Korg Forums

I know 9 engines is fantastiic, but come on, leave the Radias out of the this magnficent mix?

Those pads are FANTASTIC! They were on the OASYS!
Cut corners, but not where it counts Korg.

I do have to say that, no matter what, Korg ALWAYS continues to be #1 in my book. Ever since my first keyboard, the almighty M1, followed by, and still have the 01/w FD.

Anyone agree?

AL-1 >> Radias.

From what I can glean from the AL-1 manual and my Radias, the main aspects the AL-1 lacks over the Radias are the DWG/PCMs, vocoder, formants, comb-filter and mod-sequencers.

However the lack of specific mod-sequencers in the AL-1 could be emulated using Karma (I think), and the lack of drums/DWGs/PCMs are more than covered by HD-1 (the Kronos/OASYS PCM engine) as you can use the audio-in as an oscillator 'type' (at the expense of the sub-osc).

Vocoder, formants and comb-filter aside, the AL-1 virtual analogue engine is like the Radias on steroids. It appears to have more of everything.

4 LFOs (with 18 different waveforms), 4 EGs, 32-note step seq, LP/HP/BP/BR filters (the Radias lacked the Band-Reject) and a new MultiFilter (three filter types at any time), more effects (185 versus about 30 of the Radias).

A few other omissions the AL-1 suffers, though. It doesn't seem to have a decimator/hard-clip/pickup waveshape tool. The drive feature is fixed to being post-filter (pre-amp) rather than being selectable between pre-filter or pre-amp like in the Radias. The sub-oscillator can only be square or triangle.

I think that covers most differences, that I can initially see.

I find threads like this funny. There are people here who just must smoke me in intellect. It is going to take me MONTHS just to figure everything on this thing out. 9 synth engines are plenty for me.

Timo wrote:and the lack of drums/DWGs/PCMs are more than covered by HD-1 (the Kronos/OASYS PCM engine) as you can use the audio-in as an oscillator 'type' (at the expense of the sub-osc).

But how exactly does audio input works in case of polyphonic sounds?
I suspect, you cannot have, for example, each of AL-1's voice's filter apply separately to each of HD-1's voice?

Hi Timo!

The AL-1 and RADIAS really are fairly different synths; each can do things that the other cannot. That said:

Timo wrote:From what I can glean from the AL-1 manual and my Radias, the main aspects the AL-1 lacks over the Radias are the DWG/PCMs, vocoder, formants, comb-filter and mod-sequencers.

The KRONOS has a vocoder in the standard effects, so you use any of the synths (or combinations thereof) as the carrier - and/or the modulator, for that matter. (I particularly like vocoded drums.)

Timo wrote:However the lack of specific mod-sequencers in the AL-1 could be emulated using Karma (I think),

Note that the AL-1 also has two step-sequencers: one per-voice (so each note can have different values if desired, though they can all be sync'd together as well), and the other shared by all the voices in the Program. These are more sophisticated in most ways than the RADIAS mod sequencers: 32 steps instead of 16, separate smoothing for attack and decay, adjustable resolution per step, start step modulation, and sequence reset from a mod source (in addition to looping). Also, step values can be random, a continuous input from another mod source, or a S/H from another mod source, in addition to directly entered values.

There are many other subtleties in the AL-1: oscillator edge, for controlling the amount of high-frequency harmonics in the oscillator itself; resonance bass, for switching between mini and P5 filter characteristics; more sophisticated envelopes (5 levels and four times, curvature per time segment, per-point modulation of times and levels, and reset from a mod source), "AMS Mixers" for processing modulation signals, etc.

Sorry to ramble on - I really love the AL-1!

Timo wrote:and the lack of drums/DWGs/PCMs are more than covered by HD-1 (the Kronos/OASYS PCM engine) as you can use the audio-in as an oscillator 'type' (at the expense of the sub-osc).

For those applications, I'd suggest using the MOD-7 instead. In addition to the six VPM/waveshaping/ring-mod oscillators/processors, the MOD-7 includes an HD-1-style sample playback oscillator. The "ROM" includes a number of DWGS samples, all of the Prophet VS samples (from the Wavestation), and other single-cycle waveforms. You can also use the waveshapers to create additional, modulatable single-cycle waveforms - or to process samples. It also provides completely flexible signal routing between all elements, including mixing, feedback, etc., so that you can easily do this, for example:

Multisample -> Waveshaper (and/or VPM and/or ring mod) -> Filter A -> Waveshaper (and/or VPM and/or ring mod) -> Filter B -> Waveshaper (and/or VPM and/or ring mod) -> Panning and output

...and you'd still have three VPM/waveshaping/ring-mod oscillators/processors, noise generator, audio input, three mixers, and five output channels left over.

