Digital synth hardware and processing power...

[Bachus]

If you compare the Kronos CPU power (which is on itselves in a league of its own compared to all other keyboard hardware) with a modern quadcore intel i7 then you will see that the i7 is up to 25 times faster (with the righ cooler they can be passively cooled again)

 

I have no clue, why they will not build this kind of processing hardware in a 4000 instrument... Imagine what this could do for you, having 64 or 32 instead of the current 16 paralel tracks with 5 insert effects/ channel.. And having 20+ engines instead of 9..

 

 

Maybe its time to build a true software workstation that has all the creative tools we currently see in the top of the line workstations.. When you look at current day daws, they can still make huge advancement in midi effects.. Mainstage could easilly grow further in that direction..

 

Or will the hardware builders finally grab their chance and build workstations with todays cpu power?

[Skinny]

Because money.

 

I'm no economist, but I would guess that putting that power into a keyboard would make for a very expensive keyboard. Korg does not sell nearly as many Kronosessesesseses, as computer manufacturers sell computers with i7 chips in them. So, to make their money back, they'd have to sell them at a premium.

 

Plus, the Kronos is expensive enough the way it is, IMO.

 

But, I could be wrong. :idk

[Theo Verelst]

I would bet there are special DSP facilities in the Kronos (chips/boards) to provide audio processing power.

[Skinny]

I agree, though, that it would be nice if integrated technology on keyboards didn't lag behind computers.

 

I have a Triton Studio from 2002. It has a freakin' SCSI interface, when it would have been nice to have USB. Also, a 96mb RAM limit. I'm not complaining NOW, because it's 2015, and I'm using a 13-year-old board, but even then, it was outdated.

[hardware]

BTW does Korg use their own Operating System?

 

Receptors can use a much slower CPU since they run Linux.

 

So many happy campers with the Kronos I assumed it was like Oasys with DSPs instead of Intl and Micro$oft.

 

 

[Theo Verelst]

When a good I7 is used for certain supercomputer-type computations, it's ok. But, if you look at typical DSP type computations, it get's inti trouble with short loops and memory access limitations. So, software usually sound a bit lame, even if there's a lot of mips/d.p.flops in them. Special DSP chips and other dedicaed logic can do better for certain specific synthesis roles. For good interaction time synthesis, I'd be surprised if all the kronos blocks could run on a PC. Tat would surprise me and be suspect in terms of the approximations needed.

 

T.

[Bachus]

I would bet there are special DSP facilities in the Kronos (chips/boards) to provide audio processing power.

 

No everything is cpu based..

[Bachus]

Because money.

 

I'm no economist, but I would guess that putting that power into a keyboard would make for a very expensive keyboard. Korg does not sell nearly as many Kronosessesesseses, as computer manufacturers sell computers with i7 chips in them. So, to make their money back, they'd have to sell them at a premium.

 

Plus, the Kronos is expensive enough the way it is, IMO.

 

But, I could be wrong. :idk

 

Money,,...

 

Having a 20 dollar processor in a $4000 instrument sounds fair?

 

Not to me.. Having an i5 for example would add $200, well i would gladly pay $200 more for 20 times the processing power...

 

No its not money.... Its greed..

[Bachus]

BTW does Korg use their own Operating System?

 

Receptors can use a much slower CPU since they run Linux.

 

So many happy campers with the Kronos I assumed it was like Oasys with DSPs instead of Intl and Micro$oft.

 

. Oasys was also cpu based, a pentium 4, where the Kronos uses an Atom...

 

The core of Kronos is a 32 bit version of Linux...

[hardware]

Coolness.

I remember the first Oasys stuff was DSP, very good too for a card.

Never liked that all in one company from Texas, can't remember their name but that was a fragile unit and got pretty damn hot.

 

Maybe Kronos can run Kontakt quality Samples in the future too.

I'd love to stop using a PC but I have such better sound and performance I'm not willing to part with it yet.

 

Besides, I build my own 1Us and they are never more than 1200 USD.

Plenty of spare parts laying around including chassis and PSU too.

 

Definitely would love a quality workstation someday, price is no biggie as long as the Dog Will Hunt.

[burningbusch]

When the Kronos was developed, the Atom chip was recommended for embedded (industrial) solutions. Today, possibly the Intel Core m3 might be recommended, but a Core m3 isn't anywhere near a liquid/fan cooled quad-core i7.

