Korg Forums

X-Trade wrote:Well I think a full internal hardware transplant would be the only way forward. I've thought about this as I too prefer the OASYS visual look, amongst other things.

I'm not sure that the LEDs would still work but it may be possible if the code just happens to still be active.

It would be a big job, expensive too considering you need an OASYS in addition to the Kronos. And I'd dread to think about if you screw it up and lose both.

That would have to include the screen, as well - so the OP talks about the OASYS having a "larger screen", but in actuality, the OASYS is 640 x 480 pixels, and the Kronos is 800 x 600. The Kronos screen is physically smaller, but the resolution is higher. All of the Kronos screens were redesigned to use the higher resolution. There would simply be no way to display the Kronos graphics on the OASYS screen - even if the rest of it could somehow be made to work.

nitecrawler wrote:No Kevin. I'm afraid you miss the point. There was no upgradable path and that precipitated the "stonewalling". The system was touted as upgradable but in reality was not. Simple as that. End of story.

Actually, the system was touted as "open", not upgradable. It was open as in - Korg developed an open architecture which allowed them to bolt on EXi's and EX's and so on. That's how they were able to add on extra synth engines, and how even in Kronos today they can do the same, and add on extra libraries. While accepted not as open as others wanted, never the less they approached the design from a open standard 'type' perspective, and that has allowed the flexibility we've come to know in OASYS and Kronos.

I am only guessing here - but I believe by 'open' Korg would have, internally to the company, designed a set of software standards which all development teams for OASYS would have followed, allowing for such modular, expandable design - very much like an implementation of the OSI 7 layer network model, which is an open standard, but which has enabled many protocol stacks (many of which are not 'open' in the public sense).

So indeed OASYS, and Kronos, by their very definition, have been 'open' in their design since day one, and the entire community has benefited from this. Many did not understand this point, and thought 'open' meant a plethora of 3rd party development, which Korg never promised actually, and if any had given any thought to it would have realised any such hope was utterly unrealistic - the market was never going to be there for it to be worth the while of any company to develop software for several thousand units (or even tens of thousands of units).

It is remarkable to me how stunning a job Korg did - when you look at the feature set of either OASYS or Kronos, and the rock solid quality with which it was implemented, it is a technological marvel to me.

It's even more wondrous to ponder that, literally 10 years after its release, OASYS is still several time the power and capability of any other workstation on the market today, other than Kronos. That's astounding. I suspect you will be hard pressed to find such a technical feat in any other line of engineering development, the world over (and hence why I truly wish Korg had the courage and conviction to celebrate OASYS at the launch of Kronos ).


Kevin

Kevin Nolan wrote:It is remarkable to me how stunning a job Korg did - when you look at the feature set of either OASYS or Kronos, and the rock solid quality with which it was implemented, it is a technological marvel to me.

It's even more wondrous to ponder that, literally 10 years after its release, OASYS is still several time the power and capability of any other workstation on the market today, other than Kronos. That's astounding. I suspect you will be hard pressed to find such a technical feat in any other line of engineering development, the world over (and hence why I truly wish Korg had the courage and conviction to celebrate OASYS at the launch of Kronos ).
Kevin

It really started with the M1 many years before. Same basic architecture.

And isn't that to be hugely applauded - that Korg, even in the grips of a revolution (that was OASYS and surely is Kronos today) managed also to incorporate the best of all previous workstations, in particular the "look and feel" of the OS, File structure, synth architecture, access to programmes and combi's.

I think that's remarkable. Look at that consistency - yet look at the sophistication of, say STR-1 or MOD-7, in no way held back by the use of the underlying architecture, but implemented in an "open" way.

So a very nice point your raise - OASYS and Kronos are not just the product of radical innovation in the mid "naughties" but harnessed the best of the past too - the best of both worlds.

As said, that is to be highly commended in my opinion - surely maturity and sophistication can only emerge when you don't throw out the baby with the bath water, and keep the best designs from the past, where possible. Roland and Yamaha could learn a thing or two from Korg in this capacity for sure (though the likes of Clavia and Mood are good in that regard too, albeit with far less radical changes from generation to generation and simpler overall designs).