Korg Forums

Hello guys,

never posted in this section so far, but maybe you can help...

in your opinion which are the main differences (beyond pure layout and micro or not microkeys) between MS2000, microkorg, R3 and microkorgXL ?

does a comparison chart exist or can be done with your suggestion?

thanks!

do you mean apart from the sound engines? that's a big difference on its own

well, i mean regarding sound engine, patch structures, fx, arp, features... evertything that could help in compare ad choosing among them...

Here's my grid for synth engine structure and capability:

okay.
I'm going to compare the MS2k to the radias.
I'll explain the difference with the R3, MK, etc afterwards..

Radias has selectable (cross, waveform, unison, VPM) modulation for OSC1 / MS2k has a fixed (waveform for saw & pulse, cross for sine, etc) modulation setting for each OSC1 wave

OSC 2 are virtually the same on both

Radias has two multimode filters / MS2k has one

one Radias filter has continuously variable slope / MS2k has fixed state filter

Radias has routing inside filter section for velocity / MS2k has to use virtual patch

Radias has driving waveshaper placeable before or after the filter, with variable drive/depth parameter / MS2k has on/off drive after filter

Radias has 6 modulation slots / MS2k has four

Radias has two assignable IFX for each timbre (based on KP/M3 series effects with many parameters) / MS2k has modulation and delay effect for whole program

Radias has EQ per timbre / MS2k has EQ for whole program

Radias has one MFX / MS2k has no MFX

Radias and MS2k have three modulation step sequencers

Radias has two step sequencers, and an arpeggiator with mute steps, and velocity and gate time per step / MS2k has arpeggiator with no mute steps and no other parameters (you have to use MOD seq for this)

Radias and MS2k have two LFOs

Radias has three EGs with four different curves, plus parameters to control velocity sensivity (both in level and time), and keytracking of EGs / MS2k has two static EGs

Radias has four timbres and 24 note polyphony / MS2k has two timbres max with four note poly (reduced to two in dual poly mode, virtually unplayable for layered poly sounds)

Radias has PCM samples e.g. string, bass guitar, acoustic, EP, etc along with DWGS waveforms/ MS2k only has DWGS waveforms




note that this only covers differences and similarities are left out, naturally the Radias wins out on most of the differences...

Now, the MicroKorg is virtually identical to the MS2k, except it has no modulation sequencers, but it does have muteable arp steps.

The R3 and MKxl don't have the step sequencers (but at least the R3 has the mod sequencers, not sure about the XL), also they have mainly DWGS and not so many PCM waves, although i'm led to believe that the XL also includes a very basic piano PCM wave.

The R3 and XL only have two timbres (like the MK/MS2k) but still have per timbre FX and EQ. they also both have 8 note poly (so still 4 note with two timbres, which can still play chords with layered sounds )

The XL doesn't have any reverb effects, mainly delay and modulation effects (i think something like 15 in total?), like the MS2k, but you can still pick any combination from a selection of effects rather than being limited to the modulation>delay setup on the MS2k.

if I get round to it i'll do a complete table in excel or something

Nice rundown X-trade.

Here's a few corrections and additions between the XL and R3.

The XL only has 2 master fx and no insert fx. The R3 has the same fx and structure as the Radias, 2 ifx per timbre and one mfx. So besides having half the effects of the R3, the XL only can have a total of 2 fx in chain while the R3 can have 5 in chain(2 * 2ifx + 1mfx). It's probably important to note the effects are identical between the R3 and Radias, so porting patches between them is a much closer match in the final result, except for 4 vs. 2 timbres. The XL fx are so much reduced from the R3/Radias that the basic sound of a single timbre is much more limited in this regard. I find it rather strange that the Amp modelling effects have been removed from the XL vs. the R3, because of all the effects, those can be very useful for lead patches - which seems to be focus of the MicroKorg.

I can confirm that the XL doesn't have a mod sequencer.

The XL has a different synth structure for the vocoder section. Both timbres are routed to the vocoder carrier. On the R3, one timbre is routed to the carrier and the other is mixed outside the vocoder.

thanks for clever explanation! any other add is more than welcome (especially if someone has had a try with all of them).

When you say Step Sequencer and Mod Sequencer which is the difference?

i mean, i am used to meant Step Seqeuencer as a kind of programmable arpeggiator with given number of steps that applies to notes and mod sequencer has a programmable "arpeggiator" that send command to any parameter in the patch. you mean the same? corrects?

plus R3 has also "traditional" arpeggiator?

yes, the Mod SEQ is a kind of LFO really, or envelope, can be used either way. as you say.

Step sequencers produces note data

and all of these synths have the same basic arpegiator. except on radias/r3(/xl?) you can set the gate time and velocity of each step individually.

Hi guys

i am just come back from a "session" to my delear where i tried R3, microkorg XL and traditional microkorg. here my first impression:

microkorgXL is a very good machines, the microkeys feels much better than the old micro and even i prefer standard dimension, are enough playable for roaring solos or fast chord progression. The XL mantains the "sounds" of the micro, listen to it you would say that XL descent from micro sounds are really fat, they fill the soundscapes even with only 8 notes of polifony. filters are very good too both in sound-shaping and in resonance, it's a pity korg don't make them auto-oscillating. and weel FX you know, are superb as in korg tradition.

the two big knobs reminds me to old radio o hi-fi of 20-30 years ago and have a geneorus steps (or click i do not know which is the best word in english) on the admitted positions. the little knobs on the right instead, used for tweaking parameter are without steps and also with very little friction with the panel, so sometimes is quite difficult to stop on the desired value.

for me, if it would have had standard keys, it would be a must-buy synth today, but feel not very comfortable on microkeys.

R3 instead, if from one side is slightly simpler to program thanks to richer panel, sound more precise and clean than microXL, sounds (dry) do not fill the space and seems thicker, even filters seems to be different from one on XL, in R3 seems that cutoff and resonance alters less the overall sounds.

looking at the editing pages, R3 and XL seems almost identical, so just trying, even if they sound different, it's difficult to define what is changed in synthesis engine

i'm sure if you oppied settings exactly it would sound the same. difficult to tell, I wish I had one here to try that out. but it would be interesting.

I expect the presets on the MKxl have been designed to sound like the original MK to some extent, which typically involves overdriving the EQ, etc..
we are told that they have exactly the same synth engine, but I suppose hardware differences E.G. amp, DACs etc could affect the output sound.

by the way, what do you mean about the 'self oscillation' of the filters? they do self oscillate...

X-Trade wrote: by the way, what do you mean about the 'self oscillation' of the filters? they do self oscillate...

mmm i have never been able to have them self-oscillates... how do you get this?

i tried to write down a comparison chart between R3 and XL.

you can find it here

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z12SRUUE

feel free to add any other useful information

one other note, the actual sythesis engines themselves are far different from each other in sound. the original Microkorg and the MS2000 have a much grittier tone to them as their modeling was designed to sound like the MS-20; while the MMT engine used in the Microkorg2, R3 and Radias have what could be called a 'silkier' sound... which you would find more familiar to high end virtual soft synths/vsts

The Electribe EMX-1 uses MMT. You think it sounds silky? It's about as gritty as can be, in my opinion. The Tribes are great for industrial, and they are often used when "gritty" is THE goal.

xmlguy wrote:The Electribe EMX-1 uses MMT. You think it sounds silky? It's about as gritty as can be, in my opinion. The Tribes are great for industrial, and they are often used when "gritty" is THE goal.

+1 here.

it can sound smoother straight out, but you can do a lot to dirty up the sound in the radias MMT engine - so you have more choices