Please Seperate Sections.

[SynthAntonius]

I oppose. Don't leave me. I don't want to be left alone in this cold, lonely Radias world.

With Radias, I will never be alone

[braincandy]

As a future R3 owner (will be buying an R3 on Monday), I'd prefer the R3 to have its own section. It just makes searching for information easier without having to wade through Radias-related posts (which make up the majority of this section).

[X-Trade]

I can see the problems. Being a radias user i find that it is interesting sometimes to read what people say on the R3. but only up to a point.
the general feeling of R3 posts too always seem to be relatively simple 'hardware/software' issues (which, whilst not trying to offend, does seem to relate directly to the market at which the R3 is aimed).

also, using the analogy with the MS2k/MK, at least they had exactly the same sound generation. The radias is clearly aimed at a different kind of user from the R3, plus it has a greater polyphony, and other extra features, which set it aside as more of a pro/sound design instrument, rather than a quick play or entry-level synth like the R3.

it seems natural that discussions relating to the Radias will be aimed more towards sound design and operation which is more releveant to the Radias than the R3.

BUT, any tips for the R3 on sound design (that do not focus on the user interface), and similarly tips on the Radias which do not rely on features, will always be relevant to both.
but i guess that if they were split it would be still possible, but some people may not come across some really useful tips. Then again, i always visit the MS2k/MK forum, being both an ex MK owner as well as being interested in seeing if there is anything i can apply to the Radias.

[musikmachine]

Well if they split it won't stop the end user from visiting both forums if they want plus seperating them will make it much easier for users of both to find the information they're looking for.

Hint hint korg

[botega]

Hey..... Radias was here first, then came this little one drived him into a corner and tried to take it's place, LOL! i really don't care as long as we are all getting along togrther here, after all we are all from the same KORG familia lolz!

[SynthAntonius]

Well if they split it won't stop the end user from visiting both forums if they want plus seperating them will make it much easier for users of both to find the information they're looking for.

Hint hint korg

Agree... people who want to see both will loose nothing, and everything would be much easier for people who are only interested in Radias or R3.

[Timo]

How compatible is the Radias compared to the little brother R3? Is the sound engine of R3 and Radias so alike that the same patches programmed on each are perfect copies (apart from the extra synth PCMs that R3 has over Radias of course)?

I understand Daz has (commendably!) made a converter for R3 > Radias... can the opposite be done, converting patches from Radias > R3?

In particular, what would stand to be lost in such a conversion (Radias to R3)? Does the R3 have modulation and step sequencers? I noticed the specs for the R3 on Korg.com show 8 oscillator types for R3 and 9 types for Radias (it doesn't mention "Drum PCM" samples for R3, only Synth PCMs. Are there no means to create beats on the R3?)

Just wondering whether or not the R3 and Radias would be different enough to separate into different sections, given that they don't appear to be easily compatible with each other (regards the editor, hardware and various other problems) and the specifications and problems relating to each are widely different and irrelevant to the other party, and it's these we seem to mostly see on the forum rather than the aspects that unite them.

Cheers, Timo

Oops, didn't realise how old this thread was! Please ignore. I just searched for separate Radias/R3 sections after looking up the compatibility of each. It'd be far too much work to separate them now.

[tpantano]

Might as well split MS2K and MK as well.

Don't argue that its not the same; it is, only difference is that MS2K is older so not as many people care.

[Dimitrije001]

I think there should be separate topics, I actually thought about bringing it up a couple of times, I'm glad a lot of other people think the same.
I own an R3 and I don't like to waste my time on the forums browsing through a bunch of Radias related topics. I do like to read some Radias topics (for example, the excellent http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=18264) on programming, because I can apply almost all of the tips when I create sounds on the R3;but I don't like running into a topic entitled 'New to the forum', just to find out that it was started by a new Radias user. There's nothing I can help him with. And vice versa,it's obvious that Radias users are not interested in the R3 at all.
One more thing:
I post a lot of sounds for the R3 here. i would like people to be able to easily spot my topics when they enter the R3 page. Instead, the topics I make often get pushed a page or two because of too many topics about the Radias.

