it was more of an OASYS II, but I imagine the demand for such a keyboard might be restrictively limited in today's market.

[GregC]

Workstations are no longer relevant? Lets not forget that until recently workstations were the flagship keyboards for most mainstream manufacturers. So if you wanted the best keyboard a manufacturer had to offer, you bought their workstation. Thats more than likely explains more than anything the reduction in workstation sales as a share in the keyboard market; now you have good non-workstation keyboards. Only time will tell for sure, but it appears that workstations will sell when they are good.

even if the workstation sales pie ( think pie chart) has shrunk some over the years, I think Korg is grabbing a bigger share of the sales pie, with the Kronos. +$2500 or +$3000 sales are very difficult to achieve. These high price points are always a more difficult sell than a $1200 MOX ( an entry level board).

Any manufacturer would say ' thank you very much, I would like more, please' of a high price point product.

[sani]

Where do I get that? Just look at the shrinking workstation market sales numbers. As for specialized tools, just look at all the software that has been developed over the last 10 years and hardware peripherals like Maschine or those made by Akai, not to mention DPs. Yes, some live players will always want a workstation, but the demand simply isn't what it once was.

Of course, the market is shrinking simply because the whole recording/audio processing industry moved to software. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people are moving away from a workstation to some kind of more specialized instruments with more flexibility. There is hardly more flexibility in any other instrument than what you actually have in workstations. Yes, those who play 90% of their stage time a piano patch will choose a stage piano. But that's how it was even twenty years ago.

There are just too many other options that offer more flexibility at a lower price.

No. Workstations are actually the only option with a maximum flexibility and a more or less acceptable price. A dedicated stage piano is certainly not more flexible just because it has a 20% or 80% better piano patch. A Nord is not more flexible just because it has drawbars and the Jupiter 80 as a fresh example is equally not more flexible than the Fantom G. And most often, they are not cheaper.
I think that most keyboard player actually don't care about labels. Just because there is a print saying that it's a workstation doesn't mean that live players won't use them without the sequencer. That's the reason why we see so many workstations on stage while nobody actually use the sequencer.

Roland most certainly said that. They explicitly said they wanted to get away from making workstations and back to making more focused instruments for players.

I never heard something similar from them. Regardless, taking the sequencer and/or sampler away from the keyboard and putting in some "supernatural" patches is IMHO still far away from a "more focused instruments for players". In many aspects the Fantom G for example is a more focused and more flexible instrument than the Jupiter 80.

[jeremykeys]

Having never played one, I have to ask what exactly is the difference between an arranger keyboard and a workstation?
On another note, I think it all boils down to the individual players needs. If the other manufacturers couldn't come up with a need for workstations any more there must have been a good reason. For myself, I DO want a "do it all" keyboard. I'm really tired of dragging a truckload of gear to a gig. Of course I do know that I will eventually be back up to 3 'boards on a stand but I'm really trying not to. I also don't need a laptop and a controller keyboard even if the sounds are amazing.
Other players might feel the opposite way though and I can see that too. For me the workstation just works.

[Bruce Lychee]

Where do I get that? Just look at the shrinking workstation market sales numbers. As for specialized tools, just look at all the software that has been developed over the last 10 years and hardware peripherals like Maschine or those made by Akai, not to mention DPs. Yes, some live players will always want a workstation, but the demand simply isn't what it once was.

Of course, the market is shrinking simply because the whole recording/audio processing industry moved to software. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people are moving away from a workstation to some kind of more specialized instruments with more flexibility. There is hardly more flexibility in any other instrument than what you actually have in workstations. Yes, those who play 90% of their stage time a piano patch will choose a stage piano. But that's how it was even twenty years ago.

There are just too many other options that offer more flexibility at a lower price.

No. Workstations are actually the only option with a maximum flexibility and a more or less acceptable price. A dedicated stage piano is certainly not more flexible just because it has a 20% or 80% better piano patch. A Nord is not more flexible just because it has drawbars and the Jupiter 80 as a fresh example is equally not more flexible than the Fantom G. And most often, they are not cheaper.
I think that most keyboard player actually don't care about labels. Just because there is a print saying that it's a workstation doesn't mean that live players won't use them without the sequencer. That's the reason why we see so many workstations on stage while nobody actually use the sequencer.

