Korg Forums

Just an observational rant after working with Kronos last night.

Kronos has such cool and deep routing opportunities for sending one program's audio into the EXi Audio Input(s) of another program. This ability, a semi-modular approach using multiple synthesis types, was one of the big draws for me buying a Kronos, and where I feel some of the deepest power of the K resides.

But frankly, its a pain in the as*! Using external audio inputs is fine, and even routing a program out through an individual output(s) so that you can re-route it right back into the main audio inputs is "ok", albeit clumsy and creates a loss of fidelity.

The OBVIOUS way to set up such routings is in a Combi......but alas Kronos won't let you directly address or edit a program from a Combi! All it would take is a key stroke shortcut (something like hold the Enter button then press Program mode button) to jump into program mode *directly to* the selected program in the Combi (could work exactly the same in SEQ mode), so you could make the edits you need to make, then jump back to Combi mode. Especially considering this internal routing/bussing capability is present in Kronos, it makes no sense that its so clumsy to jump between said programs so that you can set up these routings, and edit/play with the resulting audio. As it is...you need to really pre-think and prepare your combi in a way that its a chore...and kills the real time inspiration which such a semi-modular approach to having 9 synthesis engines under one roof SHOULD *enhance*.

Imagine you have one MS-20 program that you wish to route audio into, coming from another MOD-7 program, so you can tweak filters or play with alternate patching in the MS-20 patch panel. As it is now, you have to first set up the routings in the Combi....then jump back and forth between these two discrete programs for every edit you wish to make. Jumping into Program mode kills the source audio coming from the "source program" (the MOD-7 in my example here)...so you are editing "blind". Just finding said programs is a PITA, after several trips back and forth through the program browser.....I am ready to shoot myself. We need a short-cut....as the simplest answer. More aptly, it would so cool if we could edit a program directly in Combi or Seq mode! It would turn Kronos into another level of synthesis power altogether (sort of like how Kurzweil added *dynamic* VAST to its later models so that you could interconnect multiple programs up to 32 deep...utterly insane synthesis power). Kronos is SO close....why stop HERE? Just a few tweaks and you would have immense synthesis power.....that the developers clearly envisioned when the included the routing/bussing/EXi inputs.....but for some reason didn't consider the functionality of working with it. Currently....its crippled.

Rant over.

A very good point Ron. Seems like an obvious and relatively simple step.

Are there any real impediments to implementing such a feature?

Perhaps Korg are working on the idea right now.

They ought to be.

Agreed.

This stuff is crazy powerful, but like you say the process of getting those results can be painful if you are doing complex routing.

I really like the Kronos experience for editing individual programs, and also that for setting up layers and splits as you combine existing programs into a combi, but when you venture into the realm of combi-as-synthesis-tool, creating multiple programs that are designed to work closely together with audio routed back and forth between them, the editing experience involves a silly amount of jumping back and forth between different modes.

I would LOVE to be able to play my combi while tweaking settings on the individual MS20 program which is filtering my HD1 audio source prior to feeding it into an STR1 exciter module, etc...

This is exacerbated by the inability to combine HD1 and EXi voices within a single program, which forces me to use combi mode even for simple dual wave sequence + MS20 type configurations. That editing experience is much nicer for dual EXi (eg. Mod7 -> MS20) where everything can be fit within a single program.

It probably means 16 more 'temporary buffer spaces' for programs. It's not trivial, but also not rocket science.

michelkeijzers wrote:It probably means 16 more 'temporary buffer spaces' for programs. It's not trivial, but also not rocket science.

I would settle for *2*. But I certainly understand your point.

I think it might be easier though.... Just a "jump" feature into Program Mode so you can easily get at the program with its graphical U.I., and while in this jump "mode"...simply leave the Combi audio active.

Like I say.....Just press enter and Program......you're still in Combi mode (from an audio point of view), but you can view a program to edit it.

There must already be some level of buffering going on for programs while in combi mode, since you can assign real time controllers to individual programs (all 16 slots within a combi), so I'm not sure that 16 "new" buffers are necessary.

But who knows. All I know is....it's a damn shame to be so close to utter synth greatness, and fall short where it counts!

To quote a great line from a movie titled Mission to Mars..."I didn't travel 93 million miles to turn back in the last 10 feet!"

RonF wrote:

michelkeijzers wrote:It probably means 16 more 'temporary buffer spaces' for programs. It's not trivial, but also not rocket science.

