StephenKay wrote:Hi Stephen. I couldn't quite muster 3000 people together, but this
Sequencer Poll Does suggest 50% or more think a sequencer is Definitley Vital in fact for the music "flow, wereas half of that thought EXi's were more important.
It's always interesting to wonder whether or not a small sampling of people in an online forum poll is representative of the larger group. Somehow, I think that poll, because of what it's about and how the question is phrased, probably attracted a large percentage of the people who actually care about it, and not such a large percentage of the people who don't. That's just the way these things run.
I'd be happy to be scientifically proven wrong, by some sort of actual survey of every OASYS owner - but that's not going to happen.
Last edited by StephenKay on Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
I would say the larger majority of Oasys owners would like to see sequencer improvements simply because its kind of makes it a less laughable workstation,when you look at some of the more endowed hardware sequencers about,the Oasys certainly is limp and "90s"in terms of flexibility,
Much of the Issue from what I see with the Owners is there is a kind of expectation that such an expensive machine should live up to or compete with software standards,The Oasys is basically still floating along on the Triton standards of sequencing(infact it loses the Cue List,which for me was a very useful tool)and even more of a crux to them is the fact the M3 at a fraction of the price has the upper hand in terms of features,couldn't care less myself,but can see why people would have a hang up of a workstation that costs less taking the preverbial
Most of those who want improvements possibly wouldn't use it solely as is,If they're not already,and it would still be used in the same way it is now as a Sketchpad,or in combination with a software application,Some users are too confined within their software environments that its impossible for Korg to make something that would cover all avenues of Musical applications that a computer could do and to convince people to work within the Oasys's onboard applications for sequencing.
The sequencer isn't that bad on the onset,I certainly find it more intuitive and usable than the Triton and I sequenced on that for years,and also the Trinity,the larger screened Oasys certainly makes things better,its just computers have given us more options and flexibility,that they have become like Mobiles phones,but forget that we once coped without them but live in a comfort zone of taking it for granted.
I would like to work in the box for sure,but even with the additional editing tools the M3 has its still far and away too miniscule to convince me to ditch my current Hardware option,so I'm happy to utilise the Oasys engines along with the External Hardware sequencer.
I wonder if the Oasys had made use of the VGA and mouse ports and used drag and drop methods would people look at the sequencer in a different way??I'd say in this day and age people still frown upon sequencing on a small screen,but the Oasys screen is still larger than the competition,but not as detailed as perhaps a 21 TFT monitor,so is maybe seen to be limited to some users.It certainly larger than my current Hardware screen option,but I have the commodity of adding a VGA and mouse to still work in a software way.
It would be nice to one day have a machine that incorporates all the tools I need inside one single box,but I have long since given up on that Idea..
I do think Korg need to look around and see what Hardware sequencers are out there to gauge more of a sequencing perspective as a user rather than simply keep going blindly by what they've created originally that has never evolved since the days of the Trinity.
I'd say that an MPC Style user interface or sequence environment would go down well,even if it would maybe be frowned upon by some users who maybe thought it was aimed at Hiphop etc,after all its the users preference which dictates the writing style not the machine,I use and have used several Hiphop abused machines,and the current sequencer is part of the typical scene but never so much as incorporate a Hip or a hop or a bling in my music,just the workflow of the machine fits my writing methods
I do feel that the Oasys is kind of a large lump in my studio for what is essentially no more useful from a songwriters point of view than a sound Module or engine host,with a few additional controls bolted one and what it is in terms of a workstation environment for songwriting using its sequencer I could get by with a Rack option sequencing from outside the box perspective.
I'm not disgruntled or feel shortchanged by Korg,I guess it was too much to expect any drastic updates to the sequencer,and if they are simply too add the same tools as the M3,I would rather the investment was put to more engines.
However the next series of Korg workstations will have to have something drastically evolved and weighty if they are to convert me into paying out again for a workstation from Korg,couldn't give a hoot about the sound Quality now I have an Oasys,the sequencer for me will be the leverage point to convince me,and I prefer hardware over software anyday.
Last edited by Kontrol49 on Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
'
As this now seems to be developing into some sort of "popularity" contest between those who do want a sequencer upgrade,
and those who recognise that you're better off with cubase/logic etc, I'd just like to make this point.....