Roland most certainly said that. They explicitly said they wanted to get away from making workstations and back to making more focused instruments for players.

I never heard something similar from them. Regardless, taking the sequencer and/or sampler away from the keyboard and putting in some "supernatural" patches is IMHO still far away from a "more focused instruments for players". In many aspects the Fantom G for example is a more focused and more flexible instrument than the Jupiter 80.

When I talk about more specialized and flexible tools, I'm simply talking about the vast availability of software and hardware centered around computers. Surely you know many have migrated to those setups for live use as well. I cant imagine that you believe a Kronos is more flexible than those setups? Not to mention the ever increasing functionality of the iPad. Just look the iPad peripherals that Roland is developing for the Jupiter. It isn't too hard to imagine that they are a step or two away form having full blown sequencing and sampling functionality running off the latest iPad. Not to mention thunderbolt connectivity and the amazing stability of the latest Mac platforms. My Mac boots in 20 seconds and has never crashed or caused any issues for me... I wish I could say the same for my Kronos.

In no way am I saying stage pianos or the Jupiter by themselves are more flexible than a workstation. What I am saying is that other companies have clearly spent time developing very focused instruments rather than putting most of their focus on their workstations. Look at the Roland's offerings or Yamahas dizzying array of digital pianos. On the other hand, what does Korg have... The SV and wavedrum? Ok, admittedly, the micropiano is high on the list for my 8 month old baby.

Not only did Roland Japan say it in their earliest interviews regarding the Jupiter, but Scott Tibbs repeated it in his in store demo. You don't have to believe me. Furthermore, if you think the Fantom is a more focused instrument than the Jupiter, clearly you haven't spent enough time with the Jupiter. Yes, the Fantom is more flexible... In the same way a Honda Minivan is more flexible than a Ferrari 430. Also, if you think all those SN elements are just more patches, you don't understand SN. It isn't just about loading up samples. Each SN sound is akin to an engine in itself, not to mention the VA, which doesn't exist on the Fantom. Roland has just limited the amount of tweaking you can do to those acoustic sounds in the Jupiter... And that's where I see an opportunity for the next Roland workstation if there is to be one.

[Bruce Lychee]

Having never played one, I have to ask what exactly is the difference between an arranger keyboard and a workstation?
On another note, I think it all boils down to the individual players needs. If the other manufacturers couldn't come up with a need for workstations any more there must have been a good reason. For myself, I DO want a "do it all" keyboard. I'm really tired of dragging a truckload of gear to a gig. Of course I do know that I will eventually be back up to 3 'boards on a stand but I'm really trying not to. I also don't need a laptop and a controller keyboard even if the sounds are amazing.
Other players might feel the opposite way though and I can see that too. For me the workstation just works.

Arrangers tend to have a range of identified backing track styles and voices so you can easily put together rhythms and voices to create music in certain styles. They usually don't have sampling functionality.

I think there will always be people who want workstations for the very reasons you mention.

[LivePsy]

Not sure I understand the "everyone is going to laptops so you're not allowed an all-in-one keyboard"

I voted with my dollars...
B

[afr]

With the Kurzweil and MOX8 as its competition, is it really any surprise that the Kronos won?

The Yamaha MOX series would likely be considered entry-level workstations... obviously the Yamaha Motif XF is a better contender in this horse race.

You're perfectly right! but lets consider also the price, I paid 2800 euro for a Kronos 61, a Motif XF6+2GB Flash costs 2700 euro, I think that is very easy comparing the features that Kronos is more convenient then a motif xf!

moreover, kronos integrates an USB audio card, on the motif xf you have to buy also th FW expansion, so in my humble opinion at the moment on the market there are not WS that you can compare with kronos

this is why Kronos won so easily

[Bruce Lychee]

Not sure I understand the "everyone is going to laptops so you're not allowed an all-in-one keyboard"

I voted with my dollars...
B

Now now, nobody said that.

[JPROBERTLA]

The past few posts have illustrated the relevance and importance of what the Kronos is about and contemporary keyboard development - workstation or otherwise. Although this thread started out about the Kronos being named the best workstation by mipa, it has evolved into whether workstations are fading out - what difference does that make? The Kronos is absolutely more than a workstation.

