Talking about Wavestation 1.63
The Bank managing is less than stellar anyway, but the more I fight nevertheless trying to organize sounds, the more BUGS I find !
- Try to collect sounds from a bank to an empty bank:
the Performances will point to the patches from the 1st bank and the patches will point to the samples also from the 1st bank. So if you save the collection-bank, load it later with another bank where the first bank was, you have a load of crippled data as your collection.
- So try to copy the patches and samples also from the 1st bank to the collection bank and edit the links manually:
This is a pain in the a.. but I did it with a lot of Performances. OK, lets say the collection bank was in RAM 3 and the 1st bank in RAM 1. If you now, on another day, load the collection bank into RAM 1 or RAM 2 you AGAIN have a load of crippled data. The Performances lost AGAIN all their connection to their child-data, as they are pointing now to the bank in RAM 3.
At least this way the child-data (patches and samples) are saved and loaded into the same RAM as the Performances but the "links" point to the WRONG bank and you have to AGAIN point them manually and save every single Performance ! This is stupid.
The bank-handling is simply NOT FINISHED in the Wavestation !
The programming of the Wavestation is way behind the programming of the M1. With the M1 it is clear visible, what is the right way of organizing the parent/child data.
Each Combi has the Programm saved along in the Combi-slot. Independent of what is in the Bank at that moment.
To save only a "link" to what is currently in the bank is a very old Relict of the times when Hardware only had a few Kilobytes (kB) of RAM !
The only way to make the Wavestation manageable is a Update where the Patches and the Samples are saved along with the Performance.
It is even possible to keep compatibility with older banks: As soon as you load a older bank, the wavestation should "grab" the child-data and fill its Performance with it, instead of the links. So when you edit a Performance you only edit, what is saved along inside the Performance-slot. The banks are then only "Palettes" which give you the choice what to load into a Performance.
Patches and Samples can be saved again into a bank if necessary.
This is pretty much the way the M1 works now and what makes the M1 so great !
Saving all 3 RAMs is not a solution in any way, how should you collect the best sounds of many banks ?!
Because of the CHAOS regarding the child-data I already gave up the hope to program sounds myself. They always sound different when I save and load them back, even if I am manually trying to copy the Patches and Samples - you always have to overwrite another Patch or Sample without knowing if it is being used in another Performance.
But it is not even useful as a "Preset-Device" as you can not make Best-Of-collections without PAIN !
Hoping for an Update since a long time already,
Markman
Major Bugs in Wavestation latest version
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
Major Bugs in Wavestation latest version
Last edited by Markman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
This isn't bugs in the handling, it's simply not very well implemented. Even in the hardware WS there are functions to move banks and change the banks of the dependencies.
I still rely on SoundDiver for this, which handles dependencies brilliantly (if you copy a performance into a bank, it will copy all dependent patches and wave sequences, put them in free locations, and update the links) so you never lose anything.
But the easiest way to handle this manually is to never have cross-linking dependencies, and keep everything in the same bank, unless it's a ROM patch/wave sequence.
So, you work on Performance RAM1-01, make sure any patches you make are also in RAM1 and the same with the wave sequences. If you want to use a patch that a different performance is already using, make a copy of that patch and use the copy for the new performance - that way you don't mess up existing sounds if you need to make changes.
By keeping related data in the same bank, and not cross-linking dependencies you will make your life a lot easier.
I still rely on SoundDiver for this, which handles dependencies brilliantly (if you copy a performance into a bank, it will copy all dependent patches and wave sequences, put them in free locations, and update the links) so you never lose anything.
But the easiest way to handle this manually is to never have cross-linking dependencies, and keep everything in the same bank, unless it's a ROM patch/wave sequence.
So, you work on Performance RAM1-01, make sure any patches you make are also in RAM1 and the same with the wave sequences. If you want to use a patch that a different performance is already using, make a copy of that patch and use the copy for the new performance - that way you don't mess up existing sounds if you need to make changes.
By keeping related data in the same bank, and not cross-linking dependencies you will make your life a lot easier.
Hi, thanks for your workarounds, but I took care to prevent crosslinking (the way I described in the second example) and when I load the bank into another RAM than that one from which I saved it, the links are nevertheless broken, because they point to the old RAM and not the current.
So I would say this IS a BUG.
Sounddiver: You can't listen to the sounds you are working on, when using the KLC-Wavestation. If I had a hardware-Wavestation this could be a workaround but still be a PAIN.