People who object to something tend to be more vociferous (in polls) than those who aren't really too concerned!.....
therefore a truly representative proportion of 'voters' is never really known - although I would say that if only 50% of voters say 'yes' in a 'one-sided' question,
the more realistic probability is that it is more like 10 or 20% - not a convincing margin!
zolhof wrote:Even with the "super" Fantom seq I wouldn´t stop using my DAW. It´s a good step forward, but it still miles away from DAW´s sequencer IMO.
I must admit that I am somewhat conservative when it comes to this. The reason that I prefer solutions like the Oasys, Fantom G, Roland VS-2480CD is that they all have in common that everything is 100 % integrated and trustworthy. And 2, they don't take away the "creative" side about making music (by endless mousing around etc) and 3. they are not unstable and that likely to crash as PC systems, and they are all portable. Not least. That said, of course this doesn't apply to "professional" recording studios where all components are thoroughly adjusted and calibrated to each other, but for a minor project/home studio, this is what I prefer myself.
What's pretty cool about the Fantom G is that it has 4 individual out's, and in addition it's easy to use the Fantom G seq. to "trigger" both the Oasys (with it's 8 individual out's + main L/R) and the Boss DR-880 who have 4 ind. out's. That way it's a peace of cake to get everything splittet to separate tracks in the VS-2480CD. In other words, the Fantom G seq. runs everything as far as midi/triggering. Cool.
jerrythek wrote:So let's just stop this "reusing" of information, OK?
I know the emotional toll this is taking on user right now (as well as the team), and I see no need to exacerbate it with these types of accusations and unintended misinformation.
Although you as a rep for the Korg makes a situation difficult to ignore, I've taken an emotional toll by your accusation which I find it a bit harsh. It's one of those situation 'when I do, it's love but when you do become an adultery.
StephenKay wrote:Let's say you could interview every one of the 3000+ OASYS owners. I bet not more than 35-40% would be truly interested in a sequencer upgrade (unless it was actually a replacement for something of the level of Logic or Cubase, which could never happen). That would then leave a "large section of users who don't give diddly-squat about the internal sequencer". I'm actually one of them; I love my OASYS and the sound quality and synth engines, but I use Digital Performer on a Mac with a 30" display - and I don't care what you did to the OASYS sequencer, it could never compete with that.
Dear Mr. kay.
My perspective on the analogy is this. Let's say you could interview everyone of the 3000+ Oasys owners. You bet not more than 35-40% would be truly interested in a sequencer upgrade. That would certainly then leave a "large section of users who don't even know what the sequencers or composers really do in a first place." To put it another way, Tyro owners probably won't give diddly-squat about the Karma unless they know it exists.
Or to put it non-Washingtonian way, let's just say a condom manufacturer interviewed 3000+ users. Assume, not more than 35-40% would be truly interested in flavorful of products that would please their female partners. That would then leave a "large section (perhaps complete) of gay users who don't give diddly-squat about the flavor." (a 30" monitor optional) Therefore, that would make 35-40% of the group sampled to be 95%< true representative of the heterosexual condom users who are keen to the flavors.
Not saying that there is anything wrong with their orientation. Just because the rest of the group don't give diddly-squat about the internal sequencer doesn't automatically reject the percentage of those within who are illiterate to sequencing, let alone knowing how to do composing.
Likewise, just because the rest of the group don't bother with the internal sequencer upgrade doesn't mean they know everything about the external sequencer or would they ever bother to know what the external ones really do. Or you may say, a straight man who wax his forearms doesn't necessarily make him gay when the majority of gay men wax their entire bodies. (Open to the feedback on this)
To sum it up, your analogy and mine is flawed because they assume the rejected group to be the one and only preferred sample.
StephenKay wrote:Anyway, please don't use my comments "out of context" - we're not in Washington D.C.
Looks like I got your vote.
Hence, for the benefit of doubt, I even offered him to do a search on the KEY words just in case 'I've left the phrases out of context.' Still, I honestly don't see how I've concocted your comments out of context. You even kindly reiterated on your own term only to come to the same conclusion.