 

Atom Embedded Designs

 

The Kronos is Linux-based. The OS was re-written from the OASYS for multi-core support, so on the Kronos one core is dedicated to the synths and the other to FXs. There are no additional processors on the Kronos, everything is done within the Intel chip.

 

Quote for Dan at Korg R&D related to this:

"Traditionally, Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Kurzweil, Emu, Ensoniq and others have all developed their own ASICs for synthesis. Korg still does so for some products. Within the current context of general-purpose computing hardware, and judging from various comments here and elsewhere, my guess is that some may overestimate both the processing power and the cost of these dedicated chips. Intel chips make great signal processors - especially if you run tight code close to the metal (or silicon, as it were)."

 

Busch.

[burningbusch]

 

Money,,...

 

Having a 20 dollar processor in a $4000 instrument sounds fair?

 

Not to me.. Having an i5 for example would add $200, well i would gladly pay $200 more for 20 times the processing power...

 

No its not money.... Its greed..

 

So you know what's involved in creating a full featured synthesizer based on an embedded general proc chip, good to know. Your talents should be in high demand.

 

Busch.

[AnotherScott]

Having a 20 dollar processor in a $4000 instrument sounds fair?

 

Not to me.. Having an i5 for example would add $200, well i would gladly pay $200 more for 20 times the processing power...

Kronos is a $3000 instrument in its base model.

 

Component costs for our market typically need to be marked up 4 to 5 times to be viable for the manufacturers. If the i5 adds $200 to the component cost, then it adds $800 to $1000 to the retail price.

 

And that assumes that there are no additional cost increases that come from using the more powerful processor, i.e. that costs related to cooling, shielding, memory speed, etc. are no higher than for the current CPU.

 

Also, there is the question of what benefit would be seen. Other than startup time, what functions within the Kronos do you find are too slow with the current processor? Or what DSP functionality do you find lacking?

[burningbusch]

Coolness.

 

Never liked that all in one company from Texas, can't remember their name but that was a fragile unit and got pretty damn hot.

 

Probably thinking of Open Labs. Yes, that's what you get when you throw a big Intel chip in a keyboard with little thought given to design both in terms of hardware and software. Seems to be what Bachus is looking for. You can find those things on CL, cheap. Good luck.

 

Maybe Kronos can run Kontakt quality Samples in the future too.

I'd love to stop using a PC but I have such better sound and performance I'm not willing to part with it yet.

No, doubt that they'll ever go down that road. Receptor is a reasonable choice if you're OK with its limitations.

 

Besides, I build my own 1Us and they are never more than 1200 USD.

Plenty of spare parts laying around including chassis and PSU too.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Busch.

[hardware]

Indeed the chips do if they are free from Micro$oft & Appl.

The reason DSP chips are 5 times slower but far better on a PC or Mac is not having a one sized fits all OS and added gunk.

 

The low watt Xeons with no GPU are starting to show up in Q4 '15 and Q1-2 '16 so maybe Kontakt can be added to some 88 note workstation and save me more backbone.

 

I noticed developers like Merging Technologies rewrote their entire software to steal a Core from an i7 and run their instructions from there, bypassing bloated code from a consumer OS and at AES 2012 their Mixer Pyramix blew away SAW Studio and every DAW on the market.

They even have really high quality plug ins but are proprietary.

 

Sure would love to see a Kronos or anything for that matter cover horn sections and orchestral. I pay 6 large.

But if it broke down, I'd be broke down.

But all these years using a PC or a Mac and having spares never once have they failed, with the exception of a single reboot during a song when I played in 107 degree 100% humidty outdoor gig.

Miserable job. Was attacked by insects at night gliding on the spotlight beams like kamikazes.

 

Good Thread..

[Bachus]

 

Money,,...

 

Having a 20 dollar processor in a $4000 instrument sounds fair?

 

Not to me.. Having an i5 for example would add $200, well i would gladly pay $200 more for 20 times the processing power...

 

No its not money.... Its greed..

 

So you know what's involved in creating a full featured synthesizer based on an embedded general proc chip, good to know. Your talents should be in high demand.

 

Busch.

 

There you go wrong, the Kronos uses a standard PC mainboard, and not an embedded solution... i am quit well known with embedded systems, and i would not quallify the Kronos as a typicall embedded system...

 

In general embedded solutions aim at industrial processes taht dont require much processing power, a 2015 synth should claim as much processingpower as possible.. If Korg wants to make another step, they should stick to the standard PC hardware they are using.. And dont fall back to embedded hardware solutions, as they are way to restricted to allow hardware synths to keep up with software..

