Korg needs to improve Kronos Combi functionality!

[michelkeijzers]

Sorry, I meant, it can't be easily adapted to work the way the Motif does (where you literally have 16 unique program memories inside a sequence).
You're also right that it shouldn't be different for audio routing than for any other parameters - I meant that the Motif AFAIK doesn't even let you route audio from one program through another. Wouldn't be very useful either since there's only the one engine.

yes true ... both have advantages and disadvantages. In the 'Korg way', it is possible to change a program and thus automatically changing all the combis it is used in. Advantage is that if you improve a program then you only have to do it on one location. Disadvantage if you want to program an ' exception' for a program you have to copy it first to another location (and that is only needed if you don't know if the program is already used in other combis).

[MarPabl]

Sorry, I meant, it can't be easily adapted to work the way the Motif does (where you literally have 16 unique program memories inside a sequence).
You're also right that it shouldn't be different for audio routing than for any other parameters - I meant that the Motif AFAIK doesn't even let you route audio from one program through another. Wouldn't be very useful either since there's only the one engine.

yes true ... both have advantages and disadvantages. In the 'Korg way', it is possible to change a program and thus automatically changing all the combis it is used in. Advantage is that if you improve a program then you only have to do it on one location. Disadvantage if you want to program an ' exception' for a program you have to copy it first to another location (and that is only needed if you don't know if the program is already used in other combis).

Yes, that would be nice to have both options, with "private" and "public" Programs and then you have nothing but advantages: you choose if you want to go "public" or "private". The problem with "Korg way" arises on the example the OP is presenting, when you're redirecting audio output from one Program to another. Here you're effectively "loosing" at least 1 Program (will just work on Combi) when you're in Program mode.

This functionality we're talking about requires huge changes and I agree this isn't easy at all to be implemented. It can be done, it's pretty useful, but requires huge changes and effort...

[michelkeijzers]

Sorry, I meant, it can't be easily adapted to work the way the Motif does (where you literally have 16 unique program memories inside a sequence).
You're also right that it shouldn't be different for audio routing than for any other parameters - I meant that the Motif AFAIK doesn't even let you route audio from one program through another. Wouldn't be very useful either since there's only the one engine.

yes true ... both have advantages and disadvantages. In the 'Korg way', it is possible to change a program and thus automatically changing all the combis it is used in. Advantage is that if you improve a program then you only have to do it on one location. Disadvantage if you want to program an ' exception' for a program you have to copy it first to another location (and that is only needed if you don't know if the program is already used in other combis).

Yes, that would be nice to have both options, with "private" and "public" Programs and then you have nothing but advantages: you choose if you want to go "public" or "private". The problem with "Korg way" arises on the example the OP is presenting, when you're redirecting audio output from one Program to another. Here you're effectively "loosing" at least 1 Program (will just work on Combi) when you're in Program mode.

This functionality we're talking about requires huge changes and I agree this isn't easy at all to be implemented. It can be done, it's pretty useful, but requires huge changes and effort...

Some time ago I wrote an article about the Inheritance Model. This could fix all problems, but is not really easy.

In short: instead of Tone Adjust where you only can change a few parameters, in a combi ALL timbres (16 per combi) are copied. However, all these parameters are set to 'inherited' .. meaning the original program is used. You can change each value from 'inherited' to e.g. fixed change, relative percentual change or relative absolute change. Meaning that e.g. the volume of OSC1 is set to 60 in the original program, you can set it in the combi to 70, or 60+5% or 60+5.

Very flexible, cost is 16 times as much memory (meaning about 300MB for a PCG instead of 35? only combi space will grow).

However: this requires a lot of program changes but it would give a lot of benefits.

[danatkorg]

Just an observational rant after working with Kronos last night.

Kronos has such cool and deep routing opportunities for sending one program's audio into the EXi Audio Input(s) of another program. This ability, a semi-modular approach using multiple synthesis types, was one of the big draws for me buying a Kronos, and where I feel some of the deepest power of the K resides.

EXi Audio Inputs are not well-suited to stringing multiple synthesis engines together, since they are not voice-to-voice connections. Instead, they are designed for this:

Using external audio inputs is fine,

I'm glad, since that was the main design goal of this feature, as noted in the manuals.

and even routing a program out through an individual output(s) so that you can re-route it right back into the main audio inputs is "ok", albeit clumsy and creates a loss of fidelity.

Why would you do that, rather than simply use the direct bus connections?

- Dan

[RonF]

Hi Dan, and thank you for posting here in this thread!

