Korg Forums

...

not sure if i understand you correctly, but drag & drop is working in the piano roll view. in the track view ít is not exactly drag & drop, but you can highlight one measure (or as many as you want) and click it/them to their new destination. as long as you dont unhighlight it/them, you can continue clicking on other destinations so you don´t have to keep your finger on the screen for this process.

also, even the trinity´s sound engine has been 48kHz if i´m not mistaken?

have not used the fantom g myself, but from what i´ve read, not so few users liked the x´s sequencer better and think the g´s is more suitable for the phrase based way of working than the linear approach, though it can have up to 128 MIDI tracks

I have both M3-m and Fantom-G.

I used to have Korg Triton Classic and Fantom-X before.

Let me say this.... sequencer on M3 is way way ahead of Trinity or Triton. It might look the same at a glance, but the sequencer has come a long long way.

A short list of new things you couldn't do before.
Sysex recording/editing in sequencer. Now M3 has one of the easiest way of handling M3's sysex commands.
Editing sounds in sequencer. Now you can have upto 8 synth level parameters customized for each of 16 parts, without affecting the programs.
Piano roll drag/drop. This is completely new to M3. And if you zoom in, you can enter single notes with your finger or stylus to make it function like a step sequencer (fruity loop style).
3 band EQ for each track.
KARMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
list goes on......

Effects... even though there are 5 inserts, each of them is actually double the size of Trinity. So there are 10 processing blocks (this discussion came up when Triton classic was released). Plus there are additional 16 3 band EQs AND a global effects TFX that can have any stereo effect. Good for overall processing/mastering.

To warm up the sounds, just put a filter on the TFX section.

Fantom-G has a sequencer that has more advanced concepts and is definitely more powerful, but it still needs work. There are missing features that are standard on phrase based sequencer.

I use M3-m with Fantom-G.

...

Hexfix93 wrote: And using it as a sampler is a no go, because it up-samples to 48khz and that makes things even sound thinner.

I have not the slightest idea what you mean with this sentence? I guess you know what a sampler is. The higher the sample rate, the better/more faithfull the sample is.

I think this is why the unit sounds so thin, many of these waveforms were probably 44.1 at some point and they up-sampled them.

Why on earth would Korg upsample a formerly 44.1 sample to 48? If you have a 44.1 sample, you can upsample it to 48.000 if you want and it would not sound better. You can downsample a sample to gain a smaller sample size and gaine more room in the RAM. This will also reduce the quality.
If you upsample an existing sample, all you get is a bigger file without any advance on the quality size.
You can be sure that there is no upsampling involved. Besides that, the sampler in the M3 has - unlike a lot of other samplers in other products - the ability to work with various sampling rates. They are not fixed. If you believe that it has something to do with the sampling rate you can try using 44.1 samples in the sampler of the M3.

But after all, you are talking about fatnes in the Trinity. This is a really subjective area. I remember when the Trinity came out, I listened to some of the acoustic programs because I use them in my live gigs. Particulary the trumpet and sax program on the Trinity sounded to me like a toy compared to my T3 back in that time. Absolutely thin and miles away from any fatnes.

Also, I don't understand quite why do you miss an additional midi out? How much outbord gear do you have which you want to control with the M3?

Hexfix93 wrote:And using it as a sampler is a no go, because it up-samples to 48khz and that makes things even sound thinner. I think this is why the unit sounds so thin, many of these waveforms were probably 44.1 at some point and they up-sampled them.

I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere recently (might have been on the OASYS forum) that all KORGs have run at 48k since the Trinity.


I also have a radias. Before that I had a microKorg, and currently also have a Karma and a TR.
I find the ability of the newer synths to stretch higher up in the spectrum quite refreshing and much more natural. And have you heard the filters on the triton series? the resonance is awful, it just sounds like someone mixing in a sine wave...

Personally I think for example the EPs and organs on the M3 and M50 are much more faithful to the real thing. They have a very real sound, it is just that many people are used to the very un-real sound of the older generations of workstations.

It definitely fits in a mix better as far as keyboards go (most typically up in the high end), and I think you can still get older, 'fat' sounds if you like, by using the right treatment of bit-crusher, EQ, compression...