I don't think that updating the Wavestation so that it save its dependencies inside the Performance would be so difficult. The sound-algos are not touched, this would be only a storing format change.
And it would make the KLC-DE line a little more consistent. Drag-and-drop like in the M1 would be also a update that would fit the otherwise high quality of the KLC-line.
So I would say this IS a BUG.
Sounddiver: You can't listen to the sounds you are working on, when using the KLC-Wavestation. If I had a hardware-Wavestation this could be a workaround but still be a PAIN.
I don't think that updating the Wavestation so that it save its dependencies inside the Performance would be so difficult. The sound-algos are not touched, this would be only a storing format change.
And it would make the KLC-DE line a little more consistent. Drag-and-drop like in the M1 would be also a update that would fit the otherwise high quality of the KLC-line.
It's not a bug, that is the intentional behaviour. You may want addiional behaviour to automatically handle dependencies, and I might agree with youMarkman wrote:Hi, thanks for your workarounds, but I took care to prevent crosslinking (the way I described in the second example) and when I load the bank into another RAM than that one from which I saved it, the links are nevertheless broken, because they point to the old RAM and not the current.
So I would say this IS a BUG.
- but the way it is now is not a bug.I didn't mean that this is a solution for the Legacy - I meant that I've been managing dependencies on my *real* Wavestation with Sounddiver for years, and it works great. The Legacy is a step backwards from this combination, imo.Markman wrote:Sounddiver: You can't listen to the sounds you are working on, when using the KLC-Wavestation. If I had a hardware-Wavestation this could be a workaround but still be a PAIN.
Yeah, I don't necesarily disagree with you. The WS is an earlier generation of software and it's really the WS code with a new gui and minimal (though worthwhile) changes and improvements on the original.Markman wrote:I don't think that updating the Wavestation so that it save its dependencies inside the Performance would be so difficult. The sound-algos are not touched, this would be only a storing format change.
The M1 is a newer, more modern plug, and they really spent some time improving on the M1 architecture for the plugin. It would be nice to see some of those things get back into the WS but I think it's unlikely. I'm pretty sure the WS is regarded by Korg as feature-complete and that they'd rather put engineering resources into new plugins which will drive sales better.
Maybe with the hardware it was possible to save the Patches (and Wavesequences) seperately, so you had a slight chance to manage the managing of the sounds? Keeping a structure on Patch-level and only load Performances ?but the way it is now is not a bug
But in the KLC-Wavestation you only can save BANKS and therefore swap everything.
But even if the Performances/Patches could be loaded seperately in the hardware-Wavestation, the only "advantage" I could see is a sort of "random-generator". And this is exactly what I DON'T want.
In hardwaredays it was maybe usual to edit and manage via a external Editor (I used Synthworks for my M1, M1R and T2), but this is not possible for the KLC as it does not receive SysEx. So people are dependant on a sufficient File-format and internal managing functions.The Legacy is a step backwards from this combination, imo.
Don't be so pessimistic. This would be the classic rip-off. With the M1, Korg shows what they are capable of, but the Wavestation is not really usable at the moment. And if this would be "company-politics" i'd bet that, at least with me, they would not be able to drive sales in the future.The M1 is a newer, more modern plug, and they really spent some time improving on the M1 architecture for the plugin. It would be nice to see some of those things get back into the WS but I think it's unlikely. I'm pretty sure the WS is regarded by Korg as feature-complete and that they'd rather put engineering resources into new plugins which will drive sales better
Last edited by Markman on Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Like I say, in management terms, the Legacy is a step backwards from the hardware (especially in conjunction with a good librarian software with dependancy management.Markman wrote:But in the KLC-Wavestation you only can save BANKS and therefore swap everything.
Of course it's usable, I'm using it a lot, as I'm sure are others.Markman wrote:With the M1, Korg shows what they are capable of, but the Wavestation is not really usable at the moment.
Like I say, if you develop good working habits, like the ones I outlined, you won't get problems. If you deliberately want to make your life hard by having dependancies between banks when you can only save one bank at a time, then you're asking for trouble...
I don't know if you understand me correctly:
I already took care that the dependencies are inside the same bank as the performance.
I believe you, that you can use your compilation-banks, that you collected with Sounddiver, and already know your favorite sounds. But I hope you see, that if you didn't have the Hardware since many years and already polished your favorite banks, you would have the same problem.
At the moment it is only possible to be shure that the Performances sound the way they are supposed to, if you edit and load them only in RAM 1. But if you want to collect from that bank another one, which should function in RAM 1 you HAVE to load it to RAM 2 or 3. And voilà: CHAOS.
