Korg Forums

I've been looking at the product specs of the Kurzweil PC3x and the hole V.A.S.T thing that's seems to be their trademark since the K2000 series. In its philosophy, there seems to be a lot of similarities with the OA concept from the Oasys.

I know a lot of people here feel an unconditional love for the Oasys, and that many of you believe that it IS the best keyboard. Period. I would appreciate that those users restrain from comments as : "OMG WTF - if you're too noob to play with an Oasys just sell it on eBay and get yourself a Roland !!!", or "I would kill my mother for an Oasys, how dare you!!!", or "The Oasys is THE BEST keyboard. Period. !!!", or my favorite "TRAITOR!!!".

Anyway, I'd like to hear from people who have used Kurzweils in the past and what they think of the VAST architecture in comparison to Korg's OA as seen in the Oasys and the M3.

Basically, here's the million dollar question :

Apart from the fact that the Oasys has one of the best GUI on the market (and some extras), how does the Open Achitecture stand in comparaison to the VAST. Its two completely different synthesis architectures and I would like to know stuff like : this is good for that, and this is bad for this, and so on...

Here is an interesting discussion which is
relevant to your question.

http://community.sonikmatter.com/forums ... ntry203653


FL
www.franklucas.net

I use the K2500XS with the latest OS, 128MB Ram, 9GB Internal HD, Piano, Orchestral and Contemporary ROMS, KDFX FX board, KB3 Virtual Organ, and K-Sound Pianos and Organ Programs.

Overall, it's an excellent workstation and package. Positive points include:

- Built like a tank.
- Keyboard action is fabulous - arguably superior to OASYS although not graded hammer action
- Ribbon controllers are excellent
- VAST is very powerful, and, given it offers many algorithms and a virtual sawtooth emulation, is capable of fabulous virtual analogue sounds
- KB3 is very good - as good as OASYS's but I'm not an organ player
- K-Sound libraries very respectful
- KDFX are excellent

Negative points include:
- Just a little dated - but the newer range may address those shortcomings
- VAST is a nightmare to program. For example, for a three layer program (either velocity or keyrange layers) it is a nightmare to alter the filter, for example, - you have to do it separately for each layer and the settings are in Hz and utterly unintuitive. In fact, to get the best from VAST , you will have to spend huge time learning the engine, probably hundreds of hours.
- Programming something a complex as this instrument through small screens is painful. It's like trying to decorate your hall though your letter-box, as the saying goes. The OS is too sophisticated for the editing capabilities provided. This is true of their current range also.
- Kurzweil is a company in constant transition, seems to be run by committee and their user support is virtually non existent. Be prepare to feel very alone if you buy Kurzweil these days.


By comparison, OASYS offers all of the above and far, far more - perhaps three times to four times the all round ability of a fully kitted K2500XS or K2600. It offers a user interface truly up to interacting with its sophosticated feature set. Everything tha the K2500XS aspired to but just didn't achieve; the OASYS provides in abundance. It's very easy to use by comparison.

That said, the Kurzweil is excellent, sounds excellent and the PC3X you mention does indeed look like a very serious instrument. The one advantage it offers is somethign like 20 layer programs, so potentially very sophosticated sample packages could be released for it. Other than that, it looks like a repackaged K2600 and I suspect will suffer many of the same user interface shortcomings.

Kevin.

Kevin Nolan wrote:- Kurzweil is a company in constant transition, seems to be run by committee and their user support is virtually non existent. Be prepare to feel very alone if you buy Kurzweil these days.

That says it all. I've had a K2661 for a couple years now and obtaining support and even basic answers to questions (from their own tech support) is sketchy at best.

E-mail Dave Weiser directly with any of your questions
at davew@ycrdi.com

He pretty much gets right back to you quickly.

He's my all knowing Kurz guru.



FL
www.franklucas.net

I read the tread at Sonikmatter and that pretty much answered all of my questions. Thanks keyboard wizard.

I'd have to take a close look at the VAST implementation in the PC3x (its like "dynamic" VAST - is it just the same thing with more firepower?).

I think that Reaktor will probably be the next step in my "synthesis exploration" .

Thanx for the replies - always nice to see how knowledgeable this user community is.

