A month till namm... (speculations)

[Kevin Nolan]

How long ago are we talking here? DOS days? Windows 3.1 ?

Realise I'm changing the topic a bit but let's see. There was that time when Sun convened the top 105 tech companies in the world to give JAVA away free, with the agreement not to change the specification for the JAVA Virtual Engine; followed shortly there later by Microsoft declaring to the world that they were going to change the virtual engine, and charge for it.


There was also that Internet Browser monopoly issue


And then there was that thing where they informed all he major PC hardware manufacturers to pay them a percentage per box manufactured whether or not the PC was released with Windows, otherwise MS would exclude them from ever installing Windows again


I'm sure I can scrape up a few more juicy MS episodes from the '90s and Noughties to reveal what a vile company they were (and probably still are)...


At the same time, Sun Microsystems essentially single-handedly drove Open Source as a business model - and I assure you - working inside the company - they were are visionary on the inside as they came across on the outside. Working for them included a day a year charity work and a day a year community clean up where we were working (not saying they implemented that in every Sun site - but Sun Ireland did). An ultra-cool company with an ultra-cool business model and approach. I still have my Sun badge and badge number, and it's like a military badge of honour. Am still proud to have worked for Sun!! By comparison, at the time, MS stunk, and everyone knew it.

And it reflected in their software - Solaris - 8 million lines of code. Windows - 28 million lines of code. Everything MS writes is tope heavy, inefficient and cumbersome - and the central point - can be done better. VST is dreadful protocol - there are too many layers - so latency will always be an issue.

There is no way, whatsoever, that OASYS / Kronos could have been implemented on anything other than a UNIX / Linux kernal (and indeed why OSX is built on BSD UNIX too).

[Sharp]

Hi Kevin.
How Microsoft conduction their business is a completely separate subject. Apple are no better, if not many times worse. It's a discussion for another day though as it has nothing to do with Music or this thread.

With Sun Microsystems, that's great. I remember the days when people working at ATARI could go to work and hop into the Jacuzzi to chill out if they didn't feel like working. We all know many great Tech stories like that from the 90's. Those days are long gone.

How many lines of code there are in one OS compared to another doesn't serve as any sort of indication that one will be faster than the other.

VST is dreadful protocol - there are too many layers - so latency will always be an issue.

Doesn't seem to bother the ever growing number of DAW and VST users the world over. There are many ASIO sound cards and Audio Interfaces to choose from.

There is no way, whatsoever, that OASYS / Kronos could have been implemented on anything other than a UNIX / Linux kernal (and indeed why OSX is built on BSD UNIX too).

I disagree. Windows or OSX would have been far better longterm, depending on KORG's intended outlook for the future. Maybe they have no interest in ever having an OPEN system. Only KORG knows I guess.

Regards
Sharp.

[Kevin Nolan]

Love a good debate to start the year Sharp
(I realise I'm completely biased in this!!)

Back on track - still think Linux kernal was the only way to go - at that they are using the bare bones of the OS. Windows and OSX could never have been stripped down to a small enough size - seriously! (and the way Linux handles 'devices' is probably something to do with it - generic I/O streams with no overhead - honestly - Windows could not handle the audio).

And again NAMM for Korg is surely a showcase for all their recent releases. I do not expect any new synthesizer releases from them at NAMM.

[Bachus]

Love a good debate to start the year Sharp
(I realise I'm completely biased in this!!)

Back on track - still think Linux kernal was the only way to go - at that they are using the bare bones of the OS. Windows and OSX could never have been stripped down to a small enough size - seriously! (and the way Linux handles 'devices' is probably something to do with it - generic I/O streams with no overhead - honestly - Windows could not handle the audio).

And again NAMM for Korg is surely a showcase for all their recent releases. I do not expect any new synthesizer releases from them at NAMM.

From a programmer point of view Linux offers so much more freedom as the whole source code is addaptable, where when programming for Windows you only have a selected number of API´s where to connect your programs to Windows...

In my view as being both a Linux as well a certified Microsoft engineer, Micrososft is not an option for projects like the Kronos. Since they require much more direct access to the source code to be efficient.

What worries me more about the OAX is that it lacks certain features that i deem very important in an arranger key

Given it's price tag, that's quite disappointing. That being said, if it were a KORG, can you imagine the fun programmers on this forum would get up to. I bet there would be some exciting third party apps developed. I'd personally build a VST for streaming samples that loads sounds on demand in order to avoid the need for preloading everything into RAM, and running out of RAM.

Regards
Sharp.

Yes i can imagine what these 3rd party VST´s can do for a System... But do they need to be build into the hardware... or will it be enough when it feels like they are integrated into the hardware?

With current day USB 3 and other high speed technollgies, it should be possible to run the VST´s in a specific Host program on a fully ssepperated computer. but with the controll interface running on the Korg hardware. and the audio over USB also comming to the Korg instrument... If done right all of this can be done with a latency of like 5 to 6 Ms... and to the musician it would feel like the sounds are controlled and come directly from the Korg Hardware...

