Universal Prog Converter.

Kevin Nolan · Post by **Kevin Nolan** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:22 pm

Sharp - I respectfully suggest this would not be worth doing. Even if successful you're still talking about having to create each program individually and I'd suspect most will not bother.

Dan's points make a lot of sense also.

But - as I hoped to do and never got around to, a program that converts Triton series programs and Combi's to OASYS ones would be great. Here, while Dan makes absolutely correct points; I still feel that if the time was spent working out transformations from Triton to Oasys for the individual parameters in all of the following (and more):

- 'Mode' settings
- Oscillator
- Filter
- Amp
- LFOs
- Envelope
- Effects

that the Triton conversions to OASYS could be quite useful, given the vast range of Triton programs and combis. At least they could be useful starting points for final tweaking.

Hence - if you're in the mood for programming - I recommend that that would be very useful instead of your proposal.

My two-penny's worth.

Kevin

kenackr · Post by **kenackr** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:56 pm

Sharp,

I would definitely be in for it if it could convert from the M1 series or the T series, or the wave Station or any emu Proteus series modules.

I say that meaning I'd gladly be willing to pay for it.

Ken :3dbeer:

Daz · Post by **Daz** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:10 am

Interesting idea

Having written program converters for some of the Korg synths (MS2000->Radias, R3->Radias etc.) I can share a few things gained from those experiences :

1) It's an immense amount of work ! You don't realize just how many parameters are available and how many options there are for each parameter until you start mapping them from one engine to another. I haven't done this kind of work with HD-1, but I would guess that even that "simple" engine has some 500+ params (not including effects!!).

2) It's incredibly educational ! Everyone who is interested in synths should write a converter

You really are forced to look at every single parameter and learn about it's function in order to map it. Additionally when looking at this level of detail you really get to see many of the improvements made to the newer engines.

3) I hope your binary arithmetic is good and that you're using a programming language that is able to handle data packed into bitfields etc.

4) Be prepared for mistakes in the sysex specs. These documents are massive and presumably tricky to maintain so a number of slips do creep in. Be prepared to do some fairly low level detective work in the hex editor

5) If one of your targets is the M3 and you wish to create PCG files, beware that since 2.04 odd stuff is going on in there. It's not the same simple static format it used to be.

6) Speaking of which ... you'll be working at a level of detail that even our best gurus won't be able to help you with. It's not always easy to get very low level tech details from Korg Inc, just as I can't drop a line to most companies that create consumer electronic devices asking for very intimate tech details.

7) Testing takes 4 times as long as doing any development

You'll spend a *lot* of time comparing programs by ear on different machines.

Daz.

Kevin Nolan · Post by **Kevin Nolan** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:12 pm

Here's another suggestion - don't bother. Rather, just create sounds when you need them. My CS80 has no memories (OK - 4 but I never use them) - so I don't bother trying to recreate sounds exactly. In fact having no memories is a gigantic relief - it places you in the position of never, ever thinking about presets and 'forces' you down a creative path of creating a sound (by ear) required for the current piece - so the created sound is by default correct even if not exactly the same as the last time.

So though not the same topic - instead of spending all that time programming something to convert sounds - how about using the time to create new sounds, or even to discuss approaches to 'paranoia free' sound creation (and I include myself as among THE most paranoid about saving/tracking/acquiring presets when the option is available).

Even more off topic - Moog's recent release of a Voyager without memories or MIDI is a brave and wondrous move - like the synths of old there's only one thing to do with it - play it and make your own sounds - surely a much more meaningful way to get to know a synth than to write a converter? (Daz I'm not having a go at you - as mentioned I pondered writing a converter myself).

Kevin

Kontrol49 · Post by **Kontrol49** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:28 pm

Quite a lot of negative vibes going on here,somehow I think this would be useful in one way or another.

Whether the usage and need would outweigh the programming efforts is another thing,its down to the individual,However I would like to see some kind of universal programmer giving the ability to replicate sounds without a lot of time to copy settings,certainly for the ability to transfer over sounds from one Korg synth to another,I have done this on many occasions between Triton/Oasys,yes Dan has highlighted descrepancies between engines,but the overall results have been close,infact close enough to be happy with.

I would certainly like to be able to bring across many of the Triton sounds I use into the Oasys,but personally don't want to spend tedious hours copying the settings,I've done it several times with pleasing result,certainly in the sense of the Combis and also utilising the Karma module to add more flavour to the Combis of the Original source.

I think Kevin has a valid point in that copying the sounds as and when needed is perhaps more a viable option,perhaps coupled with a cross platform program would make things less labourous,I do however think that having a machine able to copy sounds rather than create your own isn't always everyones way of working but is useful none the less,It doesn't mean because a synth like the Voyager has presets that your less likely to learn the Workings or create your own,because not everyone has the ability to work from scratch so having presets allows the person to find a sound close to what they would need and perhaps strip the sound to see its makeup.

