Montage by Yamaha

[jimknopf]

The problem with open source is that then several companies/persons want to earn money from the small margin available anyways.

I think the only interesting aspect of an open system nowadays would be one that either allowed use of VSTi/AU instruments within the Kronos environment, or use of the Kontakt sampling format. I'm not sure how much interest (and money interest) Korg would meet in this case (Steinberg, NI), and if development costs plus possible licence fees would be attractive for Korg and the companies involved.

For the time being, the Kronos is still the best multipurpose system you can get.

[Kevin Nolan]

@Tschury


Right - and they came :

New Synthesis Engines
New Expansion Libraries
New Effects
New Operating System revisions
New Effects Preset Libraries
New Program and Combi Libraries
New revisions of Karma
Increased RAM capacity

- all for OASYS (not even mentioning what Kronos received even further).


Open Architecture did NOT mean Open Source. What it meant was an Open approach to design - within Korg. It lead to all of the expansions listed above - but - more importantly - the creation of Open Architecture - read - "ARCHITECTURE!" - allowed for modularity of the initial design and for relatively easy and flexible design both of the original OASYS and its expansions.

An example - the ubiquity of features such as LFO features, AMS features, Step Sequencers - all identical across all Synth Engines. THAT sort of common (open) design allowed for modularity in development, and a commonality across all features. Indeed these were an evolution of an already extraordinarily coherent developmental trend originating form the M1 - all Korg workstations exhibit significant levels of similarity in OS design - unprecedented in synthesis design and almost unmatched to this day (perhaps Kurzweil aside) (and a big deal - because it means the learning curve from workstation to workstation, or across synth engines on OASYS and Kronos, is minimal). Korg should be hugely praised for this sort of instrumental development that frankly most other companies could well learn from.


To boot - while the false expectation of 3rd party synth engines never emerged (and anyone in their right mind would have seen it was never going to happen - what 3rd party company could afford to develop a synth engine for a hardware platform selling perhaps 3000 units in total ?) - the Kronos does use the same architecture and has had a bucket load of add-ons such as the new pianos and OS enhancements. Kronos is the living embodiment of OASYS. It might not appeal to your expectations, but that's a different issue

You're following the long trodden path of misinterpreting what Open Architecture means; has already delivered far and beyond similar generation workstations from other companies and has allowed for from OASYS 1.0 to the Kronos 2.


But in any case, that aside, the original OASYS did not have MS20ES, PolySixES, MOD7 or ESX3 on board. OASYS allowed for that expansion, among others - so it happened!

[lunaluna]

I hear what you're saying with the "unchanging concept" of the Kronos and I think you're right in the sense that they don't seem to be going the "open architecture" route of the Oasys anymore.

I'm new to the Korg OASYS/Kronos history, so I may be completely off base. But, I'm wondering what you meant by the "open architecture" of the OASYS. Theoretically, was the OASYS supposed to allow third party developers to create new synth software (not "merely" patches and samples) for the keyboard? ....

No. Only Korg propietary developments.

"...Future expansion options will include new synthesis engines, new effects, more sample libraries and various operating system enhancements...." (Quote KORG OASYS promotion 2005)

http://web.archive.org/web/200707011525 ... _forum.swf



OASYS: Open Architecture SYnthesis Studio






.

Totally off topic here but the Oasys has to be the best looking Keyboard EVER
!!!

[EvilDragon]

Totally off topic here but the Oasys has to be the best looking Keyboard EVER
!!!

Almost.

IMHO Waldorf Wave takes that particular cake.

[Derek Cook]

Totally off topic here but the Oasys has to be the best looking Keyboard EVER
!!!

Almost.

IMHO Waldorf Wave takes that particular cake.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That Waldorf is butt ugly to my eyes

[Kevin Nolan]

This is not too shoddy either:

http://greatsynthesizers.com/wp/wp-cont ... 800-01.jpg

[EvilDragon]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That Waldorf is butt ugly to my eyes

Absolutely not! I can't fathom why would any self-proclaimed synthesizer afficionado think that Wave looks bad in any way.

It simply invites to be tweaked!!

[fcoulter]

I must be getting old.

[Bachus]

Not just you, but also your picture...

That however is a beaty..


My personal taste for best looking however is a bit more classy and stylish...

[/quote]

[Derek Cook]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That Waldorf is butt ugly to my eyes

Absolutely not! I can't fathom why would any self-proclaimed synthesizer afficionado think that Wave looks bad in any way.

It simply invites to be tweaked!!

'fraid so ; each to his own of course. The world would be boring if we all liked the same things.

[nitecrawler]

I'm new to the Korg OASYS/Kronos history, so I may be completely off base. But, I'm wondering what you meant by the "open architecture" of the OASYS. Theoretically, was the OASYS supposed to allow third party developers to create new synth software (not "merely" patches and samples) for the keyboard? ....

No. Only Korg propietary developments.

"...Future expansion options will include new synthesis engines, new effects, more sample libraries and various operating system enhancements...." (Quote KORG OASYS promotion 2005)

http://web.archive.org/web/200707011525 ... _forum.swf



OASYS: Open Architecture SYnthesis Studio






.