 

[Bachus]

Having a 20 dollar processor in a $4000 instrument sounds fair?

 

Not to me.. Having an i5 for example would add $200, well i would gladly pay $200 more for 20 times the processing power...

Kronos is a $3000 instrument in its base model.

 

Component costs for our typically market typically need to be marked up 4 to 5 times to be viable for the manufacturers. If the i5 adds $200 to the component cost, then it adds $800 to $1000 to the retail price.

 

And that assumes that there are no additional cost increases that come from using the more powerful processor, i.e. that costs related to cooling, shielding, memory speed, etc. are no higher than for the current CPU.

 

Also, there is the question of what benefit would be seen. Other than startup time, what functions within the Kronos do you find are too slow with the current processor? Or what DSP functionality do you find lacking?

 

Even if having state of the art hardware would cost 800 more, it would be worth it.. Its not a small step ahead, its a giant leap...

 

But then why would raising the production price with 200 make the final product 800 more expensive? I dont think thats the way economics work?

[J. Dan]

The cost of the Kronos isn't in the hardware, it's in the software. The processor they are using does the job just fine. What benefit is there to a faster one?

[DulceLabs.com]

The cost of the Kronos isn't in the hardware, it's in the software.

 

^^ This ^^. Price out the cost of all those sound engines as if they were VSTs and it adds up REAL quick. OP imagines "20+ engines" - well it costs money to develop and code those engines.

 

So as you add features to take advantage of the advanced processors, the total price goes well beyond the cost of the processor itself.

 

PS. Go take a look at the StudioBlade line to see what is going on in the custom workstation world.

[J. Dan]

Not to mention the growing complexity of a UI that allows editing of all of those engines. People already complain about it being deep.

[AnotherScott]

why would raising the production price with 200 make the final product 800 more expensive? I dont think thats the way economics work?

If their manufacturing cost increases by 200 then retail price will proabbly increase by 800 to 1000, that's the way the economics for our relatively low volume industry works, in order for the companies, their distributors, and dealers to be able to pay their various overheads and make a profit.

[Bachus]

The cost of the Kronos isn't in the hardware, it's in the software. The processor they are using does the job just fine. What benefit is there to a faster one?

 

Currently for the current software there is nor reason to have more processor power... But if you want to take the concept of the Kronos to the next level, you will definately make a step, and probably a big step forward...

 

First they need to go to a 64 bit OS, to overcome the current (memmory) limitations of a 32 bit OS.

 

Some examples for a next gen instrument that would require a step up in processorpower..

 

- making the instrument 32 channel multitimbral( like for example yamaha arangers)

- upping the polyphony of the instrument, espescially from some of the synth engines

- adding more effects, now tehre are 12 insert effects, in current days you would want (comming from people with a software setup) atleast 3 insert efefcts as an option for every sound... And sepeprate effects for each of your druminstruments..

- making the instrument full 24 bit and 96khz

- adding more advanced creative tools...

- adding audio capabillities..realtime stretching and such.. To make audio just as flexible as midi.

 

 

While a single step up would not warrant a high end processor, but if you want to do them all in the next generation instrument, you definately need to step up in processor power.. By a few miles...

 

Maybe not the huge step to a i7, but an i3 of some sorts would be a welcome step...

[Theo Verelst]

I recall seeing a video on the inside of the kronos, with quite a pcb besides the atom pc (modern atoms are like seriously dressed down Is, but I didn't check integer/float pipeline depth (or width, for that matter) or memory latency, etc). Also here's not necessarily a reason for a sort of embedded Linux on a "PC" to start up slowly, especially from fast SSD drives (I can sart up a functioning LInux on a small ARM board in seconds, and with full X Windows in way under two minutes).

 

30Watts of power use for the Atom on contemporary 20 0r 30 nano meter chip fabric can do stuff,if indeed it gets the chip up to a serious temperature, nut I wouldn't like to have just an intel chip to do music dsp on, I have more interest in special solutions that also draw a few tens of watts and are for audio.