Synergy wrote: let's just say a condom manufacturer interviewed 3000+ users. Assume, not more than 35-40% would be truly interested in flavorful of products that would please their female partners. That would then leave a "large section (perhaps complete) of gay users who don't give diddly-squat about the flavor." (a 30" monitor optional) Therefore, that would make 35-40% of the group sampled to be 95%< true representative of the heterosexual condom users who are keen to the flavors.
In your attempt to be amusing, you descend into irrationality (to be kind). I won't continue this debate with you. Good luck with your Korg negotiations - I'm sure this direction will get you far.
Gaymen waxing,condom surveys???What the hell has any of this got to do with the Korg Oasys.
We're priviliged to have Korg employees and associates in here,Like Dan,Jerry,Stephen Kay etc even if they don't give us or tell what we would like to hear,it's nice to hear from them all the same and their opinions and views are always pleasurable to read.
Any chance we could leave all the political,personal and sexual preference hypothetically pedantic statistics for the off topic section or PM or a more suited forum elsewhere on the net and let the rest of us discuss the Related topic of the Korg Oasys without it drifting into a hijacked thread situation.
I think Kontrol got it right a few posts above .The OASYS would have benefited from a Sequencer update but I think the bigger issue will be that in future workstations Korg need to improve their sequencers ALOT !!!!!! The competition are way ahead from a hardware perspective.
They dont need to compete with DAW's as such but at least bring them closer too in a hardware enviroment.Some people still prefer the one stop solution to song making than using computers all the time........ trust me we still exsist.
I've been following this thread some days by now, and wish to contribute.
Thanks to Jerry for letting us know the status regarding Oasys' future.
I also notice that many of you are very upset and angry, and takes this out on the guy's from Korg and Mr. Kay.
Is this really nessasary?
Ok, I'm also a bit dissapointed about hearing the news, but it does'nt mean that my oasys suddenly is a bag of crap.
I love my instrument, and I'm sure it will give me plenty of joy in the future.
I have lots of respect for Dan, Jerry and Stephen and what they have contributed in my instrument and in this forum.
Hopefully you guys would cool down so that we could have a serious discussion instead.
The topic sequencer is mentioned quite some times, and I agree to it's weakness, but there is one thing I would rather have updated.
If you have a lots of samples, you need to load them after boot.
Would'nt it be nice if Korg did an update so we could load them at startup together with the EXi?
I find this much more interessting for me.. But. Thats my opinion.
In terms of sequencer competition,I'm looking at things Like the Roland MV8800(which is my tool of choice)and the Fantom G(Although many users have an axe to grind with some of its options or lack of them),it still a step in the right direction towards a more contained sequence environment,I've often seen the MV way of using a Mouse/Monitor attached similar to using Cubase but I have the stability and portability of a hardware device,and in software applications,perhaps isn't as flexible as a soft seq for Audio puposes,but its giving them a run for their money in the Midi side of things with The number of Midi tracks and Pattern tracks,and Midi channels,certainly in terms of todays sequencer packages 16 Tracks on the Oasys is a little restricting for Midi applications unless your bouncing to audio to free up channels and one Midi out socket on such a workstation is kind of mean
Even dinosaurs like the MPCs or the Yamaha QY700 still have a lot going even years after development which would work into a Korg type workstation and still knock spots off the Oasys sequencer.
As someone has already mentioned a few pages back,there is a lot of number crunching within the Oasys sequencer options to do certain functions,its not that its not useable,its the workflow and how its implemented,when you have used things like the MV or a Fantom,(and given the size of screen they use)surely its not too selfish to wish the Oasys could at least compete.
I know the usual Korg employee suspects have little say perhaps in the developments of the sequencer,but surely they must use some form of software application and could see how drastically the sequencer needs to be reworked to look at least on par with the Hardware Competition.
Its more than capable of being a well endowed Workstation,with its Onboard engine(s) and Sequencer fx routings coupled with it Hard disk recorder options.
Just exactly who designed the Sequencer from the Trinity Days??Is this person/Persons still Korg employed??and why no further development for the Oasys(except a few upgrades to the M3)
Would be interesting to hear Korgs views on the Sequencer and why they simply decided to simply bolt on the Triton sequencer instead of a newer developed one.
Last edited by Kontrol49 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
thekeymaster wrote:They dont need to compete with DAW's as such but at least bring them closer too in a hardware enviroment.Some people still prefer the one stop solution to song making than using computers all the time........ trust me we still exsist.
