new Vox Continental - Some thoughts

[CNPCNP]

Something that comes to mind: panning.  

The VC (v2) can be seen as a bi-timbral sound module, right?
While impossible to set this at the machine itself, I saw that incoming MIDI can control pan-position (CC #10).

Can this indeed work for panning two sounds, to have them available separately from each other, so each on their own output-socket?
The first say hard left (sending CC #10 on MIDI ch. #N) & the other hard right (sending CC #10 on MIDI ch. #N+1).

If this works, I could still imagine the FX could still spoil some fun here (, unless you refrain from them).

Any thoughts/experiences/experiments? If this could work on paper - any VC-owner care to try it?
 

 

[AnotherScott]

Interesting idea! Based on that chart, it seems like it should work as you describe, assuming the lower sound of the split can receive on a different MIDI channel than the upper side of the split. The 2.0 update docs (which added the split function in the first place) is mum about MIDI assignment. But if the lower split sound setting follows the same MIDI addressability as the lower organ manual setting ("Lower part MIDI channel" in the pre 2.0 version where lower part could only be second organ manual), it sounds like that could work. I'm curious to know as well!

[The Piano Man]

I really feel this board should have an internal power supply. Not that I want to start another debate on this!!

 

Nonetheless, keen to hear if an owner can try the panning suggestion. Would be very handy if this works!!

[Paul Woodward]

This from the Grandstage manual, does the Vox manual say the same? I suspect it pans both sounds at the same time…probably quite limited control. Hell, I can’t even find a way to activate the Leslie on the GS other than using the pitch bend 😞

 

[CNPCNP]

That would be a pity if panning would be for everything at the same time...
(see further up what the VOX MIDI Implem. says about it, and I figure that's all what has been documented/published about it(?))

Sending CC should always be made complete by declaring on which MIDI-channel, right?

I guess it then first comes down to if the VC (v2) can indeed be considered a bi-timbral soundmodule, with a separate MIDI-ch setting for each
(which the documentation indeed suggests to be the case), but would indeed be great with a VC-v2 could try all this for real.

 

[Paul Woodward]

Grandstage works the same way (different midi channels for each sound source and accepts pan messages). I don’t have any time this week to try so hopefully a VC owner can try.

[CNPCNP]

Just for some own double-checking,
indeed a CC should be defined for a certain MIDI channel, e.g. here on an Arturia Beatstep:

 

[AnotherScott]

4 minutes ago, Paul Woodward said:

Grandstage works the same way (different midi channels for each sound source

according to the manual., not by default... but yes, there is an option to set it that way. If you set it that way, a pan command should affect only the sound you've assigned to the corresponding MIDI channel.

 

They do mention that, if you assign the pan function to the foot pedal, it will pan both sounds, but that is not conclusive. First, that section starts with the note that the text assumes factory settings, and you would have to change factory settings to get the sounds on to different channels, so that bit of info may not apply. But also, it's possible that, when assigned to the pedal, the board may send the command to both channels in that situation, whereas an externally generated pan command could be more selective. But this is all guesswork. Whether Vox or Grandstage, we won't know for sure until someone tries these things.

 

[niacin]

the two sounds either side of a split on the Vox both respond on the same midi channel.

[CNPCNP]

5 minutes ago, niacin said:

the two sounds either side of a split on the Vox both respond on the same midi channel.

Ouch, that's a pity! Don't fully understand this though, these two need/can be set to different MIDIchannels.

Or do you mean that even set differently, any CC sent to the VC simply is copied for both parts?
C'mon Korg, if indeed so, that would be pretty disappointing (or would make sense, depending on how you look at it...)

[niacin]

If I set up a split on the Vox and assign another keyboard to channel 1 (the default) it will play both sounds either side of the split point the same as if they were played from the Vox’s keyboard, but that may be just the default, I don’t know if you can assign different midi channels to each sound or not.

[CNPCNP]

27 minutes ago, niacin said:

If I set up a split on the Vox and assign another keyboard to channel 1 (the default) it will play both sounds either side of the split point the same as if they were played from the Vox’s keyboard, but that may be just the default, I don’t know if you can assign different midi channels to each sound or not.

Sounds like there's still hope 🙂 , indeed the manual mentions the possibility to set a separate MIDI-channel.

Here's a part from the 'v1-manual', guess this is also the relevant part for the v2 version. Your VC is updated to v2?

 

[niacin]

I’m not home now, but the text you quote says that the midi channel for the lower part has to be different from that of the main midi channel setting.  With the organ, when the split button is off the lower part of the organ responds on the midi channel set according to the text you quote.  When you switch the split button on, the lower part of the organ plays from the lower part of the Vox keyboard and responds on the same middle channel as the upper part as set for the main midi channel. If you want to have 2 non-organ sounds play as a split you have to turn the split button on and both sounds respond on the main midi channel.  There is no way to set the second sound to be played from a second ‘lower’ manual - and therefore a second midi channel - the way you can with the organ.

