Korg VS Roland

[coyote]

Yeah, actually they did need all that equipment. In the time before sampling "all that equipment" was called, ummm..... what was that? Oh yeah - an ORCHESTRA! They also sequenced, using these funny little dots, lines, and squiggles that we fondly remember as a SCORE http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

Did Bach need all that equipment? Chopin? Rachmaninov?

SlopHappy

[MusicWorkz]

Originally posted by midispaceho:

Dallas Austin's studio rig gave me an erection for a week when I got my July Keyboard.

 

You, too?....25 cases of equipment...arrghhhh!!!!!

[steadyb]

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

 

 

 

 

Samplers can sample anything. Your point suggests that ALL samplers are flawed, because no matter their capabilities, whether hardware or computer, that they cannot produce a realistic enough representation of their inputted signals. It will be "colored" and "one-dimensional" so as to be unusable.

 

 

That wasn't what I said at all. In speaking with various film composers, a few of which are friends of mine, they say basically the same thing, if you're doing one type of music, the Kurzweil samplers are best, while Akai is good for other things, and Emu is better for orchestral stuff. Not that it "will be 'colored' and 'one-dimensional' so as to be unusable", just that it would be preferable because they do sound different, just like different brands of supposedly "flat" studio monitors have their own color.

 

 

 

 

 

If you combine one keyboard with one computer, which could also run plug-ins, you would instantly have access to multiple sound sources of differing types (FM synthesis, subtractive, additive, sample playback, virtual analog, etc etc etc). You can also use dsp functions within audio editors on the computer, and effects in both devices to further mangle the sounds. Using a multi-track DAW program, you could record all kinds of different things at different times...all of this with just two devices, not 4 keyboards and 12 rackmount modules. There is wealth of possibilities in this simple setup.

 

 

More variety brings more possibilities, whether it's modules, microphones, plug-ins (from different companies), FX devices, etc. Sorry, but that's a fact not an opinion.

 

 

If you NEED 4 keyboards and 12 rackmount modules to make decent music, you simply cannot play. That's what I said. I didn't say POSSESSING those items made you unable to play as you suggest. Chopin only needed one piano. How is this not relevant?

 

 

Most of us write or compose on one instrument and then arrange/orchestrate it in a way that fits the style or sound we are going for. Chopin had an orchestra, Brian Wilson had his band and top studio musicians, both wrote on piano...one piano. But if you don't have access to the philharmonic or The Wrecking Crew, then a variety of synths/instruments will get you a lot closer than one instrument or one brand of instruments.

 

 

 

 

 

Any music can be played on an S80, Triton, or whatever other synth you prefer. It could be a string quartet, jazz trio, rock band, solo flute, B3 organ, etc etc etc.

 

 

Again you just mentioned a variety of instruments, in a variety of combinations.

 

Best of luck,

 

 

steadyb

 

 

 

 

This message has been edited by steadyb on 08-07-2001 at 11:54 AM

[Felix_dup1]

No innovation from Roland since the D-50? Does XV synthesis count - or do you think it's just another step in D-50 technology evolution? And if it works (and sells) then why change it? I have to agree that Korg and Yamaha have both done more in the areas of innovation (though nearly all the innovation that has happened in the last 10 years has been in the area of modeling).

 

As keyboard technology matures and ages, the changes will become more subtle and major innovation will happen less often. Look at guitars now, compared to 40 years ago...

 

It's also depressing to see so many people ready to slam Roland and Korg, seemingly based on their commercial success and widespread use, when other companies are just as complacent in their innovation.

 

I mean seriously - Kurzweil needs to get off their asses when it comes to R&D. To charge as much for a 2600 as they do and still offer only 48 note polyphony? Talk about repackaging existing technology - yet to read around in these forums you'd think it was the holy grail of synths. I disagree.

 

I like the fact that there are numerous manufacturers out there, each producing products to suit their own niche. I hope the market supports all of them, along with new companies in the future. I don't think any of us want Roland and Korg to be the only players in town, but I don't think anyone wants them to completely go away, either. I could be wrong, though.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by felix:

I like the fact that there are numerous manufacturers out there, each producing products to suit their own niche. I hope the market supports all of them, along with new companies in the future. I don't think any of us want Roland and Korg to be the only players in town, but I don't think anyone wants them to completely go away, either.

 

You are correct sir.

[JMB]

Originally posted by felix:

To charge as much for a 2600 as they do and still offer only 48 note polyphony? Talk about repackaging existing technology - yet to read around in these forums you'd think it was the holy grail of synths. I disagree.

 

Why do people always make a judgement on how good a keyboard is by it's polyphony? More polyphony does not make a synth sound any better.