I already took care that the dependencies are inside the same bank as the performance.
I believe you, that you can use your compilation-banks, that you collected with Sounddiver, and already know your favorite sounds. But I hope you see, that if you didn't have the Hardware since many years and already polished your favorite banks, you would have the same problem.
At the moment it is only possible to be shure that the Performances sound the way they are supposed to, if you edit and load them only in RAM 1. But if you want to collect from that bank another one, which should function in RAM 1 you HAVE to load it to RAM 2 or 3. And voilà: CHAOS.
Yes I understand you, don't worry! 
I already said that even the hardware Wavestation has some bank moving options that take care of the scenario you mention, and these (helpful) functions don't exist in the Legacy, which is a pain.
So I am agreeing with you that the Legacy WS is poor in the bank mangement functionality. If it could export sysex, at least that would be helpful...
I already said that even the hardware Wavestation has some bank moving options that take care of the scenario you mention, and these (helpful) functions don't exist in the Legacy, which is a pain.
So I am agreeing with you that the Legacy WS is poor in the bank mangement functionality. If it could export sysex, at least that would be helpful...
Ben Hall wrote:
I seems to me the easiest solution would be to have a couple of empty banks so that users could start from scratch within those banks (like the software M1).
What do you think?
But isn't there still a problem with stuff in other banks that depend on patches and wave sequences in RAM1? If I edit those items the performances in the other banks will be effected.So, you work on Performance RAM1-01, make sure any patches you make are also in RAM1 and the same with the wave sequences. If you want to use a patch that a different performance is already using, make a copy of that patch and use the copy for the new performance - that way you don't mess up existing sounds if you need to make changes.
I seems to me the easiest solution would be to have a couple of empty banks so that users could start from scratch within those banks (like the software M1).
What do you think?
Factory sounds are not influenced, but other sounds in the RAM-Banks.littlepig wrote: But isn't there still a problem with stuff in other banks that depend on patches and wave sequences in RAM1? If I edit those items the performances in the other banks will be effected.
The number of Patch- and Wavesequence-Slots is very limited, so if you use in average 3 Patches per Performance you end up to be only able to save about 15 Performances per BANK, if you copy all the child-data several times, even if it is the same, only to prevent the chaos of the broken Bank-Management.
Also you will get naming problems (too short to distinguish with sense), to clearly identify a patch that can be overwritten, because the Performance was deleted.
Its always good to start with a empty User-Bank, but this does not solve the problem, when trying to collect your best sounds.littlepig wrote: I seems to me the easiest solution would be to have a couple of empty banks so that users could start from scratch within those banks (like the software M1).
It sure would be great if all the child objects were stored along with each performance in a single, self-contained file. Performances would "travel" a lot better and orphans would be a thing of the past. Then have simple object cut/copy/paste functions so you could copy individual patches or wave sequences from one performance into a given slot in another performance. I don't know if everyone else would like that paradigm, but to me it would be infinitely less confusing. Granted, that would basically break compatibility with existing WS sound libraries, which I suppose is why we're still saddled with a file handling system inherited from a 17-year-old hardware synth. That's one of the reasons I was so glad to leave my Kurzweil behind and switch to NI Kontakt - file handling is (usually) so much easier on a computer-based instrument.
I do hope that enhancements to the WS don't stop at adding resonance to the filter. I guess I can understand if Korg wants to just have this be a recreation of the original WS and leave it at that. In that case, it would be interesting to see them introduce a brand-new softsynth that employs the WS's vector and wave sequencing foundation with a more powerful voice architecture that included modern enhancements like multi-segment envelopes and a wide array of filter types. Not to mention a completely new file handling scheme that isn't rooted in the early '90s!
I love the Wavestation, annoying quirks and all. All these years later, it still sounds fantastic and still works great in modern mixes. It would just be great to see the concept brought up to date and made all that it could be in 2008.
I do hope that enhancements to the WS don't stop at adding resonance to the filter. I guess I can understand if Korg wants to just have this be a recreation of the original WS and leave it at that. In that case, it would be interesting to see them introduce a brand-new softsynth that employs the WS's vector and wave sequencing foundation with a more powerful voice architecture that included modern enhancements like multi-segment envelopes and a wide array of filter types. Not to mention a completely new file handling scheme that isn't rooted in the early '90s!
I love the Wavestation, annoying quirks and all. All these years later, it still sounds fantastic and still works great in modern mixes. It would just be great to see the concept brought up to date and made all that it could be in 2008.