Korg Forums

jimknopf wrote:Keyboarders have their own taste and decide what they want and need, just like I do, and I completely understand and accept that anytime.

Excellent post. Thanks!

I feel like the KK's existence has a lot to do with the wants from people who tested out the korg sv-1. People liked the set up but wanted synth sounds, in my experience i guess im trying to say that its a synth thats inbetween the sv-1 and the radias. By all means call me out if im wrong, this is entirely speculation.

slug wrote:

curvebender wrote:Features and specifications aside, the KK has something that the Radias doesn't: fantastic sound. It's easily the best sounding VA out there.

Yeah of course its not ALL about features, in fact I would say in general even the simple Waldorf Rocket sounds better than both the Korgs. That said the lack of a second filter, free LFO and third envelope on the KK in particular restricts creative patch construction compared with Radias, which is what i was trying to get at.

What lack of a second filter do you mean?

A KK can have two Timbres per patch, each with three oscillators, a filter and its associated ADSR contour generator, an amplifier and its ADSR contour generator, plus a pair of sync'able LFOs.

Of course he means a second filter for one and the same timbre.
A second filter is very useful as envelope for more flexible kinds of modulation.

Else I wouldn't agree that the Waldorf rocket sounds "better" than both Korgs. In fact I like the Kingkorg sound a lot more than that of the Rocket, not because it's bad (in fact it has a lot of raw power), but because I don't get those smooth different filter sounds from it which I like so much from the KK.

jimknopf wrote:Of course he means a second filter for one and the same timbre.
A second filter is very useful as envelope for more flexible kinds of modulation.

Else I wouldn't agree that the Waldorf rocket sounds "better" than both Korgs. In fact I like the Kingkorg sound a lot more than that of the Rocket, not because it's bad (in fact it has a lot of raw power), but because I don't get those smooth different filter sounds from it which I like so much from the KK.

I guess I don't understand what is the issues with using the second timbre filter? would it not give the same results if the second timber was a copy of the first timbre with a different filter? Am I confused? asking.. thanks

I don't understand how a second filter would work as modulation source, but many vintage synths that the KK tries to emulate have a non resonant HPF in addition to a resonant LPF. Admittedly you can KINDA get there using the EQ but certainly a dedicated second filter would give more sound shaping possibilities. Personally the main issues I've run into when emulating Juno and JX sounds specifically have been the lack of a dedicated LFO delay parameter and the limited chorus effect. The PolySix chorus in my Kronos sounds a whole lot better for that kind of stuff. The Junos and JXs also had a dedicated non resonant HPF by the way.

All advanced modern synths (Access Virus, many software synths) have a second filter (or more), for many purposes. Examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqbplI6V7M8

A second filter also allows you to let modulation targets run through an envelope, as opposed to the regular cycle of an LFO. For example, if I want the resonance amount not to modulate cycling (LFO), but running through a typical ADSR curve which is independant of the first filter, I can use the second filter for that.

A second filter would be an enourmous improvement for the flexibility of the Kingkorg.

You mean an extra independent ADSR then, not a filter? I agree there, as it could also work as an LFO delay.

Yes, for modulation I was speaking of a second envelope, as we know it from the filter ADSR envelope. Concerning the other options (in the video), I mean a second filter itself, to combine filter variations.

I should have separated both more clearly to avoid confusion. And it would be great if the KK had both.