 

How much time have you spent with a 2600? I find that most people who make judgements on a keyboard have not even spent 2 hours with it. How can anyone make an informed judgement about any professional keyboard without spending some quality time with it?

 

Now I'm not saying that you havn't spent any time with a 2600 Felix. I don't know how much you've spent with it, but if you took the time to really see what a 2600 can do and maybe read the manual you would see that the 2600 (although not perfect) is pretty close to the holy grail of synths of today.

 

Of course most people don't need a "holy grail" synth. Some people just need a great sounding board with good presets or a synth with a smaller depth of programing features.

 

As for me I would never use most of the features or programming depth that is on a 2600. That is why I only own a Kurzweil PC2 and plan on getting a Triton rack or XV-5080 for some good Rompling. They have just enough depth for me.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by JMB on 08-07-2001 at 12:40 PM

[Magpel]

Really? Tell that to Keith Emerson, Suzanne Ciani, Leon Russell, Oscar Peterson, and a variety of others using QS synths.

 

Oscar Peterson plays an Alesis? Please elbaorate. No rudeness intended, but I honestly couldn't have told you that Oscar was still alive. I know he had problems with arthritis (as do I, the only similarity between us), and I always thought it cruelly ironic that just about the chopsiest cat *ever* was stricken with that disease. Well, go Oscar, man. I'm always inspired by dudes making music past 50, let alone past 80 or whatever Oscar is now. Dave, did you have contact with him in your Alesis days?

 

John

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by felix:

No innovation from Roland since the D-50? Does XV synthesis count - or do you think it's just another step in D-50 technology evolution? .

 

To the best of my knowledge, the XV stuff is still just another ROM-based sample playback synth, just like the D series, the U series, the JV series, the XP series, etc. More waveforms, more polyphony. Is there something that I'm missing?

 

In all fairness, I did forget to mention the VP-9000 - that was pretty innovative. Most folks didn't seem to get it, though...

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Magpel:

Oscar Peterson plays an Alesis?

 

Alesis' ex-Canadian rep reported to us that Oscar bought a QS7 when they came out.

 

dB

[Rod S]

Originally posted by JMB:

Why do people always make a judgement on how good a keyboard is by it's polyphony? More polyphony does not make a synth sound any better.

.... if you took the time to really see what a 2600 can do and maybe read the manual you would see that the 2600 (although not perfect) is pretty close to the holy grail of synths of today.

 

Polyphony on most synths is elusive anyways. Most synths with 64 note polyphony will actually average about 24-32, since most of the sounds will use 2-3 parts.

 

I find that a lot people that diss the k series only ran through the presets, and/or was looking for that instant gratification sound. It really depends on what you're looking for. I find that my k2000 is the synth that gives me the broadest of options and that I can work with the fastest.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Rod CA:

Polyphony on most synths is elusive anyways. Most synths with 64 note polyphony will actually average about 24-32, since most of the sounds will use 2-3 parts.

 

Rod is correct. In most synths, very few programs only use one waveform - many of them are stacked two, three and even four waveforms deep. Each one of these uses up a voice of polyphony. So, a 64 voice synth with a four waveform program is really only a 16 voice synth. Play a few double-fisted chords while holding the sustain pedal, and there goes your polyphony. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

 

The exception to this rule is Kurzweil VAST instruments. They have algorithms that will allow you to generate four waveforms while only using up a single voice, so that so-called 48 voices of polyphony goes a pretty long way.

 

Also, I think that Kurzweil has the best voice-stealing of any synth with which I have worked.

 

dB

[Dr Teeth]

Weel if I would have to choose between then i´d have a big problem... I have a korg 01W which have AI2 synth engine that is wonderful. Korg´s buttoms seem to be very fragile but the strings in korgs are warmer. I like roland pianos and ethnic sound percusion... I like both manufacturers. BUT DEFENITIVLY KURZWEIL RULES!!!!!

[Felix_dup1]

I agree that Kurzweil makes an awesome synth - but in terms of innovation, has anybody really done much lately that they weren't already doing? V.A.S.T isn't a new thing, and I still can't justify the price of a K2600. E-MU introduced synth architecture on a sampler too, but they continue to do the same things. Yamaha, Korg, Roland... don't they all keep doing what they do too?

 

My comments on Kurzweil came more from lamenting the fact that they were once one of the most cutting-edge, innovative synth manufacturers in the world. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And the K series could end up like former "holy grail" synths (i.e. Synclavier, Fairlight) if Young Chang doesn't commit to taking it to the next level. (And I don't think that the inclusion of KDFX qualifies as taking anything to the next level).