[niacin]

I’ll also note that the effects are the same for each part so that will overdetermine the routing.

[niacin]

So one of the limits with the Vox is that while the OS 2.0 allows for splits, both sounds have the same effects and they cannot be sent out individual outs or panned separately, so while your Moog bass patch can be happily split with a Rhodes with auto-pan because the auto-pan is tied to the Rhodes, if you add a phaser in the effects section your Moog bass will also go through the phaser.  If there’s ever a version 2 of this board this is one of the things folks would like to see addressed.

[CNPCNP]

Thanks for the various tests, much appreciated. Too bad it's (seemingly needlessly) limited, but at least good to know.
As long as panning parts had been possible, for some situations I could have lived with the common FX
(as in: skipping them, and applying them to each after having left the VC).

Fully agreed, the wish-list for a further update keeps growing, and they mostly seem 'easy fixes'.
 

[niacin]

atm your option is to set up a split, turn the volume down for the sound on one side, midi it to another sound source, set the key range to match, and play the second source from the Vox along side the internal sound on the the other side of the split.  I do this a lot.

[niacin]

1 hour ago, CNPCNP said:

Too bad it's (seemingly needlessly) limited, but at least good to know.
As long as panning parts had been possible, for some situations I could have lived with the common FX
(as in: skipping them, and applying them to each after having left the VC).

 

The effects are where they are in the audio chain because the original wasn’t designed to allow splits. The combination of ‘baked in’ effects for the EPs plus one fx bus works perfectly given the original aim. I think they did as much as they could with OS 2.0 to expand that. I’m not sure what grounds you have for thinking the limits are ‘needless.’. They’re a result of hardware and processor decisions made in the original design process, it just wasn’t designed to do what you want.  A Nautilus might be worth a look, similar quality EPs, all the functionality you want, and a whole nother level of quality up from the CK you’ve been looking at, and you can load in the electric pianos from Purgatory Creek, which are Keyscape quality or better.

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, niacin said:

atm your option is to set up a split, turn the volume down on one side, midi it to another sound source, set the key range to match, and play the second source from the Vox. I do this a lot.

 

I was thinking about that kind of approach, where the second source would be an iPad or computer, and then wondered if at that point it might not just be simpler to turn Local Off and address both your external sounds and the Vox' own sounds via the app running on the other device (Camelot Pro, Keystage, Gig Performer, Mainstage, whatever).

 

1 hour ago, niacin said:

The effects are where they are in the audio chain because the original wasn’t designed to allow splits.  I think they did as much as they could with OS 2.0, I’m not sure what grounds you have for thinking the limits are ‘needless.’. They’re a result of hardware and processor decisions made in the original design process.

 

I think the "needless" part was more that they don't support things like the panning of sounds, or having the upper and lower parts on their own MIDI channels... things that more likely could be achieved within the current architecture. 

 

1 hour ago, CNPCNP said:

the wish-list for a further update keeps growing, and they mostly seem 'easy fixes'.

I highly doubt there will be any updates. Unless maybe they surprise us with a new release of the board (as they just did with the Grandstage), and that updated board is similar enough to the earlier one that they can easily build an update for the older board out of the same code.

 

BTW, since you've been comparing this board to the CK (in the other thread), I'll mention that the CK has the same limitation we've been talking about here... you can't pan its sounds, and while it does splits, the different sounds cannot be addressed on different MIDI channels.

 

Back on the wish list topic, for people following this thread and not the other, I'll re-post my recent wish list here (slightly updated), most of which could at least conceivably possibly be feasible for the current hardware:

 

* a display that gives you the names of patches and scrollable items that are currently only identified by number (I think this is the only thing I'm mentioning here that would clearly require additional hardware... but maybe they could integrate a smartphone app to provide this function with the current hardware)

 

* the ability to directly select the organ percussion and c/v settings you want (e.g. by using the organ variation buttons while holding the percussion or chorus buttons)

 

* the ability to shift the octave of the left-hand split sound (e.g. use the octave buttons while holding down the split key)

 

* the ability to turn off effects for the left-hand split sound, even if it were a global setting (as it is, it shares the effect of the main sound, as discussed above... I understand why a second sound wouldn't be able to have a different effect, but it's not inconceivable that it could be possible to give it no effect at all, and as alluded to above, you probably don't want your LH bass sound to have whatever effects you're using on your RH sound)

 

* the ability to pan/assign split sounds to mono left and right, as we've been discussing here

 

* MIDI program change for the individual sound sections (not just the scenes, but also the organ/piano/EP/keylayer sections independently)

 

* the ability to save the status of the valve drive and dynamics buttons as part of a scene (even better if it could save the knob values as well, but even just the on/off status would be helpful)

 

* the ability to save EQ in single-sound scenes (it could be just a global setting)