Totally off topic here but the Oasys has to be the best looking Keyboard EVER
!!!

+1

[ErnstDabest]

I've mooted this before - I see this instrument a little differently to the sentiments broadly expressed here.

Historically I've been a huge Yamaha fan, and as mentioned many times before own and use many of their classics - the CS80, CS40M, DX1, SY77 & 99, VL1 and EX5.

What characterises Yamaha synthesizers, clearly and resolutely, since the original SY1 in the early '70s, is performance control. No other company has engaged performance control in the same way. It's a deep seated ethos in Yamaha synthesizers.

Don't get me wrong - there are of course many other manufacturers who have exquisite and often equal performance capabilities on their instruments, but for Yamaha, performance control has been 'the essence' of the Yamaha Synthesizer. A bit like Roland's obsession over the years to emulate the human voice and other acoustic instruments.

If you look at the DX1 - it has a separate set or performance memories, and almost as many performance parameters as there are FM-synth parameters. The CS80 has the extraordinary set of 20 performance 'levers' just above the wonderful 2-foot ribbon controller. Those levers were designed to provide the CS80 with extraordinary performance capabilities, so wondrously exploited by Vangelis through the years; and give the CS80 near-modular synthesis flexibility in sound design, I might add.

So to me, the Montage is, genuinely, a huge nod back to that heritage. In fact it's evident throughout the Reface range too - especially the CS.

So to me, Yamaha have, today, achieved something quite excellent - a brand new performance based synthesizer. I'm actually increasingly impressed by just how much of their legacy they have carefully followed in both Reface and Montage - by how much Yamaha are thinking about that today; and not in gimmicky ways as are Roland.

So in Montage - I see it as a significant development beyond the workstation, which lets face it, has had its day as a concept, particularly w.r.t to sequencing, because of the ubiquity of the DAW. In Montage, they have stripped down the workstation baggage and dropped the burden of less than impressive sequencing, and as mentioned in previous posts, fully embraces multi-tambral synthesis in brand new Performances that straight forwardly unleash complex sound design and performance, and at the same time allow for seamless integration into an DAW. It is, to me, an excellent if not optimum merger of their traditional performance-centric control with modern multitimbral performance expectations, for both live and recording scenarios.

For sure the synthesis engines are not brand new - but the way they are offered in this package is brand new. And, their integration is now seamless. And underpinng this performance based capability - two top-nothch synth engines which on their own merits are impressive for sure.

I don't think we're supposed to be impressed by brand new synth engines. Yamaha are not even hailing this as such. They are saying that the synth engines will deliver where they are expected to to the highest standards and matching the best of the competition (broadly) - but, it's the integration of these engines into true performance based 'Performances' and the novel approach to using them that I think is the point to this instrument; and that is new and quite unique in hardware.

Of course I haven't played one, so here's hoping the practical reality bares up to this ethos - but I urge you to consider Yamaha's legacy and ethos, and view this instrument in this regard. There is no doubt that Yamaha are thinking this way.

I'm not trying to be a 'fanboy' in this or trying to convince anyone here of this - we'll all make up our own minds on this; but I can assure you I will look forward to owning one (sure - in about a year - it IS expensive though not surprisingly so) - because it's such a excellent performance based machine - which I adore.

I honestly think there has been a significant amount of smart thinking gone into this instrument to harness their synthesis and performance based legacy, strip out the burdening and unnecessary aspects to workstations and created an intriguing and forward looking performance based instrument.

Not for everyone - many will rather own a Kronos - but for me, it's a very exciting move by Yamaha, one which I feel they couldn't have done a much better job on.

I'm no "fanboy" either... however i must give a thumbs up for such a well-written post.

[ErnstDabest]

We get it, you love Yamaha. Nothing wrong with that. I've owned maybe 15-20 Yamaha keyboards and pianos over the years, big deal. Some good, some not so good. I've got nothing against Yamaha and will likely buy some of their products in the future.

Busch.

I would say disgruntled, or unhappy of the way Korg stopped supporting the OASYS.
I could relate, I own a Triton classic the way Korg added OS update features to the Extreme
and Triton studio left classic owners such as myself feeling neglected_abbandoned by the company.
Korg could easily have added a "tone adjust" feature...

as they did w/ the Extreme and Studio.

[afr]

I'm new to the Korg OASYS/Kronos history, so I may be completely off base. But, I'm wondering what you meant by the "open architecture" of the OASYS. Theoretically, was the OASYS supposed to allow third party developers to create new synth software (not "merely" patches and samples) for the keyboard? ....

No. Only Korg propietary developments.

"...Future expansion options will include new synthesis engines, new effects, more sample libraries and various operating system enhancements...." (Quote KORG OASYS promotion 2005)

http://web.archive.org/web/200707011525 ... _forum.swf



OASYS: Open Architecture SYnthesis Studio






.

Totally off topic here but the Oasys has to be the best looking Keyboard EVER
!!!

+1 and I strongly hope that Korg will reissue the same/similar design on next workstation

[DmitryKo]

What's up with over-quoting? This isn't freaking Facebook... why do I have to skip FIVE large messages each essentially having a mere "+1" comment?