The M3 certainly sounds more real, truthful and kinda cinematic... But it just depends if that is what you want from a synth.


Note this is all just how I feel about it.

sani wrote: I remember when the Trinity came out, I listened to some of the acoustic programs because I use them in my live gigs. Particulary the trumpet and sax program on the Trinity sounded to me like a toy compared to my T3 back in that time. Absolutely thin and miles away from any fatnes.

i've always felt the same way. you can hear the resonance in the sample shift with the pitch with every key, especially in those samples. I hated all of the acoustic samples in the Trinity, i thought the Triton was a bit improved on that, but the M3 blows them all out of the water. I was always so used to the warmth of the 01/Wfd ... then the trinity came out, and i was majorly disappointed as everything sounded so thin. The strings sounded cold and thin. The woodwind and brass instruments sounded very 2-dimensional and fake. The piano i liked, as it was the first Korg with a somewhat realistic piano sound, but after a while it sounded very harsh. The synth sounds... well they were outstanding, as well as the vocals and pads. But overall i was disappointed in the trinity. It never gave me that full and solid sound that the AI2 line had going for it.

Fatness in which sounds, exactly? to my ears everything sounds pretty beefy, as compared to the Triton and Trinity. velocity layering... very few of the Trinity's presets did any kind of velocity switching, and for the most part, it wasn't to create extra dimension in the sound.

Just out of curiosity, the M3 you tried, was it running version 2.0 or higher? because there's a major difference. The 2.0 patch gave the M3 a LOT MORE SOUNDS. It also added some great sequencer features. If you ask me, the M3 is like the Trinity on steroids. Does everything the Trinity does, but really well.

...

... you could just click the little option in global mode "ALL KARMA/DT off"

...

Lolz...he really has issues.

...

yes it turns all drum tracks and KARMA off. to turn them on again you have to press the Karma or Drum Track button. Triton did this too.

M3's demo sequences weren't the best, but they did sufficiently show off a lot that the M3 can do. that "air" sound ... is that the phaser effect and filter sweeping i keep hearing in that track? i'm sure the M3 could handle that no problem, you just have to know what you're doing when it comes to programming effects

sani wrote: But after all, you are talking about fatnes in the Trinity. This is a really subjective area. I remember when the Trinity came out, I listened to some of the acoustic programs because I use them in my live gigs. Particulary the trumpet and sax program on the Trinity sounded to me like a toy compared to my T3 back in that time. Absolutely thin and miles away from any fatnes.
Also, I don't understand quite why do you miss an additional midi out? How much outbord gear do you have which you want to control with the M3?

Man... I think that there is a serious difference in sound characteristics when comparing Trinity, Triton and M3 generation. No question about it. And filters are absolutely different on these two when compared to Trinity. Trinity somehow _does_ sound fatter then these two, but it also sounds a bit darker. It's down to personal preference, I guess. But I absolutely prefer Trinity to Triton and M3 in many sounds.

Also, the question of MIDI I/O seems to gain traction in many forums that I've read in the past months. There are quite a few keyboards out there that can address this problem nicely. In theory (and practice, from what I could try), having multiple MIDI OUTs is much more preferrable method to daisy-chaining MIDI devices. Delays are just too big.

The other thing is the fact that a lot of people are using software synths nowadays, and it's getting more so. When using software synths, the latency is a bigger issue when compared to the regular, hardware synth situation. And if you have a couple of hw synths and sw synth daisy-chained, it would be a huge problem. Especially when you start building layers of VSTi's. A nightmare.

Just to be completely honest here, Trinity's acoustic sounds (especially sax and stuff like that) aren't its strong points. Many other sounds are.

if you don't mind not having arpeggiator and drum track keep the trinity.

i had a trinity V3 for 10 years and now own a M3 and have to say that:

- i am really happy with M3 because it opens new sonic possibilities for me with karma, drum track and new IFX

- some sound (e.g. piano) has been greatly improved in M3

- some sounds were much more better (more fat, more cutting in the mix, sounding better in live) in my trinity (e.g. some strings sounds, some lead sounds and MOSS sounds are not replicated with EXB-RADIAS)