I would settle for *2*. But I certainly understand your point.

I think it might be easier though.... Just a "jump" feature into Program Mode so you can easily get at the program with its graphical U.I., and while in this jump "mode"...simply leave the Combi audio active.

Like I say.....Just press enter and Program......you're still in Combi mode (from an audio point of view), but you can view a program to edit it.

There must already be some level of buffering going on for programs while in combi mode, since you can assign real time controllers to individual programs (all 16 slots within a combi), so I'm not sure that 16 "new" buffers are necessary.

But who knows. All I know is....it's a damn shame to be so close to utter synth greatness, and fall short where it counts!

To quote a great line from a movie titled Mission to Mars..."I didn't travel 93 million miles to turn back in the last 10 feet!"

Those 16 are necessary. Unless you wouldn't want the changes to be saved ... or automatically saved (without undo). Currently there is a buffer for 1 program, 1 combi (and probably 1 set list slot). You can move between these types without saving but if you go to another program, combi or set list slot you will lose changes. So that's why you need 16 buffers (at max), for each of the 16 possible timbres in a combi.

However, they already have a buffer mechanism (of 1), so extending it is not rocket science. However, some additionally functionality might be required:
- to know which programs (16 buffers) are changed and which not
- when you save a combi, do you automatically want the programs to be saved?
- when going to another combi, how do you keep track of the 16 buffers/programs that might be changed?

Yes I understand...

I was thinking strictly of real time performance, rather than saving edited programs.

Which brings me back to.....I would settle for *2*.

RonF wrote:Yes I understand...

I was thinking strictly of real time performance, rather than saving edited programs.

Which brings me back to.....I would settle for *2*.

If nothing else maybe there could be some external USb type 'buffer' device made available as an add-on?

Ksynth wrote:

RonF wrote:Yes I understand...

I was thinking strictly of real time performance, rather than saving edited programs.

Which brings me back to.....I would settle for *2*.

If nothing else maybe there could be some external USb type 'buffer' device made available as an add-on?

No USB is too slow, it has to be RAM. However, also the RAM amount is negligable .. it's just the software that has to be changed ... but 'just change the software' can cost a lot of time, thus money.

And for real time performance it does not matter at all. A 'program' is just some series of bytes internally so that really does not matter if it is on location X or Y.

Is it possible that the someday to be released computer app will make this process easier for you guys? Newb question I'm sure but I am wondering.

Interesting thought...but I assume its a hardware/OS issue

For this functionality, one nice model is Yamaha Motif XS/XF. Here you get 16 "Mixing Voices" for each song (sequencer) and then you can even create a totally new Voice (Program) not found on Voice mode (Program mode)

So the best solution would be creating those 16 "buffers" which are "private Programs" for the Combi and Sequencer. This has clear advantages:
- If you edit the Program, it won't affect the Combi.
- You get the whole power of Program editing, not just a few parameters.
- You can save your Combi/Sequencer and use it everytime you need.

But this solution means huge modifications to Combi/Sequencer architecture... I don't think this can easily be implemented...

It can't, and there are good reasons for doing it the Korg way too. Also, there is a tone adjust mode that allows you to edit a program within a combi to quite some extent.

But this specific issue has to do with routing audio between programs. An interesting point was made before that you can do this somewhat easier in a double EXi program - maybe this will help, RonF?
Though I agree that with so much functionaility already there, it seems a waste not to make the rest work properly...

SanderXpander wrote:It can't, and there are good reasons for doing it the Korg way too. Also, there is a tone adjust mode that allows you to edit a program within a combi to quite some extent.

But this specific issue has to do with routing audio between programs. An interesting point was made before that you can do this somewhat easier in a double EXi program - maybe this will help, RonF?
Though I agree that with so much functionaility already there, it seems a waste not to make the rest work properly...

I think it's only software related. It does not matter if you change a program, then save it, then go to another program etc. It's just a different pointer, instead of 1 buff (pointer) you need 16. I can't imagine audio routing would be different.

Sorry, I meant, it can't be easily adapted to work the way the Motif does (where you literally have 16 unique program memories inside a sequence).
You're also right that it shouldn't be different for audio routing than for any other parameters - I meant that the Motif AFAIK doesn't even let you route audio from one program through another. Wouldn't be very useful either since there's only the one engine.