Korg Forums

Well - I don't believe we can say that such sales are not possible again. Afterall, people were on average less wealthy in the 80's (up until yesterday anyway!) - so I believe that if hundreds of thousands are prepared to spend thousands of dollars in a piece-meal fashion on DAW technology (which is no chealer when you do it properly); then potentially that market, and more, still exists for the next massive and revolutionary step in music keyboard technology.

Saying today that synthesizers/workstations will never sell in large numbers reminds me of the 80s when they were saying that guitars and pianos would never sell in large numbers again. It didn't turn out that way. In my opinion, whoever comes up with a combination of evolution of the best of today combined with some revolutionary stuff in the hardware-synth 'paradigm' and at the righ price point; they'll achieve DX and M1 sales again.

The question is - how? And - does OASYS point the way? Or put it another way - if OASYS doesn't point the way, what was the point of it?

I know I'm asking big and tenuous quesitons here'; but I feel they are worthwhile because they look at the validity of OASYS in a better way than simply saing 'Korg have announced OASYS is over so its over". What was/is OASYS's reach, in the greater scheme? If it has had no impact and does not point to the future then what are we all harping on about here for the past few years?

My own personal musing here are driven from a a believe that we have barely scrateched the surface of what is possible when combining the greatest hardware from the classics of old and new with the best software in intuitive and powerful synthesizers. I personally hope for a day when instruments more serious, more musicial and more far-reaching are invented, and I also believe that today OASYS offers the best pointer to such a future.

Kevin.

I know it's daring, but why restrict to the volumes M1 or DX7 achieved? Why not dream of new music-instruments, that inspire much more people to make music than today? There has been already a huge change in technology - just look at Karma or stuff like the Kaoss-Pad. Combine these great things, improve them (esp. user-friendliness and inspiring creativity) and perhaps some company manages to sell 50 times as much as the record-volumes of the 80's!

Kevin,

I think you have to hit the right combination of factors in an instrument to make it appeal to the masses. And is that not a question unto itself?

Price is certainly one factor and that has to be competitive. Even $5k might be too high.

Ease of use is another. While there are many decent and good players out there, there are far more wannabees in the wings. Even though technology has made some great advances, at the moment, the Oasys is not for those don't want to have to learn anything. The learning curve is too steep for the average Joe or Jill wannabee.

In this area, you would have to find a way to "hide" the technology behind some simple and intuitive control scheme, perhaps using the touch screen at first and then going to a VR approach like you previously suggested.

I could envision where Karma could be fashioned to provide a pretty cool rythmn section selectable for any genre and have the ability to change instruments in and out of it with a touch here or there from your genre's instrument database. That leaves the owner free to sing, play lead, or do anything else they could think of.

That does not mean that the abilty to compose your own music would be mutually exclusive. There could be a switch of some sort that you could set to "Auto" or "Manual" that would switch between the control schemes.
Or even make the switch with multiple levels for different playing abilities.

Maybe that could be the function of the "function" switch to set different levels? Maybe it pulls up a page that lets you select auto or manual and then genre, tempo, time signature, song structure, chord progression, and so on.

Maybe it could also download midi or karma files of popular songs or classics, etc for those who can't play? (never ending income source for Korg)

Maybe it could also download karaoke files for those who can't sing or play? (never ending income source for Korg)

OK, so I'm getting a little carried away, but sometimes that's what you have to do to break "set".

Back on planet Earth, using technology to cloak itself and become "invisible" to the user who wants it that way is how you lead the masses to buy it.

Maybe Korg might not want to make it too universal but keep it as a flag ship? Maybe down porting some of the goodies to cheaper models (like the M3) is really what they want to do to keep sales up?

The underlying premise to your orignal question - how to sell more Oasyii may or may not be what Korg wants to do.

Maybe the really good players and the pros, (you all know the names), might not want to have the same instrument that the masses have?

In the end, perhaps trying to make the O for "everyman" might not be the right thing to do?

Heck, I don't know, I'm just throwing things out there.

Ken

Ken -

I totally agree with all you have said - there's huge merit in all of your points.

Could this idea extend to imply that what the workstation of the future might offer is various GUI and/or hardware configurable 'Skins' to offer the power of OASYS in flexible usage modes - in essence an extra layer of smart / intuitive control to provide maximum flexibility in the use of the existing synth-engines and karma across various music scenarios (such as standalone/live/DAW-connected or: synth versus drum-machine,...and so on) and levels of required detail and/or expertise; all with huge felxibility but keenly priced for the masses.

Hmmm...(OASYS + JazzMutant...)with user created skins sharable on this forum....!!

Kevin.

Kevin,

I like it! Put me down for 2, one for each hand.

Ken

kenackr wrote:Even though technology has made some great advances, at the moment, the Oasys is not for those don't want to have to learn anything. The learning curve is too steep for the average Joe or Jill wannabee.

I think this is a matter of perception... The Oasys is complex, to be sure, but really it's a collection of integrated, separate "parts", if you will:

• the individual sound synthesis methods
• sampling
• sequencer
• hard disk recorder
• KARMA

I think anyone would be expecting too much of themselves if they tried to learn all of these things simultaneously. The better idea is to focus on a particular aspect of it and at least learn the basics before moving on to learning something else.

Take AL-1. Sure, it's technologically advanced in the sense that the oscillators don't alias, that the clocking of the LFO's and step sequencers is extremely tight, and it has various modular-style features that other synths simply don't have.