Well, your response is unfortunate, in my view. You suggest that external audio sources was the design objective, and not internal connections.....and I say......boooooo.....because Korg is on the verge of synthesis greatness if you simply make a few tweaks to support internal audio sources in this manner.

Why route one patch out an individual output (in combi mode) and then back into the main inputs?....in an effort to jimmy-rig some functionality, which ultimately failed....which led to my rant. In the end, you are of course correct, due to the limitations of Combi Mode in this regard.

Even though you say EXi audio inputs are "not well-suited" for voice to voice...they do WORK with proper setup and planning (presetting programs accordingly, and then routing voices in combi mode to the appropriate buss). What makes it "not well-suited" IS the U.I., as we have been discussing in this thread. The problem is: 1. You have to preplan and set up, and this takes away the real time inspiration that such connections inspire. and 2. You cannot tweak using the program's graphical interface. So I agree, its NOT well-suited, because Korg has not implemented the most OBVIOUS use for EXi audio inputs in a keyboard which houses 9 synthesis engines!

JMHO of course, as a dedicated and adoring Kronos/Oasys user.

Thank you again, Dan, for considering. Perhaps you might pass along the suggestion to the development team?

Ron

[danatkorg]

Hi Dan, and thank you for posting here in this thread!

Well, your response is unfortunate, in my view. You suggest that external audio sources was the design objective, and not internal connections.....

Not necessarily external, but it's an audio input, not a link between synthesis engines. This supports the traditional application of sending audio (voice, drums, guitar etc.) through analog synths, expanding it to other synthesis methods as well (e.g. FM, waveshaping, physical modeling), and providing for feedback through effects. As I wrote in the manual:

Re EXi Audio Input parameters:

"These parameters let you route audio into EXi instruments which support audio input, including the STR-1, MS-20EX, and MOD-7. You can use this to create feedback loops, or to process live or recorded audio through the EXi’s synthesis engine."

Re STR-1 Feedback:

"This lets you route audio from elsewhere in KRONOS through the string. You can use any of the audio inputs, any of the audio outputs, the REC buses, the FX Control buses, or the outputs of any of the Insert, Master, or Total Effects.
The main purpose of this is to process the STR-1 through one or more Insert Effects, such as an overdrive or amp model, and then send that audio back into the STR-1, for traditional electric guitar feedback effects.

" All three feedback parameters–Distance, Orientation, and Level–can be modulated in real-time. You can use this to model the classic effect of holding an electric guitar near an amp until it feeds back, and then varying the pitch of the feedback by changing the guitar’s orientation in relation to, and distance from, the amp.

"You can also route live or recorded audio through the string an/or filters, in realtime–and we’re sure that you’ll be able to think of other creative uses!"

Re MS-20EX ESP:

"The ESP can process live audio inputs, feedback from effects, or any other audio from within the KRONOS - as well as audio from within the MS-20EX itself. Note, however, that the ESP is only active when a voice is being played on the MS-20EX.

"This mono input lets you route audio from elsewhere in KRONOS through the MS-20EX. You can use any of the audio inputs, any of the audio outputs, the REC buses, the FX Control buses, or the outputs of any of the Insert, Master, or Total Effects.

"You can also route live or recorded audio through the MS-20EX, in real-time–and we’re sure that you’ll be able to think of other creative uses!

"Once you’ve selected the desired audio source, you can connect the EXi AUDIO IN jack to any input on the Patch Panel. For instance, you can route the audio through the HPF, LPF, or BPF, mix it with the built-in VCOs and noise generator, and so on. You can also use the ESP to convert the audio to a trigger or CV source, as described under "Using the External Signal Processor (ESP)"...

"Using the External Signal Processor (ESP)

"You can use the ESP to control the MS-20EX from an external monophonic audio source, such as a melody played on a guitar. Just like the original MS-20, the MS-20EX will trigger its EGs and track the pitch of the guitar–with varying degrees of accuracy. Of course, the unpredictability is part of the charm...
Note that this will only work with single–note input, such as melodies; polyphonic input will not work properly.

"You can also use the ESP as a modulation source when processing audio signals through the MS-20EX. This can be very useful with drums, for instance; you can use the input signal to trigger EGs, use the ESP’s envelope follower to modulate the filters, and so on."

Re the MOD-7 audio input:

"The MOD-7 can process live audio inputs, feedback from effects, or any other audio from within the KRONOS. Note, however, that the audio input is only active when a voice is being played on the MOD-7.

"It’s easy to make a patch in which only the incoming audio is heard, with the built-in oscillators completely silent–but you still need to press a key (or play a note via MIDI) in order to activate the MOD-7. You can use the EXi Common Hold parameter to keep the note “held down” indefinitely, if you like."