 

Marveling at people putting a whole audio workstation in a specially tuned OS on a PC arch is fine of course, but such a Meccano construction feat appeals less to me because I would have an excuse to not dig the resulting sound all too much. Heavy "PC" programs for audio probably don't make all too much efficient audio processing use of the I3/5/7's capacity, and aren't attracting my musical attention all too much either. In order for the Intels to burn some serious rubber, they'd have to use at least in the hundred watt range, which I doubt most audio PCs do in practice (lots of them would probably burn up by lack of sufficient cooling). Sotfware on given operating systems is also not necessarily efficient: 32 tracks of 24 bit audio at 48kHz audio takes a disk bandwidth of under 5 Mega Bytes per second, a SD card can probably do that (see contemporary cheap portable multi track devices, and hard drive based devices from decades ago) and an Atari STs 68000 processor could update a multi-track audio display already in the 80s...

 

T.

 

[AnotherScott]

Currently for the current software there is nor reason to have more processor power...

Right... so I would not expect them to put in a more powerful processor than what they need, because it would raise the cost with no benefit.

 

But if you want to take the concept of the Kronos to the next level, you will definately make a step, and probably a big step forward...

And at that point, if they want to go that way, they could make a new model, with a new processor. But they will have gotten years of mileage out of the current architecture. The Kronos is not underpowered for what it is.

[Bachus]

I recall seeing a video on the inside of the kronos, with quite a pcb besides the atom pc (modern atoms are like seriously dressed down Is, but I didn't check integer/float pipeline depth (or width, for that matter) or memory latency, etc). Also here's not necessarily a reason for a sort of embedded Linux on a "PC" to start up slowly, especially from fast SSD drives (I can sart up a functioning LInux on a small ARM board in seconds, and with full X Windows in way under two minutes).

 

30Watts of power use for the Atom on contemporary 20 0r 30 nano meter chip fabric can do stuff,if indeed it gets the chip up to a serious temperature, nut I wouldn't like to have just an intel chip to do music dsp on, I have more interest in special solutions that also draw a few tens of watts and are for audio.

 

Marveling at people putting a whole audio workstation in a specially tuned OS on a PC arch is fine of course, but such a Meccano construction feat appeals less to me because I would have an excuse to not dig the resulting sound all too much. Heavy "PC" programs for audio probably don't make all too much efficient audio processing use of the I3/5/7's capacity, and aren't attracting my musical attention all too much either. In order for the Intels to burn some serious rubber, they'd have to use at least in the hundred watt range, which I doubt most audio PCs do in practice (lots of them would probably burn up by lack of sufficient cooling). Sotfware on given operating systems is also not necessarily efficient: 32 tracks of 24 bit audio at 48kHz audio takes a disk bandwidth of under 5 Mega Bytes per second, a SD card can probably do that (see contemporary cheap portable multi track devices, and hard drive based devices from decades ago) and an Atari STs 68000 processor could update a multi-track audio display already in the 80s...

 

T.

 

The atom in the Kronos uses less then 10 Watts, the pcbs in the kronos are mostly for the interface, knobs, buttons, sliders, joystick and vector stick.. Next to the mainboard, there is also the audio interface with high end dacs and all audio in and outs.. And then there is a board for the pedal connections.. But all the processing takes place on the cpu and mainboard..

 

The latest mobile i5 use like 20 watts, and have 10 times the processing power of the Atom in the Kronos.. The mainboard and the cpu the kronos uses are typical PC hardware..

 

The linux version is a specially Korg version, with a kernel only consisting of the neccesary parts and drivers... There are ways to make linux quickboot as fast as the secure boot from Windows 10.. But thats not supported by the current version of the Kronos..

 

 

In general the reason why i like workstations so much more then open pc software is that they come complete with content, like Karma or arps and with a dedicated well tought out interface for performing... As a keyboardist i agree the idea behind current workstations is brilliant, as an engineer i realise that adding more raw power could improve quallity of sound and possibllities by quite some steps..

 

But then, when i get some more time in the future, i might actually sit down and try to create a workstation based on Linux.. I think i would even be able to get the technical part to work.. However, i would probably also fail where all those other projects failed... Creating a workstation requires a plethora of content, well ballanced content that took Teams of musicians years to create over at Korg or Yamaha. Its the content that costs the money to create because its timeconsuming..

 

And thats why i am hoping that Korg or Yamaha will start using the latest hardware to create new shining high end hardware..

[burningbusch]

The cost of the Kronos isn't in the hardware, it's in the software. The processor they are using does the job just fine. What benefit is there to a faster one?

 

Currently for the current software there is nor reason to have more processor power... But if you want to take the concept of the Kronos to the next level, you will definately make a step, and probably a big step forward...