Interesting post

It's been awhile since i didn't post on this cool forum.
I sold my triton's a few years ago to buy Kurzweil gears, i actually own a k2000s V3 and a full options K2600XS.

First, to Synthoid, yes, the support was quite inexistant during the 'bad days', when kurzweil was close to shut down.
Now, it seems that things are getting really better, and they really work hard on customer support...
Sonikmatter for Kurzweil is like Korg Forum for Korg, people of Kurzweil R&D are very helpful here...

Then to Kevin, i agree on quite everything but the K2500 and the K2600 seems to be very close but the big big difference is the synthesis.
The K2600 has the triple modular processing,
Which is not just an update, it's a new system which can connect 3 layers in multiple ways and give you a myriad of possibilities...
You can have in the same program classic layers and triple layers with no problems, the limit is 32 layers...(and the polyphony ! LOL )

The interface is not complex, once you know what you're doing.
I came from a triton studio, so the first days were hard, and it takes time to learn but now things are easy and you can edit everything everywhere
For example, you can edit a program while a sequence is running...

Speaking about the PC3, the interface is the quite the same (some improvement have been done) but there is a huge thing that every K users was expectig for years is a dedicated PC/MAC editor !
You can forget the days of the tiny LCD screen.
And the synthesis power is absolutly unbelievable because you can know build your own algorithm and you have the 'cascade mode' to connect 32 layers !!!

I just want to add that people always want some new OS, new functions but never push to the limit their machines...
If someone prove me that he exhausts the potential of his Kurzweil (or OASYS...) i would be very surprised....

PS : some pictures of the editor of the PC3

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... X_Edit.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... m_edit.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... _Banks.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... p_Edit.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... g_Edit.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... /Banks.png

http://www.cunka.com/forum/Kurzweil/PC3 ... /Mixer.png

Hi Barbenzink -

That's great to hear about Kurzweil. Don't want to turn this into a pure Kurzweil thread, but can you answer one thing:

- if you want to edit a program, do you still have to edit each layer separately? This is VAST's downfall, because it takes forever to make even small changes, and I have given up trying.

Hi Kevin,

It depends of the structure of the program.
In triple mod (k2600) or cascade mode (pc3), you can mix different DSP (oscillators for example) and run them in one filter (or something else)
So if you want to edit the filter, you'll have only 1 setting to adjust.

The last layer of the structure will be the master for the overall amplitude of your sound, so here again, only one enveloppe and output settings to adjust.

But for parallel layers, you'll have to adjust the things in every layers...
The best way with this is to make a copy of your layer once your settings are done in the first one.

Kevin, that's a good thing to improve on the next OS, we can imagine a 'link' function between layers for classic modulators like enveloppe, LFO's...and the DSP functions if the algorithm and the DSP blocks are the same in different layers...

Guys,

I happen to own both the O and the PC3X and I'll tell you, they both have their strengths and complement each other very well. I'm a very lucky guy to have both and am currently using the tandem duo for a one two punch on my next record. You just can't touch a setup like this!!!

My friend Amanda Palmer (fantastic keyboardist for the Dresden Dolls) asked me if she could try out my PC3X when her solo tour hit here in Chicago last month, and I let her borrow it. She was absolutely blown away!
So much so that she got a couple of them. The funny thing is the new Kurzweil advertisement I saw in the October issue of KEYBOARD features a photo taken by my buddy that same night of that concert And it's a photo of Amanda playing MY PC3X!!! She even taped the back to change it to her hero Kurt Weil's name. Very cool ad!

Here is a link to a discussion of the event!
http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthread ... 043/page/1



FL
www.franklucas.net

Kevin Nolan wrote:Ithe settings are in Hz and utterly unintuitive

The settings are displayed in both Hz and semitones, and IMO much more intuitive than abstract 0-127 units used in many other synths. Actually, I always loved how VAST uses real-world units and consider it one of the reasons why VAST is so cool. Try, for examle, tuning the OASYS filter precisely to a 2-nd harmonic and you'll understand why having real units is so great.

Well -

I own dozens of synthesizers, including SY99 and 77, and I find the K2500XS THE most complicated synthesizer I have ever come across. VAST is indeed vast, but it's virtually impenetrable, IMO. I have never, ever, managed to edit the filter settings of even one program, to satisfaction; and I have spent a lot of time on this instrument.