Why route one patch out an individual output (in combi mode) and then back into the main inputs?....in an effort to jimmy-rig some functionality, which ultimately failed....which led to my rant.

You shouldn't need to route signals using the physical I/O. EXi Audio Inputs can get signals from any of the inputs or any of the internal busses, including all of the output busses, without any cables involved.

Even though you say EXi audio inputs are "not well-suited" for voice to voice...they do WORK with proper setup and planning (presetting programs accordingly, and then routing voices in combi mode to the appropriate buss). What makes it "not well-suited" IS the U.I.,

In my opinion as one of the designers of this feature, what makes it not well-suited to this application is that it's a single audio input to the EXi as a whole. It is not a voice-to-voice connection between EXi. If you connect one EXi to another via the EXi Audio Input, the entire audio output from the first EXi - *all* of the voices merged together - will go into *each* of the voices of the second. This means that it is not capable of doing what I think you're hoping for - and nor is it intended to be. It was designed for different purposes, as described above.

It is possible to create a limited voice-to-voice connection if both EXi are monophonic, of course.

I certainly agree, by the way, that it would also be nice to be able to create per-voice connections between EXi, and as you might expect we've discussed this internally in the past. It's a different application than the EXi Audio Inputs, however, and somewhat more involved internally.

As I've mentioned on this forum in the past, I also agree that it would be very good to be able to edit complete Programs within the context of Combis and Songs.

Thank you again, Dan, for considering. Perhaps you might pass along the suggestion to the development team?

Ron

I am on the development team, and specs are one of my responsibilities.

Best regards,

Dan

Edit: corrected "synthesis enginers" to "synthesis engines"

[shawnhar]

I think there are two independent issues here:

1) Ability to route audio per-voice rather than per-program.

2) Ability to edit programs within combi mode.

Of course both would be fantastic, but at least for my purposes the second would be most useful. I believe this is what RonF was talking about as well.

Of course per-voice audio routing would be fantastic, but even with the synthesis engines as they stand today, there is tremendous potential to do interesting multi-engine modular style things with monophonic sounds, or to use synth engines as effect processors over the top of a polyphonic mix.

Actually, most of the really interesting things I have come up with so far would not really want to be polyphonic in any case, as the complexity of these sounds can be so high, a single note is more than sufficient!

My issue is mostly about the editing experience. When I have an HD1 program feeding into an MS20 filter, and then I'm running that filtered audio through an STR1 feedback loop, I have to constantly jump back and forth between program and combi mode to edit these effects, which means I cannot actually play my final sound at the same time as I am adjusting the individual programs which make it up. The capabilities and results are phenomenal and exciting, but the editing experience leaves something to be desired.

[danatkorg]

I think there are two independent issues here:

Yes.

[GiantSonicRobot]

yes true ... both have advantages and disadvantages. In the 'Korg way', it is possible to change a program and thus automatically changing all the combis it is used in. Advantage is that if you improve a program then you only have to do it on one location.

I'm having a hard time seeing this advantage. What you describe is only true if the parameters which you change in program mode are not assigned to any controls in a combi's Tone Adjust. Otherwise the changes are not adopted by the combi.
So in reality, if you 'improve' a program and want to be sure that the changes translate to all corresponding combis, you probably still end up checking every single combi.

IMHO, storing programs inside of combis instead of referencing them would simply be the the better approach.
If this could be left to the user's choice as you propose with your "inheritance model", it would even be better.

[michelkeijzers]

yes true ... both have advantages and disadvantages. In the 'Korg way', it is possible to change a program and thus automatically changing all the combis it is used in. Advantage is that if you improve a program then you only have to do it on one location.

I'm having a hard time seeing this advantage. What you describe is only true if the parameters which you change in program mode are not assigned to any controls in a combi's Tone Adjust. Otherwise the changes are not adopted by the combi.
So in reality, if you 'improve' a program and want to be sure that the changes translate to all corresponding combis, you probably still end up checking every single combi.

IMHO, storing programs inside of combis instead of referencing them would simply be the the better approach.
If this could be left to the user's choice as you propose with your "inheritance model", it would even be better.

Actually you are completely right that the Tone Adjust is like a 'override' and you can't tell it from the program.

Would it be useful to have a list of Tone Adjust 'overrides' per timbre in a combi per timbre?

Something like:

Code: Select all

I-A000 00 F/A EG 50
I-A000 00 1: A LFO +10
I-A000 01 ...
I-A001 00 ...
...