Think about it; in following this forum is seems as though a lot of Kronos owners don't even use many of the "basic" workstation functions (sequencer, sampler, recorder, etc.). Someone just asked the difference between a workstation and a arranger; to me that question best sums it up; what difference does it make.

The Kronos may be officially labeled a workstation, even by Korg, but it is certainly more than that. I am not going to do a poll to find out what I already know. Based on the forum topics and questions, I suspect that most people use this as a performance keyboard and many as a stand-alone performance keyboard which perhaps allowed them to reduce the complexity of their rig. If you are a busy performing musician this wold be a huge benefit. If you are not, then multiple specialized keyboards and/or soft synths are not a problem.

As for comparing historical market shares and overall numbers of units sold, thats comparing apples and oranges; the number of M-1's sold in the early 1990s has no relevance to 2011 and beyond; its a different time. When Yamaha, Roland and Kurzweil introduce new keyboards, don't be surprised if they are Kronos-like in many respects. Until then enjoy the best mainstream and versatile keyboard on the planet.

[Bruce Lychee]

The past few posts have illustrated the relevance and importance of what the Kronos is about and contemporary keyboard development - workstation or otherwise. Although this thread started out about the Kronos being named the best workstation by mipa, it has evolved into whether workstations are fading out - what difference does that make? The Kronos is absolutely more than a workstation.

Think about it; in following this forum is seems as though a lot of Kronos owners don't even use many of the "basic" workstation functions (sequencer, sampler, recorder, etc.). Someone just asked the difference between a workstation and a arranger; to me that question best sums it up; what difference does it make.

The Kronos may be officially labeled a workstation, even by Korg, but it is certainly more than that. I am not going to do a poll to find out what I already know. Based on the forum topics and questions, I suspect that most people use this as a performance keyboard and many as a stand-alone performance keyboard which perhaps allowed them to reduce the complexity of their rig. If you are a busy performing musician this wold be a huge benefit. If you are not, then multiple specialized keyboards and/or soft synths are not a problem.

As for comparing historical market shares and overall numbers of units sold, thats comparing apples and oranges; the number of M-1's sold in the early 1990s has no relevance to 2011 and beyond; its a different time. When Yamaha, Roland and Kurzweil introduce new keyboards, don't be surprised if they are Kronos-like in many respects. Until then enjoy the best mainstream and versatile keyboard on the planet.

The Kronos is more than a workstation? That's nice to say but what does that really mean? Isn't the Kronos as a workstation supposed to be comprehensive and cover many bases? If its the sound engines that are of ultimate value, why are people going to pay for all the other functionality? I know many keyboard players who won't consider the Kronos because of its complexity... And because it isn't really built to the physical standards you would expect form such an expensive keyboard.

Historical comparisons are absoultely relevant. You don't think the fact there has been marked trend downward in workstation sales has any relevance? If automakers thought like that, they would still be focusing their efforts on making large, gas guzzling SUVs.

If Roland release a new keyboard it will be based on their SN technology. They have already stated that SN will the basis for their instruments going forward. How will that be like the Kronos when you are talking about a completely different approach to the underlying technology?

[sani]

Furthermore, if you think the Fantom is a more focused instrument than the Jupiter, clearly you haven't spent enough time with the Jupiter. Yes, the Fantom is more flexible... In the same way a Honda Minivan is more flexible than a Ferrari 430.

Dear Bruce,
I really don't want to turn this topic into yet another Kronos (or whatever) vs. Jupiter discussion, but let me formulate it again: the problem is Roland and their incompetence to build a keyboard without basic flaws. That's all. They have great engineers who know hot to built a great sound and a great technology and they have some students who toy around with that technology and turn it into a final instrument. I'm saying that not because I want to bash Roland but because that is my experience with their keyboards which I use.
I could write a long list based on my experience with the Jupiter 80 but I guess we had enough of the JP80 here. I have spend enough time with the Jupiter. Again, the FG is more flexible. Don't be obsessed just with the sound and the spectroscopic picture of the release tail on the SN piano.
It's a keyboard. Think about its features and how they are implemented. Just think for a while how many presses you have to take to move from a registration in set 8 to a registration on set 1. Count the button presses and imagine this doing live when you have to move from one song to another immediately. Let's just take the Minivan and the Ferrari out of this comparison.
Can you use the upper liveset as the most right zone, while the solo zone is between the upper and lower live set? Think about how many steps you have to make to do this and than think about how easy it was to create zones in the live mode on the FG. You'll see by yourself how inappropriate and flawed your Minivan/Ferrari comparison is. Unfortunately, we had some very vocal "smart" guys here, praising the JP80 as the biggest thing after Eagle landed on the moon, but obviously they never did anything on the JP80 beyond selecting registrations and raving about how great they sound.
I really know what I'm talking about when I say that the FG is more flexible and more focused.