 

First they need to go to a 64 bit OS, to overcome the current (memmory) limitations of a 32 bit OS.

 

Some examples for a next gen instrument that would require a step up in processorpower..

 

- making the instrument 32 channel multitimbral( like for example yamaha arangers)

- upping the polyphony of the instrument, espescially from some of the synth engines

- adding more effects, now tehre are 12 insert effects, in current days you would want (comming from people with a software setup) atleast 3 insert efefcts as an option for every sound... And sepeprate effects for each of your druminstruments..

- making the instrument full 24 bit and 96khz

- adding more advanced creative tools...

- adding audio capabillities..realtime stretching and such.. To make audio just as flexible as midi.

 

 

While a single step up would not warrant a high end processor, but if you want to do them all in the next generation instrument, you definately need to step up in processor power.. By a few miles...

 

Maybe not the huge step to a i7, but an i3 of some sorts would be a welcome step...

 

You seem to focus on numbers and that bigger numbers are somehow inherently better in a significant way.

 

32 channels multitimbral. I don't think there's a single combi that uses all 16 timbres. I would hate to hear what that sounds like honestly. The industry has clearly moved away from workstations used as DAWs. Roland tried that with their last, and possibly final, Fantom with larger screen, more tracks and even mouse support. It failed miserably in the marketplace. Most pro synth users do not want arranger type features. In fact they consider them a negative.

 

The Kronos processes at 32-bits already.

 

My list of enhancements to the Kronos would look significantly different than yours. I have no idea if it would require more CPU. Look at all the improvements Korg did with the CX-3 engine and there was no hit to polyphony.

 

- Add the King Korg filters to AL-1. Adding them to HD-1 would be cool, might not required. If you lose a bit of polyphony as a result, no big deal.

- Add more sophistication to HD-1 with more options for using multisamples in realtime articulations, release samples, etc. They could approach what Roland has done with SN.

- Give me a simple Clavinet D6 Filter in the FX section that emulates all the filter tabs on the real thing.

- Add a performance screen which would be an alternative first screen for every program and combi. On the performance screen, the user can freely assign virtual switches, knobs and sliders (with text labeling) to control FXs and/or aspects of the engine. Imagine a CX-3 screen with all the standard organ controls or a clav screen with filter tabs and FXs controls. The user would make a change in Global to select the performance screen or regular Kronos engine screen. From the performance screen you could quickly jump to the regular screen. In general, make better use of the touch screen.

 

I could go on, but my point is you could come up with dozens of meaningful improvements to the Kronos that won't necessarily require more horsepower. When Korg brought out the Kronos 2 and it used basically the same CPU, some thought that was stupid on their part. I think it was brilliant in that it didn't alienate first generation users. It did require them to dump their old keyboards to grab a couple of new features and a few higher numbers on a spec sheet. They essentially said, the Kronos is a platform with really 100% compatibility between models. This can't go on forever, but it's a refreshing, welcomed approach, IMO.

 

DAWs can run hundred of audio tracks with virtually no hit on the CPU. Adding FX and running soft synths during playback is where the CPU gets hit. In the SGX engine of the Kronos, an equivalent of 400 tracks of audio are supported. That is 400 random access seeks processed through the engine and FXs section, all done with extremely low latency and never glitches . Same with DAWs. Large streaming sample libraries have a larger hit on disk usage than simple streaming of audio tracks.

 

Busch.

[hardware]

 

DAWs can run hundred of audio tracks with virtually no hit on the CPU. Adding FX and running soft synths during playback is where the CPU gets hit. In the SGX engine of the Kronos, an equivalent of 400 tracks of audio are supported. That is 400 random access seeks processed through the engine and FXs section, all done with extremely low latency and never glitches . Same with DAWs. Large streaming sample libraries have a larger hit on disk usage than simple streaming of audio tracks.

 

Busch.

 

Exactly why I use Samsung 950s and Intel 750 NMVe devices.

The Intels are perfect for massive Hollywood Strings and Brass instruments.

But then again so are my recent Smasungs I use in my spare.

The Samsungs are low heat low watt and 4 times more efficient than standard SATA III SSDs.

Perfect for a Workstation capable of running large sampled instruments.

 

Since getting these here's the improvements.

 

PLAY Instruments load 5-6 times faster. Still must be used as a template for receall from RAM.