[RonF]

I think there are two independent issues here:

1) Ability to route audio per-voice rather than per-program.

2) Ability to edit programs within combi mode.

Of course both would be fantastic, but at least for my purposes the second would be most useful. I believe this is what RonF was talking about as well.

Of course per-voice audio routing would be fantastic, but even with the synthesis engines as they stand today, there is tremendous potential to do interesting multi-engine modular style things with monophonic sounds, or to use synth engines as effect processors over the top of a polyphonic mix.

Actually, most of the really interesting things I have come up with so far would not really want to be polyphonic in any case, as the complexity of these sounds can be so high, a single note is more than sufficient!

My issue is mostly about the editing experience. When I have an HD1 program feeding into an MS20 filter, and then I'm running that filtered audio through an STR1 feedback loop, I have to constantly jump back and forth between program and combi mode to edit these effects, which means I cannot actually play my final sound at the same time as I am adjusting the individual programs which make it up. The capabilities and results are phenomenal and exciting, but the editing experience leaves something to be desired.

You nailed it! 100% +1

[RonF]

In my opinion as one of the designers of this feature, what makes it not well-suited to this application is that it's a single audio input to the EXi as a whole. It is not a voice-to-voice connection between EXi. If you connect one EXi to another via the EXi Audio Input, the entire audio output from the first EXi - *all* of the voices merged together - will go into *each* of the voices of the second. This means that it is not capable of doing what I think you're hoping for - and nor is it intended to be. It was designed for different purposes, as described above.

It is possible to create a limited voice-to-voice connection if both EXi are monophonic, of course.

I certainly agree, by the way, that it would also be nice to be able to create per-voice connections between EXi, and as you might expect we've discussed this internally in the past. It's a different application than the EXi Audio Inputs, however, and somewhat more involved internally.

As I've mentioned on this forum in the past, I also agree that it would be very good to be able to edit complete Programs within the context of Combis and Songs.

Thank you again, Dan, for considering. Perhaps you might pass along the suggestion to the development team?

Ron

I am on the development team, and specs are one of my responsibilities.

Best regards,

Dan

Hi Dan,

Thank you!!!! for the comprehensive post! Greatly appreciated, and again shows Korg's commitment to its users!

Forgive my reference please to "the developers", as if you were not one of them. No disrespect intended, only unsure of how the Kronos development team is structured. Knowing that I am speaking to "the source" is even better!

All of your comments and manual references (which i know you authored) makes perfect sense....and mostly, I knew this......but its perhaps missing the point of this thread/topic just a bit. I know you seek to clarify the current functionality of the Kronos. And you have! But I still contend that everything is there in Kronos right now for much more interesting and compelling synthesis capabilities *if only* Korg would make some updates in this area.

I can conceive of your statements about voice-to-voice connections, but I do not agree this is the only relevant or exciting potential application which the EXi inputs (or similar yet to be developed connections) bring to the table. There is much to be done, sonically, by running the full audio of a separate program (especially from a separate engine) through available EXi audio inputs. Its perhaps less precise, but very interesting none the less. And you are 97% of the way there now! I guess my point is.....while I understand the deeper programming and restructuring that it would take Korg to update Kronos to include a voice-to-voice connection.....doing something along the lines of my suggestion (program-to-program) would be far less invasive, and still add immeasurable sonic power to Kronos with its diverse engines.

Consider: You DO intend, as you have described, to use external audio sources, be they the human voice, a live instrument, a recorded audio clip, or even another out-board-synthesizer......into the EXi audio inputs. But why should I use *another synthesizer* as an input source......when I have *9* synthesizers right inside of Kronos!? The functionality would be no less than my patching in my Access Virus into the EXi input. Still not voice-to-voice.....yet still potentially very powerful and interesting, sonically.

At the end of the day, its just a suggestion. A passionate one! We would love voice-to-voice connectivity inside Kronos....but recognize that this is likely a major overhaul. The facility to patch program-to-program, however, is essentially already there....because you can do it! Its just a PITA. Its the U.I. which inhibits this process. A few tweaks, and you could implement program-to-program, with all of its inherent limitations....its still wildly powerful, inspirational, and sonically compelling.

Please consider, Dan.

And thank you most sincerely for the discussion!

Ron

[danatkorg]

Please consider, Dan.

As I wrote in my previous message:

As I've mentioned on this forum in the past, I also agree that it would be very good to be able to edit complete Programs within the context of Combis and Songs.

- Dan

[RonF]

Thank you Dan. I sincerely appreciate it!

[aron]

We would love voice-to-voice connectivity inside Kronos

Who is we?