 

The polyphony issue is very real for many people purchasing synths. While most of us here in this forum are very knowledgable when it comes to interpreting specs, this isn't always true for the buying customer. If Kurzweil isn't going to increase polyphony, they should at least find a way to state polyphony to better represent themselves in the marketplace.

 

Real innovation, like the Andromeda, Kurzweil's V.A.S.T. technology, Yamaha VL-1, Korg Prophecy and Z1, Roland JP-8000 and VP-9000, is all very exciting. Equally exciting is innovation in the way technology is presented, especially when it's in such a way as to make instruments more musical and available to more musicians.

 

In this area, I think there's been tons of innovation, like Grooveboxes and Electribes, 88 weighted key digital stage pianos for under $1000, full-blown 64-voice synths that sound pretty darn good for under $500, modeled tonewheel organs, Touch Screens, airFX and D-Beam technology, knobs (thank God they've come back), Yamaha PLG expansion boards, Korg's MOSS expansion board and OASYS card...

 

The tragedy is that the smaller companies like Big Briar, Waldorf, Clavia, Access, Novation, Studio Electronics, and others don't enjoy the widespread commercial success and market penetration of the bigger companies, and thus don't have the same resources for R&D.

[JMB]

Originally posted by felix:

If Kurzweil isn't going to increase polyphony, they should at least find a way to state polyphony to better represent themselves in the marketplace.

 

I couldn't agree more. A great amount of people do not know the real story behind Kurzweil's polyphony. Kurzweil should state their polyphony better.

[Rod S]

I agree that Kurzweil makes an awesome synth - but in terms of innovation, has anybody really done much lately that they weren't already doing? V.A.S.T isn't a new thing, and I still can't justify the price of a K2600... My comments on Kurzweil came more from lamenting the fact that they were once one of the most cutting-edge, innovative synth manufacturers in the world.

 

Interesting point, and I agree. The reason I have a k2000 without a burning desire to upgrade. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif (As you said, improvements were only done to things like KDFX, more polyphony, more RAM, etc) Supposedly their triple-mod processing is very cool, but that thing IS a major polyphony hog.

 

If I remember correctly (as posted my kurzweil's Mike Martin at KurzList)... the k2600 is 48 voice instrument, but if you have a stereo sample you're down to half - 24, but the triple mod eats up an additional 3..so you're down to 6 (or was it 8? I'll have to look it up). Ouch.

 

The polyphony issue is very real for many people purchasing synths. While most of us here in this forum are very knowledgable when it comes to interpreting specs, this isn't always true for the buying customer. If Kurzweil isn't going to increase polyphony, they should at least find a way to state polyphony to better represent themselves in the marketplace.

 

And it works the other way too. As I said before, the 64 note polyphony is elusive, and a lot of manufacturer's do not explain it carefully, only if you read the fine print on page 30 of the manual http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Equally exciting is innovation in the way technology is presented, especially when it's in such a way as to make instruments more musical and available to more musicians.

 

I'm excited about being a *technology* musician these days. I can't wait for the next big thing.

 

The tragedy is that the smaller companies like Big Briar, Waldorf, Clavia, Access, Novation, Studio Electronics, and others don't enjoy the widespread commercial success and market penetration of the bigger companies, and thus don't have the same resources for R&D.

 

True in any technical area. I've worked in engineering companies varying from 10,000 employees to 100. It's frustrating as hell sometimes. To develop a new product we often have to buy machines costing >100,000 for a single step in the manufacturing process. You often have an idea and have to archive it.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by Rod CA:

... the k2600 is 48 voice instrument, but if you have a stereo sample you're down to half - 24

 

 

Hey Rod,

I don't think that is correct.

steadyb

[Rod S]

Originally posted by steadyb:

I don't think that is correct.

 

Well, I'm reposting this without Mike's permission; I hope I'm not out of line. I am posting his entire message so I don't take his words out of context.

 

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:19:48 EDT

From: Kurzrep@AOL.COM

Subject: Re: K2600XS & TripleMod (Also: Norton advice)

 

In a message dated 8/6/2001 1:51:20 PM Central Daylight Time,

zen77@teleport.com writes:

 

> Would someone please set me straight about a few things?

>

> A) If you have 1 _stereo_ sample, no VAST or effects, does that = 48 or 24

> notes at a time?

 

24notes using stereo samples

 

> B) If you have 1 _stereo_ sample, and a regular VAST chain of modulation (1

> VAST effect), that means ??? notes at a time?

 

VAST does not use any additional polyphony so you still have 24 voices when

using stereo samples.