 

* seamless sound switching for the sounds within a scene (as you turn them on and off), not just between the scenes

 

* some kind of basic external MIDI zone function (e.g. being able to switch one of its sound sections from internal to external)

 

* empty organ preset slots into which I could load my favorite Kronos CX3 sounds. I'm assuming that, at least theoretically,  the CX3 engine in the Vox could understand all the parameters of a Kronos CX3 program, even though the Vox does not, itself, provide ways to access all those same parameters. Or maybe even better, a computer editor for creating CX3 programs with all those other "hidden" CX3 parameters you can't access right from the Vox. The Vox would work better for me as a clonewheel if I could at least get its CX3 organ sounding as good as some of my favorite CX3 patches on the Kronos. (Being able to load other sounds, like AL-1 programs into the keys/layer section, would be cool too.)

 

* and I'll add the one we're discussing here, the ability to assign different MIDI channels to the upper and lower sounds, for both sending and receiving. This would also work well with one I mentioned above, the ability to send Program Changes to the individual sound sections.

 

 

[niacin]

when they get through that list I’d like an updated CX-3 engine please, the current one sounds so 2001.

[CNPCNP]

Thanks all for hearing about your thoughts & experiences.
 

Valuable insights, which I guess for my situation (as an experienced musician, but beginner on keys) are:
 

! Don't try to see the Vox Continental as a one stop shopping station, don't expect all tricks from it, so stop trying to wring all functionality out of it, it is what it is.
(Its aspects are known:
-good/best sounding EPs in its pricerange,
-cool looking if that's your thing (I guess I'd be sold when seeing one in real, which is to follow),
-portable yet metal iso plastic,
-'MIDI-frugal')
 

!  That Korg Nautilus looks interesting, thanks for mentioning. Might be a bit heavy and seems sparse on hands-on control, but I'll read & listen more.
 

!  Thanks for the CK-tweak suggestions, I must give this one a re-listen, and on better monitoring.
I mean, if the Vox is just a bit better sounding for EPs than the CK, but if both are still miles away from say Keyscape anyway, then skipping that 'little bit better' may be considered a small price to pay for the increased flexibility and possibilities of the CK, especially for gigs/rehearsals. (And enjoy the full sonic delight of say Keyscape at home.)
 
?  Which begs a last question how big the gaps w.r.t. EP-sounds are between say
[A] Korg CK,
[B] Vox Continental,
[C] Keyscape / Korg Nautilus with Purgatory Creek

Could imagine it's like this, right?    [C] - (A LOT better than) - [B] - (better than) - [A]  

!!! And then enough considered, learned, SO NOW CHOOSE & BUY ONE 🙂 , enjoy it, develop,
and eventually add/swap later on, and then possibly spend the big bucks, but for now as key-newbie keep it a bit decent, but get going.
 

Thanks/have a good day

[niacin]

I’d be happy to play a gig calling for Rhodes or Wurly all night on the Korg Vox Continental.  

 

For the same gig I’d be happy with the Purgatory Creek sounds (they are pretty stunning) but less thrilled with the key action on whichever Nautilus I loaded them into.

 

I wouldn’t use either model of the CK for such a gig.  

 

And actually my first choice would be a Mojo-61.  ymmv

[niacin]

https://www.purgatorycreek.com/index.php/kronos/

 

the Wurly 140B is magic

[Paul Woodward]

Given how old the VC is now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of finding a nice used Grandstage at a bargain price and see how you feel about that seeing as Korg is on your radar.

[niacin]

2 minutes ago, Paul Woodward said:

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of finding a nice used Grandstage at a bargain price and see how you feel about that seeing as Korg is on your radar.

i think CNPCNP said the weight rules out the GS and the SV1/2

[Paul Woodward]

2 minutes ago, niacin said:

i think CNPCNP said the weight rules out the GS and the SV1/2

Ah, missed that. I didn't think 17kg was bad for a RH3 piano, but its still a good 8kg heavier than the VC.....

[niacin]

maybe if Korg release a 73 of the X in racing green or something

[Paul Woodward]

Just now, niacin said:

maybe if Korg release a 73 of the X in racing green or something

Given how close it is in spec to the original, I will be interested to see how they develop and support this one given that they discontinued the original pretty quickly.

[niacin]

2 minutes ago, Paul Woodward said:

Given how close it is in spec to the original, I will be interested to see how they develop and support this one given that they discontinued the original pretty quickly.

the original came out in 2017, it was due for an upgrade.

[Paul Woodward]

4 minutes ago, niacin said:

the original came out in 2017, its was due for an upgrade.

Indeed, but aesthetics aside, do you really think its enough of an 'upgrade' after seven years? More sample memory, 130 more sounds, an extra sound layer to eat into the 128 note poly, and a shimmer reverb? Im ignoring the basic backing track feature on a pro level board... 😉