[danielb]

but I don't like running into a topic entitled 'New to the forum', just to find out that it was started by a new Radias user.

Sorry . . .

I guess the question is: how relevant is info on one synth to the other?

[Dimitrije001]

No, I apologize it is not your fault in anyway, you started your topic in the right place, the whole point is that the sections need to be separated so that users could navigate more easily.
Since R3 is a scaled down Radias, information on Radias sound programming, as I mentioned above, could be useful to the R3 users, but since there are not too many R3 programmers around, Radias users don't have much to learn from our topics. And anyway, we can always visit each other's topics to check out for something interesting.

[axxim]

I thought of this days ago, without knowing about this post, so now I voted for the split, even if I think this will have some disadvantages for both parts.

Yes the Radias is a more "professional" synth and I would have liked to purchase it. But in my case, I wanted a good synth with a relatively low budget and reduced space. I sold my JX-8P to get my R3 and two more keyboards are in the queue (Alesis QS6 and Roland S-50) which will be hard to sell.

I am sure that more than one R3 user (me) would have preferred to get the Radias. Even if both synths are different I think they share the basics of sound programming being the R3 a subset (about 1/3rd) of a Radias.

Some Radias users have posted and solved problems from R3 users and viceversa. Sound programming is not acquired with the synth, the synth is a tool for doing it. IMHO, it is not correct to classify the users in two groups by what they own or use.

I am still thinking of Radias<->R3 converter... someone working on this? someone interested in this?

[Dimitrije001]

Hm...I think that the R3>Radias converter makes sense, since Radias has everything the R3 has, and converted programs will sound the same as they would on the R3.
However, Radias>R3 wouldn't really be so useful since most of the program would get lost in translation.
You would probably have to choose 2 timbres from the 3-4 of the Radias program
and you couldn't use it's PCM
and you couldn't convert drums
and you would have to choose only 1 mod seq per timbre.
Thus getting something you could have probably programmed on your R3 yourself,without so much trouble.

[axxim]

....
However, Radias>R3 wouldn't really be so useful since most of the program would get lost in translation.
You would probably have to choose 2 timbres from the 3-4 of the Radias program
and you couldn't use it's PCM
and you couldn't convert drums
and you would have to choose only 1 mod seq per timbre.
Thus getting something you could have probably programmed on your R3 yourself,without so much trouble.

Well I was talking about essential sound patches, not complete sets.
If you use layered patches you have 4 timbres on the R3 too.
PCM is not a classic synthesizer source which includes the drums.
I was relaying in the editor screens where about 90% of the settings for both are similar.
I would like to get a Radias editor screenshot of a sound and try to convert it to R3 to see if it really works.

[TecRoc]

Dear R3 and Radias users,

from my viewpoint the causes of the problems mentioned above are much less the
differences in hardware and software, but the differences among the user profiles.

Here are just three possible examples of users:

A_Total noob, who wants to achieve and play sounds he has heard on his
favourite band´s new album.
B_Ambitioned Keyboard Player, that has played presets up to now, but wants to
expand his programming skillz for more flexibility during live.
C_Sound Designer, who is mainly interested in fully exploiting the rich possibilities of
the MMT-engine to get very own unique sounds.

So the interests of the various groups are already different, aside from being a Radias or a R3 user.
Both Instruments are quite complex, while the Radias shows it and the R3 does not.

We split:
• Radias users will not have to answer R3 noob questions.
• R3 users will not have to deal with Radias specific subjects


We stay together:
• Synthesis subjects relevant to both will be exchanged
• R3 users will think about buying Radias

BTW:
When the Philipp Münch R3-Soundset came up, the Radias users were quite happy to share these
(thanks to Phillipp and Daz) with the R3 users.

In any case, i think it is a matter of interest and skill, not gear or status.

Thanx to Axxim:

Some Radias users have posted and solved problems from R3 users and viceversa.
Sound programming is not acquired with the synth, the synth is a tool for doing it.
IMHO, it is not correct to classify the users in two groups by what they own or use.

greetingz, TR