I´d love to be able to do that and just quit using the computer. That´s the main reason I bought the O, I was tired of softsynths and needed an external solution on the sound side.
I was aware of the sequencer issue, but to just be able to sound different than everybody else, that alone worths the investiment. I guess in the end it´s all about the unique sounds you can create in this machine, the sequencer is just a tool IMO.
I keep using 2 or 3 VSTs, but its way less compared to 1 year ago. Too bad we all depend on Korg to get new fx, synthesis and Karma updates. I still hope the door will be open again.
Even dinosaurs like the MPCs or the Yamaha QY700 still have a lot going even years after development which would work into a Korg type workstation and still knock spots off the Oasys sequencer.
It's clear as day to me that not one of the KORG sequencer engineers use their own sequencer as day to day musicians.
When you leave out badly needed basic functions as simple as a "shift note" option in Pattern mode then this tells me that they are not using the Sequencer at all.
As for the M3 update, it great to see such features being added, but again where are the basic functions ?. Piano Roll is the last thing I need when I want to do something basic like delete CC#91 from all tracks.
The priorities for what to include in the update where all screwed up in my opinion. KORG need to get the basic function in order first before adding all the Visual Editors, which is why I believe that even they don't use their own sequencer.
Regards.
Sharp.
Last edited by Sharp on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I hear you James. As far as sequencer updates go, even just a few small amendments within the existing way it operates would have been enough to make it considerably more musician friendly. The things you've mentioned, plus other peeves of mine such as showing the names of patterns that you've put to tracks, showing some kind of attribution on sysex automation in MIDI Event Edit, showing the shapes of curves in dialogs rather than just numbers 1-6, and a dialog that does an offline version of what the cue list did, to allow the combination of song parts more easily. These should have been in the sequencer from the outset IMHO.
The problem is every time the subject came up, the responses were along the lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked", even though some folks were not actually asking for anything that even remotely looked like "totally re-working it". Just smoothing out the edges.
Along the same lines of "The sequencer can't be totally re-worked" is the other favourite "It's never going to be like Logic/Cubase/DP, so what's the point ?". Again, a number of people really weren't asking for any such thing, just the addition of a few features that would make it polite.
That's why this conversation has gone on forever, because it's often seemed we were getting answers to questions we weren't actually asking.
As you suggest James, and as we both suggested many times over the years (before the Oasys even!), the sequencer just needs some finishing touches. Funnily enough, the M3 despite having more graphical facilities attached onto the basic Triton sequencer, actually still misses a bunch of other touches. For example the handling of Patterns and MIDI data on tracks has never had symmetry and now that is even more the case in the M3.
Now if the sequencer wasn't updated because everyone is using external sequencing arrangements, then why I must ask is the Oasys so painfully yuck to use multitimbrally ? Why wasn't that updated ? And why no program editing in multi-timbral mode ? That's the mode you're going to use it in. $8000 for an instrument that is limited to being mono-timbral if you want to get the most out of it, isn't much less funny than spending $8000 for monophonic instrument.
I know it's too late for the Oasys, sadly, but Korg I really would ask that you address these issues in your instruments, and address the thinking that goes behind some of these decisions.
Interesting you raise those points about the Sequencer having to be reworked Daz,for whats its worth when you look at the competition,the Oasys doesn't really need overhauling,the sequencer in its current state,is useable it like you say simply needs a few additional tools,more menu options and easier access to simple editing tools rather than scrolling from page to page to different sub menus,I find this totally frustrating.
There's no reason why all these menus cannot be utilised with drop down options on a screen the size of the Oasys,Sorry to keep harping on about the Roland MV8800,but in song mode you have 2 sub menus on the main screen both of which contain all the relative tools for editing,accessible within the main window using 2 Function Keys and obviously they lead to the editing pages,whilst this may seem a minor pointless option it helps to be in one place or page without having to go to different sub pages to access different editing tools,add the VGA and everything works in the same way on one page again more graphically,use the mouse and you can drag drop/Copy paste etc for more flexible editing and exactly the same thing in Pattern mode.