Oh.... and something else comming up for a future workstation... i would like to have two USB options to connect to a PC and an Ipad at the same time... with lots of integration in the OS... so 2 USB3 to host connections at the same time

For even better integration as a true Master Wworkstation, they should also support .INS files for selecting sounds over old fashioned Midi.



But then on the other hand the freedom of allowing people to really create 3rd Party programs for a hardware device, is incredible... even if Korg would resort to their own program development set (preferably with an option to easilly convert VST´s) it could be a huge step ahead...




So basically i can see 2 options...

Option 1) a truely open system
Option 2) High end integration with PC and Ipad and midi devices


Which one would you guys prefer?


In my vision the hardware, is the central point of a setup.. So everything in a modern set up should be able to be controlled from there and feel naturall.. if not run in there

[GregC]

Love a good debate to start the year Sharp
(I realise I'm completely biased in this!!)


So basically i can see 2 options...

Option 1) a truely open system
Option 2) High end integration with PC and Ipad and midi devices


Which one would you guys prefer?


In my vision the hardware, is the central point of a setup.. So everything in a modern set up should be able to be controlled from there and feel naturall.. if not run in there

Its a good discussion. I am not convinced we understand Korg. We assume we are on the same page but suggest we make an effort to put ourselves in their shoes.

Which is why the pros/cons need to be articulated ( posts sort of talk to that) for each choice wearing our Korg hat.

The tail does not wag the dog, last I knew.

[Kevin Nolan]

Love a good debate to start the year Sharp
(I realise I'm completely biased in this!!)


So basically i can see 2 options...

Option 1) a truely open system
Option 2) High end integration with PC and Ipad and midi devices


Which one would you guys prefer?


In my vision the hardware, is the central point of a setup.. So everything in a modern set up should be able to be controlled from there and feel naturall.. if not run in there

Its a good discussion. I am not convinced we understand Korg. We assume we are on the same page but suggest we make an effort to put ourselves in their shoes.

Which is why the pros/cons need to be articulated ( posts sort of talk to that) for each choice wearing our Korg hat.

The tail does not wag the dog, last I knew.

Not really sure what your point is - we know they used Linux; and we know it's advantages and why they used it. It's open source - we're allowed to know !!

So with respect - if you've a sense of the area, there's little if any ambiguity as to why they used Linux.

[Koekepan]

The vast majority of these issues would be resolved by adopting OSC, or MIDI HD (whenever that comes out - probably Q3 of 2047, by the looks of it).

Besides portability, there's little reason to bind synthesis to input, or to output, in terms of physical device construction. It's all just data being passed back and forth (with tight timing constraints).

Even now, with regular MIDI, you can get a hell of a lot further with a 19 inch rack full of gear than with any single device (sorry, Wersi, you know it to be true).

Even in the world of open source, while there are a few people who try for open hardware systems all the way to chip design, the vast majority are content with a regularised interface on which they can run open source software. I feel the same way. My music is as open as MIDI (or a few software formats) can arrange, while the internals of synths are something I fairly blithely accept for what they are.

After all, if a Scarlatti piece is recognised as such whether written for piano or guitar, why should we quibble about exact synthesis systems?

[SanderXpander]

I'm with Kevin (omg) on why they used Linux. AT THE TIME, that is. While they were developing Oasys OS, OSX was in its infancy, and Windows XP was inferior with regards to direct audio stream handling and midi device handling. That's not the case anymore, and PC power has increased a hundredfold. With my soundcard, at minimum settings I get 2,9 ms total roundtrip latency. That's quicker than the Kronos. So I don't buy that VSTs "always have latency" which is why they'll be inferior. For me the reason is the lack of a unified interface, although honestly I've been hovering on the edge of investing in a Brainspawn Forte or Cantabile setup.

[GregC]

Its a good discussion. I am not convinced we understand Korg. We assume we are on the same page but suggest we make an effort to put ourselves in their shoes.

Which is why the pros/cons need to be articulated ( posts sort of talk to that) for each choice wearing our Korg hat.

The tail does not wag the dog, last I knew.

Not really sure what your point is - we know they used Linux; and we know it's advantages and why they used it. It's open source - we're allowed to know !!

So with respect - if you've a sense of the area, there's little if any ambiguity as to why they used Linux.

I thought we were 'speculating ' about Korg at NAMM. From there, I thought the discussion went to ' new/better workstation '.

From there it went to history and platform choices.

To roll it back. should we assume ' new w/s ' sometime in 2017 ?

from there, what is the likely Platform ?

what is that cost of Platform A ?
what programming/development effort is involved ?
should Korg also continue the sound programming, add more engines ?
will there be significant changes in hardware ?
is this this approach beneficial (for sales) and cost effective over the next 5 years ?

what is that cost of Platform B ?
what programming/development effort is involved ?
should Korg also continue the sound programming, add more engines ?
will there be significant changes in hardware ?
is this approach beneficial for sales and cost effective over the next 5 years ?

I think those are my key questions

[Sharp]

Hi Kevin.

still think Linux kernal was the only way to go - at that they are using the bare bones of the OS

Fair enough but I think if someone like Wersi can do it, KORG can too if they wanted to.