[Bruce Lychee]

Furthermore, if you think the Fantom is a more focused instrument than the Jupiter, clearly you haven't spent enough time with the Jupiter. Yes, the Fantom is more flexible... In the same way a Honda Minivan is more flexible than a Ferrari 430.

Dear Bruce,
I really don't want to turn this topic into yet another Kronos (or whatever) vs. Jupiter discussion, but let me formulate it again: the problem is Roland and their incompetence to build a keyboard without basic flaws. That's all. They have great engineers who know hot to built a great sound and a great technology and they have some students who toy around with that technology and turn it into a final instrument. I'm saying that not because I want to bash Roland but because that is my experience with their keyboards which I use.
I could write a long list based on my experience with the Jupiter 80 but I guess we had enough of the JP80 here. I have spend enough time with the Jupiter. Again, the FG is more flexible. Don't be obsessed just with the sound and the spectroscopic picture of the release tail on the SN piano.
It's a keyboard. Think about its features and how they are implemented. Just think for a while how many presses you have to take to move from a registration in set 8 to a registration on set 1. Count the button presses and imagine this doing live when you have to move from one song to another immediately. Let's just take the Minivan and the Ferrari out of this comparison.
Can you use the upper liveset as the most right zone, while the solo zone is between the upper and lower live set? Think about how many steps you have to make to do this and than think about how easy it was to create zones in the live mode on the FG. You'll see by yourself how inappropriate and flawed your Minivan/Ferrari comparison is. Unfortunately, we had some very vocal "smart" guys here, praising the JP80 as the biggest thing after Eagle landed on the moon, but obviously they never did anything on the JP80 beyond selecting registrations and raving about how great they sound.
I really know what I'm talking about when I say that the FG is more flexible and more focused.

You do realize V2 has a registration set mode very similar to the Kronos? V2 is very much akin to the major update that V2 was for the V-synth. Furthermore if you needed 2 registrations consecutively, why would you place them at the opposite ends of the registrations. You could make a set list page equally inefficient by putting one song first and the next song you need at the end of the last page.

I'm not obsessed with the spectroscopic analysis of the SN pianos, but why ignore what they show? It isn't just the tail end either. Furthermore, as a former owner of the Fantom G and 700 SX, I know how dramatically improved the SN pianos are from Roland's prior offerings.

There is no doubt the Fantom is more flexible... It is a workstation after all. That being said, it relies entirely on PCMs and samples outside of the limited ARX cards. The Jupiter is all about providing Roland's best sound engines in a keyboard that is meant for live playing. In that regard, it is very much the Ferrari compared to the Honda minivan.

You can insist you know what you are talking about, but you are just providing another opinion. The fact that you feel the need to insult other users in the process of making your argument tells me that you are less confident than you profess.

If you want to talk about the inability to build a keyboard without flaws, I don't think you need to look any further than the numerous threads regarding the Kronos. I've been sitting on an oversized rack unit for almost a year waiting for Korg to get things right. I've never had that kind of experience with any product, let alone a keyboard. Furthermore, whatever flaws were in the Fantom, you can look across Roland's product line and see many great products, including keyboards.

To get back on point, as I have already stated, I fully agree that the Kronos is the best workstation available and will probably be so for some time. I just wish they had put more resources into the physical components and design. I would have gladly paid more.

[LivePsy]

What was the purpose of spruiking Roland products on a thread about Korg winning the workstation award?

Live and let live Dude!

EDIT: Sorry 'spruiking' may not be a familiar term. Its Austalian slang:-

"To promote a thing or idea to another person, in order that they buy the thing, or accept the idea"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spruik