 

 

> C) If you have 1 _stereo_ sample, and 1 VAST TripleMod chain, that means

>

 

Triple Mode uses 3 layers simultaneously so it would take up 3 voices of

polyphony for each key played. Truthfully most applications of triple mode

wouldn't use stereo samples however if this were the case you'd use 6 voices

per key.

 

Mike Martin

Kurzweil

 

________________________________________

 

I won't comment further since I'm by no means a kurz expert, but I believe this answers the question.

[dashage]

As far as I know Yamaha bought Korg last year. So... ;-) In my oppinion Roland is the biggest one, but is going down with the fast way SoftwareSynthesis is getting better and better and Notebooks getting cheaper...

 

Regards, WilliamK - DashSynthesis - www.dash-site.com

[dashage]

Forgot to say this:

CreativeLabs bought EMU and ENSONIQ some time ago. ;-)

All sbLive audio cards has EMU chips...

Today I use a sbLive with the APS drivers, a KorgWavestation keyboard for MIDI (I use only a few sounds, I know that its sound is great, but is sooo hard to program and use that I rather use just SoundFonts) and I also use a lot of VirtualSynthesis. Check out my music: www.dashage.n3.net

[Postman]

After years (over ten years) I'm thinking seriously about getting back into performing (you know, bars, clubs, that kind of thing), so I find myself back in Guitar Center this weekend looking for a do-everything (piano, organ, etc) keyboard. It's cheaper, and I hate setting up and tearing down.

 

Unlike most of the people in this thread, I used to consider myself a Roland guy. Seemed like their engineers liked to hear the same things I did. So, I headed for their stuff first: an XV-88 and an RD-700. I played them both for a while and my overriding impression was that they sounded great... and very familiar, even after a decade. Same stuff, much better quality, but I'd heard it before.

 

But I wonder if I'd never heard a Roland synth before, if I wouldn't be super jazzed by their current generation. I mean, there's nothing wrong with their sound, right? It's certainly not thin, and the effects are wild. If these two were brand new synths, would we be comparing them to McDonalds? I don't think so.

 

[bTW, I ended up playing a K2600XS for the rest of the afternoon. I'm in love. I think I'm going to have to get one. Do tell if you think it's a mistake. $3600 is a lot cash.]

[Felix_dup1]

Funny how Ensoniq was started by sound chip designers from Commodore - and now the company is owned by Creative Labs. Also, does anyone think E-MU is ever going to release anything under the Ensoniq name?

 

Yamaha does not own Korg. At one time, they owned a large portion of Korg stock. Does anyone know if they still do? Somehow I remember hearing that they don't anymore.

[Felix_dup1]

oh, and by the way, Native Instruments gets my vote for most innovative synth manufacturer this year.

[Dave Bryce]

Yamaha does not own Korg.

 

Correct.

 

At one time, they owned a large portion of Korg stock. Does anyone know if they still do?

 

I do not believe that Yamaha and Korg have anything to do with each other. It's been many years since they did.

 

dB

[Stephen Fortner]

Gotenks,

 

To say something brief about your question...

 

Korg = Goku, Roland = Vegeta

 

Kurzweil is kind of like Perfect Cell, under the delusion that they are indeed most powerful.

 

We're all waiting to see who will be the Gohan that comes of age and takes out Cell.

[-manny]

what about Kurzweil, to me is the best for piano samples and strings. but korg is great for techno and drum&bass and Roland is good for paths and other thinks... so if you can mix this keyboards together.. you have a great sound library for any type of music you want to do!!!

[-manny]

what about Kurzweil, to me is the best for piano samples and strings. but korg is great for techno and drum&bass and Roland is good for paths and other thinks... so if you can mix this keyboards together.. you have a great sound library for any type of music you want to do!!!

[Mike Martin]

I do not believe that Yamaha and Korg have anything to do with each other. It's been many years since they did.

 

dB

 

Korg still uses keyboard actions built by Yamaha.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by Mike Martin:

Korg still uses keyboard actions built by Yamaha.

 

Hey Mike,

 

Can you clarify the K2500/Stereo Samples/Polyphony issue???

If I'm using all stereo samples that I've either made myself or loaded in, do I then have only 24 voices available???

 

steadyb

[Gotenks]

People... you are all great... so I know that using only Korg or only Roland or only Kurz or yamaha or ??? you are a bit limited...

 

Roland is good for pianos, kurz for organs, korg for tecno samples... ok

Some musician are endorsers of korg... of roland... during a live they can use only the keys by which they are sponsorized... How can they do it?

They own an XV5080 hidden (veery hidden) under their trousers connected to their Triton??? =)

[Mike Martin]

The quote from me above is correct. If you are using a stereo sample each key uses 2 voices of polyphony.