But at the end of the day, what is AL-1? It's an analog synthesizer, based on the same basic model of subtractive synthesizers that Bob Moog invented well over 40-odd years ago. Mind you, this is exactly the same model that pretty much all analog synthesizers follow. In fact, it's the same model that most samplers are based on too. So what is it about AL-1 that eludes people in terms of its operation? You have oscillators, filters, amps, envelopes, LFO's... So does the Polysix and MS-20 models. And the HD-1 model follows the same exact oscillator/filter/amplifier paradigm of the subtractive synthesizer model as well. I see a pattern forming here...

Sure AL-1, Polysix and MS-20 all sound vastly different (which is a beautiful thing), but their operational paradigms are the same. If there's a problem learning how to use those models then it's not because the Oasys is so complex... it's because you need to learn some subtractive synthesis basics. And if you don't have those fundamentals under your belt, you can't legitimately complain that the Oasys is so difficult to learn in this respect because pretty much every synth/sampler/rompler made by every single synth manufacturer is based on the same subtractive synthesis model!

For comparison, if you had three analog synths sitting on a keyboard stand, the difficulty in learning how to use them would be the same or perhaps worse than learning three in-the-box synths that share common terminology and signal flow.

So with the synth/samplers out of the way, what's left? Ah, CX-3. Shouldn't be that hard to learn. If you know how to slide drawbars and turn a Leslie simulator between fast/slow, you're done. Next!

STR-1 and MOD-7. Two decidedly different approaches to synthesizing sound than the subtractive synth model. Well, if you were running Logic and used Sculpture, you'd have a similar learning curve to that required to program STR-1. And if you had an FM-7 plugin, yes, an additional learning curve. But having a physical modeling synth and an FM synth incorporated into the Oasys is no different from having a DAW with Sculpture and FM-7 plugins (and that's a pretty run-of-the-mill collection of plugs to have in a DAW, particularly Logic). The learning curve for these synths is going to be essentially the same. So is it fair to say that the Oasys is "too complex" in this respect? I don't think so. Not unless you're also going to complain that the equivalent DAW-based system is too complex to learn.

I'm going to leave the learning curve aspect of the sequencer/hard disk recording aside, because you'd have to learn this stuff anyway whether it's a workstation or a DAW. This leaves KARMA. Well, KARMA is a whole different paradigm for creating musical effect than anything else on the planet. Perhaps even the Universe. Which brings me to...

In this area, you would have to find a way to "hide" the technology behind some simple and intuitive control scheme, perhaps using the touch screen at first and then going to a VR approach like you previously suggested.

But such controls exist! KARMA's RTP is all about simplifying, intui-fying™ KARMA so that you don't have to go too far under the hood to get musically meaningful results. That's not to say it's not still a complex beast, but RTP shouldn't be taken for granted. It's a godsend for getting KARMA effects under control easily.

Finally, there's Tone Adjust -- the easiest way to create meaningful changes to any Timbre, again, without going under the hood and dealing with the more specific aspects of programming.

How much simpler could it be? Are you guys really taking advantage of these features? Or are you complaining (in a figurative sense) that it's too complex because you haven't bothered to take the time to learn how these things work?

So as I see it, everything you want is there -- the simplicity as well as the complexity. I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that the Oasys is "complex" in this day and age of the DAW and the infinite combinations of plugs/effects you can create within them. Combine that complexity with the variety (and incompatibilities) of 3rd party interfaces, controllers, control surfaces... all those pitfalls make the Oasys look like childsplay when you consider how loosely integrated DAW systems are by comparison. And if you don't know the basics of synthesis or sequencing, then similarly I don't think there's right to complain that the Oasys is too complex. Any gear that features similar sound generation methods would then be too complex for you.

Just my 2-cents, your mileage may vary, blah-di-blah.

That was a nice introduction to the different engines of the Oasys ...

ski wrote:Sure AL-1, Polysix and MS-20 all sound vastly different (which is a beautiful thing), but their operational paradigms are the same. If there's a problem learning how to use those models then it's not because the Oasys is so complex... it's because you need to learn some subtractive synthesis basics. And if you don't have those fundamentals under your belt, you can't legitimately complain that the Oasys is so difficult to learn in this respect because pretty much every synth/sampler/rompler made by every single synth manufacturer is based on the same subtractive synthesis model!

I wish to underline this part of your text, as it's the exact same thing I have been preaching, only you said it better.
I know I'm repeating my self, but anyone who does not have one already should buy a good book on synthesis. And that's not enough, you have to read it too.

ski wrote:intui-fying™

Kevin Nolan wrote:Hmmm...(OASYS + JazzMutant...)with user created skins sharable on this forum....!!

The JazzMutant is great concept, does anyone have any hands on experience with it, or better yet use the Lemur with OASYS?

I have been studying the Dexter for my SONAR, but the Lemur would be perfect match for OASYS. Of course the Dexter includes the complete Lemur so choosing is a nobrainer.

Only questions I have left is, does the Lemur support Sys-Ex messages the way OASYS uses them, and how difficult it is to setup? The only justification for it's 2600€ price tag would be an exceptional usability with the whole OASYS engine.

Btw. I have the impression that changing between Dexter an Lemur requires a boot, am I correct on this? And how long does it take it?

I just found the M3 user list at Karma-Lab and the highest number yet found is 009566. And now that the 2.0 Op.Sys. has been released and marketing for it has started, the logical thing would be to see that figure rising. I find this figure promising.