Windows and OSX could never have been stripped down to a small enough size - seriously!

Windows Embedded can be cut down quite considerably. The end resulting “Size” of the OS doesn't really mean too much though. It's not like the KRONOS is so super lean that it boots up like a rocket. It's actually slow.

and the way Linux handles 'devices' is probably something to do with it - generic I/O streams with no overhead - honestly - Windows could not handle the audio

It sounds to me like Linux is just more straight forward for KORG to lock down to the point where you can never access the desktop. All in order to make it appear that the KRONOS is a normal Keyboard and not Intel PC running Linux. This doesn't benefit me as an end user in anyway given what I see Wersi doing with Windows. I would love my next workstation to be able to load VST's. With KORG using Linux, this is still doable, but it's is far more complicated.

Regards
Sharp.

[Escapegoat]

Surely the point of the OS choice was that Korg knew it would never have to pay anyone for Linux? Just some developer $$ to add the little bit of secret sauce.

At least they did a better job than Roland did with the VariOS.

[GregC]

Surely the point of the OS choice was that Korg knew it would never have to pay anyone for Linux? Just some developer $$ to add the little bit of secret sauce.

At least they did a better job than Roland did with the VariOS.

I think you and James might be referring to " Linux royalty ".

My guess is that there was quite a few $$$ to develop it for Oasys and then the Kronos.

[Koekepan]

So To roll it back. should we assume ' new w/s ' sometime in 2017 ?

from there, what is the likely Platform ?

what is that cost of Platform A ?
what programming/development effort is involved ?
should Korg also continue the sound programming, add more engines ?
will there be significant changes in hardware ?
is this this approach beneficial (for sales) and cost effective over the next 5 years ?

what is that cost of Platform B ?
what programming/development effort is involved ?
should Korg also continue the sound programming, add more engines ?
will there be significant changes in hardware ?
is this approach beneficial for sales and cost effective over the next 5 years ?

I think those are my key questions

Does KORG want and/or need a new workstation platform?

If they take the current approach, with a low/mid/high Kross/Krome/Kronos market presence, I'd say no. They cover it from affordable, surprisingly capable entry level tool, through to flagship. The Kross is a strong contender for gigging as well as light composition, while the Kronos is one of the most respected brands in the field, for good reason.

If they intend to do anything with them, they might replace it, or refresh it.

The Kross is the most recent new platform, coming in 2013, while the Krome is a little older, dating from 2012.

The Kronos is older in one sense, but the Kronos 2 is a more recent update, so the Kronos is least likely to get anything but a small bit of polish.

If any one of the above were to get a refresh, I would guess at the Krome. It's a strong platform, but there are a few deficits. For example, it lacks the gig-readiness of the Kross in the sense that it's heavier, less convenient to transport (no handle) and has no battery option. Also, it doesn't really do much in the way of direct rendering, the way that the Kross can - but if you think of it as a stage piano plus features, I guess that's not a big deal.

Another possibility would be that they drop the Krome (or age it out quietly) and replace it with a Kross 2, which would then have a touch screen, more DSP power, and some on-board knobby goodness.

If there's no hardware refresh, then I'd kind of expect a software refresh to help get more out of any or all of them. For example, the Krome's sound design interface isn't all that great, and could use improvement.

The other possibility (and this would be very interesting) would be if KORG rethinks workstations substantially from the point of view of composition, and decides to threaten the market share of the MPC group. If they do this, they don't have to really fiddle with the Kross/Krome/Kronos at all, but bring out a new, different KORG Komposer.
This would not be a performance tool as such, but dedicated to handling sampling, synthesis, effects and mixing in a compact but very accessible package, with maybe a touchscreen in combination with hardware controls for ease of arrangement.

Who would use such a thing? In my book, it would be very Deadmau5-friendly. Get on stage, plug it in, hit PLAY. Live mix and maybe solo on top if you feel like it, but do all your composition and everything ahead of time.

If they can pull that off, that would be a real coup.

[GregC]

[p.

I think we should focus on addressing new advanced flagship.

The new lower cost versions may or may not flow into the product line based on the success and acceptance of the hypothetical advanced flagship w/s.

Solve for " A " before going to b and c

And look ahead 5 years and forecast likelihood of sales success of the new
W/s

If you are arguing ' why bother ' thats fair game. thats a vote to not have any new project or budget for an advanced W/s or product with a +$3000 sales price. Over the next 5 years.

[Koekepan]

My position is a little more complex than that:

I don't think that the Kronos 2 will be replaced in the coming year. It's too young, it's too available, it's too competitive with everyone else. A few updates, possibly, on the software end, but I'm not betting on much.

The real hole in the market is workstations for producers, as opposed to performers who want some backing. It's not as if they don't have form, what with the electribe range, but it's not quite up to the kind of power one might want.

A flagship groovebox? A production-optimised workstation? A composer's toolbox?

The KORG Kromotribe, for the producer who needs to play it live! SDcards for storage, the stolen guts of an Access Virus for sound, an ipad for the interface. We're gonna get so sued, but it'll be an awesome thing.