 

But Omnisphere 2.1 using SATA III SSDs allowed me to load new instances per song using it's Dual Live Mode.

Now I can load 4 of them during a song, switching from instances via preset, no progress bar.

 

Kontakt, always loaded 3 Instrument Banks and recalled like a giant ROMpler, but obviously higher quality presets and articulations. Recalled from RAM in a template.

 

I can reload Instrument Banks, using far less RAM and select them during a song as well using Orange Trees Mind Control.

 

Which I why I never buy ROMpler workstations.

I have already got a Physis K4 that was designed for stage.

 

SE-1X, Waldorf Microwave, Yamaha FS1r and my XITE-1 DSP rack that replaces hardware mixing while integrating hardware FX which I prefer.

 

If Kronos ever decided to get big with Sampled Instrument these Samsung 950s are perfect.

 

Also the new low watt Xeon E3 1585 v5 CPU is a monster.

Low heat, low watts, higher binned i7s actually, though they pretend it's from a different wafer.

 

I got 8 large for the manufacturer who hears my plea.

Otherwise I already have a Dog That Hunts.

[Bachus]

 

You seem to focus on numbers and that bigger numbers are somehow inherently better in a significant way.

 

32 channels multitimbral. I don't think there's a single combi that uses all 16 timbres. I would hate to hear what that sounds like honestly. The industry has clearly moved away from workstations used as DAWs. Roland tried that with their last, and possibly final, Fantom with larger screen, more tracks and even mouse support. It failed miserably in the marketplace. Most pro synth users do not want arranger type features. In fact they consider them a negative.

 

Seems we differ in opinion, but i do would love to be using sequencer mode and Combi mode at the same time.. maybe you are right that its obvious i have an arranger background...

 

The Kronos processes at 32-bits already.

 

My list of enhancements to the Kronos would look significantly different than yours. I have no idea if it would require more CPU. Look at all the improvements Korg did with the CX-3 engine and there was no hit to polyphony.

 

Great changes indeed...

 

- Add the King Korg filters to AL-1. Adding them to HD-1 would be cool, might not required. If you lose a bit of polyphony as a result, no big deal.

Or they could add the whole King Korg engine and allow other synths ton route trough these great filters..

- Add more sophistication to HD-1 with more options for using multisamples in realtime articulations, release samples, etc. They could approach what Roland has done with SN.

Fully agree.. DNC would be great and its a technollogy allready owned by Korg..

- Give me a simple Clavinet D6 Filter in the FX section that emulates all the filter tabs on the real thing.

- Add a performance screen which would be an alternative first screen for every program and combi. On the performance screen, the user can freely assign virtual switches, knobs and sliders (with text labeling) to control FXs and/or aspects of the engine. Imagine a CX-3 screen with all the standard organ controls or a clav screen with filter tabs and FXs controls. The user would make a change in Global to select the performance screen or regular Kronos engine screen. From the performance screen you could quickly jump to the regular screen. In general, make better use of the touch screen.

 

I could go on, but my point is you could come up with dozens of meaningful improvements to the Kronos that won't necessarily require more horsepower. When Korg brought out the Kronos 2 and it used basically the same CPU, some thought that was stupid on their part. I think it was brilliant in that it didn't alienate first generation users. It did require them to dump their old keyboards to grab a couple of new features and a few higher numbers on a spec sheet. They essentially said, the Kronos is a platform with really 100% compatibility between models. This can't go on forever, but it's a refreshing, welcomed approach, IMO.

 

DAWs can run hundred of audio tracks with virtually no hit on the CPU. Adding FX and running soft synths during playback is where the CPU gets hit. In the SGX engine of the Kronos, an equivalent of 400 tracks of audio are supported. That is 400 random access seeks processed through the engine and FXs section, all done with extremely low latency and never glitches . Same with DAWs. Large streaming sample libraries have a larger hit on disk usage than simple streaming of audio tracks.

 

Busch.

 

As said, i can really see how those kind of changes would make the Kronos muxch better, yet still there is so much more potential with a cheep processor update

 

 

Its turning into a Kronos discussion by now..

 

But offcourse Kronos is the most advanced Workstation compared to all the others..

This post was not targetted at Kronos to begin with, that was just an example

Other manufactorers like Yamaha are even more miles behind..

 

 

 

In the end i wanted to discuss the next generation of hardware synths.. not the current generation.. And no, i dont think the Kronos is a bad instrument, far from that, there are so many things to be loved about it..