A synth like the Voyager is not a machine you would simply only rely on the presets and nothing more,no matter how many presets it has,its panel is inviting and irrespective of its banks of sounds you'll delve into programming it sooner or later its part of the philosophy of an Analog interface the commodity of having the ability to store those edits and recall them easily without having to setup the parameters prior to usage is part of the ever taken for granted option of todays technology,not sure it creates a lazy attitude towards programming,its certainly never been a barrier for me,much of the appeal of such machines is in the interface and programming rather than the commodities that the digital age offers

The Oasys on the other hand is driven by countless screen menus,so I would suspect more people would utilise the Presets or do slight edits to suit rather than create from scratch,or simply only do minimal program editing,switching from a previous Korg model to an oasys and being able to bring across clones of those sounds from other Keyboards would certainly be useful,and in my needs would perhaps allow me to reduce the amount of synths I needed.

Daz · Post by **Daz** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:30 pm

Kevin Nolan wrote:Here's another suggestion - don't bother.

LOL ... you know that was one thought that went through my mind too

Rather, just create sounds when you need them.

... for this very reason. However, whenever the word "just" comes up in a thought like that for me I know that some reconsideration is required. For some people it really is something you'd "just" do, but for others depending on their knowledge, time constraints, or working process it really isn't something they can "just" do.

So whilst the Radias for example is a fantastically fun, quick and easy synth to program, it was still worth writing a converter so that there were more presets to hand for those people that don't have the chops or the time or don't want to break their creative flow. I think people often forget those last two cases when thinking about the merits of presets vs roll your own.

As Sharp is addressing sample playback synths only, I think the idea of a converter becomes even more appropriate than my efforts with the 'real' synths. Most people using romplers/workstations don't create their own sounds on them. So creating more presets is delightful news for most.

D.

rkarlberg · Post by **rkarlberg** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:27 pm

Kevin Nolan wrote: Even more off topic - Moog's recent release of a Voyager without memories or MIDI...

Well, I still have an Arp Axxe without presets or MIDI... years ago that's just the way it was, but I really think the Oasys would almost be useless without those abilities! Even the current max of thousands of programs is not enough for some of us...

My problem has been the huge number of parameters availabe in each module. You can easily spend days just adjusting one program, trying all the various modulation options.

Post by **Sharp** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:28 am

Wow... one minute the thread goes ignored and then bam.

Don't know what to say after reading all that. Seems that the general tone is that it's not worth doing.

Even if the idea was sound it will not be possible to cater for the effect engine because there would be thousands of parameters that would need to be referenced and that's far too much work. So basically it would work only with PCM based engines and that's it.

I had the idea of making the entire thing database driven with import/export and file attachments features so everyone could pool their sounds together and watch the database grow with ready to load PCG files.

Don't know what to do now.

Regards
Sharp

Daz · Post by **Daz** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:40 am

Really ?

The general tone seems to be "yes please, I'd love that". I hope my comments didn't come across as negative, I was just being real having done this.

My recommendation is that you try building a simplified prototype converter first to get a feel for how such a beast might work out. Oh and maybe take a look at the source for Alchemist (remember that Trinity->Triton converter).

Daz.

mocando · Post by **mocando** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:07 am

A Triton->M3/M50 converter is a good stating point.

t_tangent · Post by **t_tangent** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:45 pm

I think its a fanatastic idea Sharp, and the database extension would make it very flexible and useful. So add another vote in favour from me. I just hope doing this will still leave you time for making music

Cheers

Tim

Post by **Sharp** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:47 pm

Just messing around with porting a motion type sound manually from the m3 to the OASYS this morning and the results where pretty darn close. Ok....game on

I'm going to give this a shot and see where all this ends up going.

A Triton->M3/M50 converter is a good stating point.

Not for me since I have an OASYS. Have to look after my fellow OASYS boys first you know

Regards
Sharp

t_tangent · Post by **t_tangent** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:52 pm

Thanks Sharp. Thats great news. If there's anything we can do to help, do let us know.

Cheers

Tim

mocando · Post by **mocando** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:03 pm

Sharp wrote: Not for me since I have an OASYS. Have to look after my fellow OASYS boys first you know

Regards
Sharp

M3 patches are not compatible with the OASYS? I thought being the M3 based on Os engine it would work.

eddie g · Post by **eddie g** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:08 am

Sharp.
I too would be interested in such a conversion program. I recently started trying to convert a select few program sounds from my Korg DSS-1.

Excellent idea.
I wish I had the free time you must have to even fathom such an undertaking. Maybe I'm mistaking time for passion.