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. And – you have to keep changing pages, flicking back and forth, auditioning the sound at various key and velocity levels, to see if any change has occurred – a God-damn nightmare. I just gave up. Furthermore, the parameter names are not obvious, so often you do not know what it is you are changing. In fact - because of the array or algorithms and the unobvious-ness of what algorithms often do (without refereeing to the highly complex manual), it is usually the case that changes to settings make no difference whatsoever.

As said - I have dozens of synthesizers - yet the K2500XS, as much as I like it (and use it) is unbelievably impenetrable for actual sound design and sound editing. It is hugely over complex to make even minor alterations. Yes it offers huge choice, but it was NOT designed by engineers who were also musicians.

Actually - I've looked at the Kurzweil web site at the PC3x. To be honest, having to still edit layers separately 9and up to 32 of them now!) is beyond practical, and using that 20-year old workstation-LCD screen technology is frankly outrageous. Furthermore, it looks to me that Kurzweil are now using the type of screen found in the T3, O1W and SY77/99 which wears out far quicker than that found on the K2500.

Kurzweil seem to have simply done a software update (albeit a significant one) and repackaged the K25/26 series in a slimmer yet fundamentally similar package - but critically - they have removed THE feature of the K series - its fantastic zoned large ribbon controller.

Even if PC3 sounds great with its presets and has a PC/MAC editor; its philosophy is rooted in 15 - 20 year old workstation approaches. So much of the OASYS is its stunningly designed interface. This is easily equally important to the underlying software; making it, IMO, a vastly different beast.

If PC3 is places in a 21'st century instrument then perhaps it will be worth considering, IMO. I’m sure its great for gigging and just using its presets, but it is NOT built for sound creation.

Kevin.

Wow, really? I guess I'm just the opposite here. Even without a large touch screen I can easily manage to get to any parameter I want and tweak to my heart's content with great ease.

With my old 2500/2600's, I would have my go to sounds (i.e. pianos, strings, etc.) already edited, which is fairly easy to do in single program mode prior to arranging them in setup mode.

I agree that editing can be pretty intimidating at times what with being able to stack 32 layers in Setup mode but if you do your preparations beforehand I don't see any barriers making it impossible for non-novices to achieve just about any sound they want.

Like with any new piece of technology, it comes down to knowing your stuff, familiarity and shortcuts and getting your programming chops down.

It NEVER hampered the great Jordan Rudess and look at all the amazing things he did with just one K2500XS. Listen to the cutting edge sounds on his project with Dregs drummer Rod Morgenstein back in '96. The sounds are STILL relevant and an example of great sound design possibilities. Imagine what he would do with a PC3 which is much, much improved.


FL
www.franklucas.net

VAST is a great programming environment and remarkably navigable for a non-touch environment. I personally like working with the 'real-world' parameter types like note names and Hz. The ability to have programs with many layers is great but on the older machines you'll soon burn up poly overusing that feature. The PC3X, if you don't intend to use your own samples, would be my recommendation for a VAST machine as that has more poly and a bunch of enhancements to the VAST model. It sports more effects and other goodies too. The only thing that I don't get on with is having to chose a block topology before you've started programming just as I didn't much like choosing the algo in a DX7 type environment. The MOD-7 modular wiring better suits my ad hoc way of working and thinking. The Kurz stuff is very high quality and presents a nice alternative to the Korg/Roland/Yamaha workstations/synthesizers. I'd definitely recommend trying it for yourself, because as this thread reflects you'll either love it or hate it Personally I preference the Oasys on balance.

Daz.

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

I also have a Supernova, a JP8000, JD990, Triton Rack and an Access Virus TDM suite.

I'm proficient at programming all of them and have done great work with everything I own - I've built a substantial library of sounds for my film/tv work.

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.

Yes, it's an old synth now, some 18 years have passed since the original K2000 appeared, but it's solid and capable of still producing modern sounds.

My only beef with the K series is the file saving hassles of separating sample data from program data - what a pain.

I haven't been able to part with mine yet, so I guess there's still some real value there.

Ed