One of the things I like about the MV,it also has a "seperate by Pitch" tool,so if you want to alter some drum sounds within a drum track you can seperate each instrument according to pitch,the MV then places those notes on seperate tracks,either with the original drum track copy in tact or new tracks,I invarably keep all of my drum sounds on seperate tracks but same channel for easier editing,then bounce down once everything has been finalised,this has been great for making new grooves from Karma drum tracks,without loads of fiddling and farting seperating them in the oasys sequencer ,which with only 16 tracks is quite limiting if you intend to do this within the sequencer onboard,ok you can extract this in the Oasys,but is simply slower and more time consuming,coupled on the MV with the drum editor you can input drum patterns using the TR or Electribe step method of the respective drum machines if anyones used those for creating patterns.
the Oasys has several sub pages of which have different editing tools,so you flicking between these all the time,and there is no real graphical display of seeing what is where and why??Iits pretty much all text,the Tabs on the screen make it a little easier than past Triton efforts,but I still hate flicking between the editors in Pattern and track edit modes,I would certainly like to see the Pattern mode be a totally seperate mode,so you can build up sections of a song by allocating certain Patterns to a track in a pattern instead of a Pattern being a single phrase of an instrument/Part/Track,its half way there with the RPPR modes being able to access different patterns on different channels/Instruments from the same Keyboard,how about a Pattern made up of several tracks on one single key,so you can trigger whole arrangments from a key,the MV does this,by allowing the pads to trigger the patterns,Very cool and flexible for Live variations,and also sketching out a song structure,its basically a more advanced way of using the Cue List that the Tritons had,also easy to make up a song of smaller Patttern sections in step time too,This has been such a big plus for my song composition,and if I want to change the structure for longer Live versions I can without being tied to a single song sequence or spend more time editing a newer version,I simply place a pattern on a pad and rework the structure striking the Pad also can be done in realtime,have done this live on the fly with my Band too.
A graphical drum editor would be nice as well,something like a traditional software editor,or at the least an Arpeggio type editor like that of the Tritons/Z1
Certainly System exclusive editing is also a big wish for me,not just for Internal Oasys parameters but for externally controlling too,for this the Oasys would need for me at least a Minimum of access to 32 sequencer Tracks,I'd also like to see the Pads/switches sliders to be able to be edited to allow your own sys exclusive messages to be assigned to them,so you can use them to control external devices other than from CC numbers/Values
Another thing for me would be the ability to scroll/Zoom in and out of the song edit view,so you could see the names of the patterns(if you use them in your tracks)used at the location point,a simply filled in or out or blank block shows nothing,except there being data,ok in pattern mode tells you what track which pattern is being used where,but again its that constant back and forth between pages to see a simple act of graphical representation in one page.
I do beleive Roland are getting there slowly with there Fantom G sequencer efforts,it may not be the be all and end all,but its a step in the right direction.
Even dinosaurs like the MPCs or the Yamaha QY700 still have a lot going even years after development which would work into a Korg type workstation and still knock spots off the Oasys sequencer.
Speaking of dinosaurs, even my old Ensoniq VFX-SD (not in daily use) which I bought in 1989 (20 years ago) has a pretty good seq. in it (24-track) and the averall editing options is quite acceptable, even today. But due to insufficient polyphony (only 21 notes) I haven't used that keyboard since 1999.
Anyway, I would like to repeat myself here: "I think everybody incl. Korg Inc. (Japan/USA) should rather take this whole discussion as a huge compliment and be very flattered, because if the rest of the Oasys had not been of such high quality as it is, the sequenser issue would have been less important in the end. It is a matter of "proportions" here, and the sequenser part is the obvious weak link.."
It's rather the Oasys who should have 128 midi tracks + 24 audio tracks and a mouse, and the Fantom G 16 midi/16 audio. Not the other way around (just look at the comparison) However, what's most important to me is that I can play 16 different fantastic sounding timbres simultaneously incl. the use of Karma, and that I can load great 3. party libraries like those from Karo. Everything beyond that is quite secondary and a bonus. I hope for a seq. upgrade and I'll pay for it within reasonable limits. It remains to see if Korg Inc. will address the seq. issue after all the postings on this forum so far.
Gaymen waxing,condom surveys???What the hell has any of this got to do with the Korg Oasys.