Something I've enjoyed is to route the samples through different VPM/waveshaping processes in parallel, and then modulate the mix between them...

The MOD-7 also provides standard FM, of course.

Best regards,

Dan

1.Does the Kronos have realistic mellotron emulations and a vocoder function?

2.is the Kronos better than the oasys?

3.What are UK prices likely to be?

Here's something that hasn't been addressed yet:

Do we get our arpegiators back (over the whole KRONOS, not just AL-1)? And if not, can we at least have onboard GE editing? HATED that on the M3.

after Moss... Radias is dead too

korglifeguy wrote:1.Does the Kronos have realistic mellotron emulations and a vocoder function?

2.is the Kronos better than the oasys?

3.What are UK prices likely to be?

I'll leave 2 and 3 for others, but I can answer most of 1:

Yes, it ships with some nice mellotron samples, using VMT. For instance, see around 32:20 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHV3rnkGt3E

and
Yes, the effects include a vocoder. Routing is flexible, so the carrier and modulator can each be either internal sounds or external audio. For instance, you can do any of the following:
* Use external audio (e.g. a mic) as the modulator, and any internal sound (or combination of sounds) as the carrier
* Use internal audio (e.g. drums) as the modulator, and again any internal sound(s) as the carrier
* Use external audio for both the modulator and carrier

Hope this helps!

- Dan

regarding the vocoder, i hope someday korg will let its engineers to give us some more parameters to tweak. Note that i'm not talking about the vocoder quality, but only that we need more paremeters to tweak the sound

Korg Lover wrote:but come on, leave the Radias out of the this magnficent mix?

With what's already in the Kronos, you don't need a ready-ass to make sonic porn !

korglifeguy wrote:2.is the Kronos better than the oasys?

Lovely question, and I'll try to answer it (but bear in mind that my answer might be a slight mix of personal theories mixed with the facts).

The answer is: Yes. And no.

The O and The K are pretty much identical in their capabilities, with only minor differences. The history is somewhat important, and this is how I see it:

The KRONOS, is, as I would put it, and for lack of a better word not the OASYS 2, but the "OASYS Affordable". The O was in a big way a test bed, or a field test if you wish for what Korg wanted to do, and as we know it was way ahead of its time. The obvious side effect of this was the price. The KRONOS is basically just a cheaper OASYS, we are finally at a point where the required hardware is affordable for a "regular" synth. (IIRC there are allready made more Ks than the number of Os that were ever produced)

So to put it simply. The KRONOS is the markeatble synth at the right time, whereas the O was a "field test" of at that time future technology.


As for the sound capabilities:

The K has two engines the O lacks, the non-looped sample engine used for the piano (SGX-1) and the Electric piano engine EP-1. This is the _major_ advantage of the K. The capabilities of the SGX-1 engine I think will result in some pretty interesting instruments in the future.

The O eats polyphony by adding effects, the K does not as much, so you can acheieve higher polyphony with more effects on the K.

The polyphony for each engine is different for the K and the O, some times better on the O, some times better on the K, but the differences are minor.

MS-20Ex, PolysixEx, CX-3, AL-1, STR-1, MOD-7 synths are the same (and i think HD-1 too). Internal hardware/OS signal resolution is the same.

Kronos wins here, cause of the extra engines and the polyphony while using effects.


As for the hardware:

The internal hardware is 5 years newer, but it is also cheaper. The O was biult with the best available, the K with what makes most sense. (which is why the O uses 130W and needs hot air venting, but the K spins around on 60W). The O uses a 40GB disk drive, but the K uses a 30GB SSD. (This will be a major limitation in the future, and I believe (hope) Korg will make a larger hard drive retrofit pretty soon, as the number of available non-looped instruments increases).

The O is _massive_ its a freaking monolith. Its sometimes impractical, but its also very impressive. The K is much more plastic-y.

The interface hardware is much better on the O. The O has stereo output and 8 dedicated outs, and an optional adat module for the dedicateds. The kronos has stereo + 4 dedicated. The O has 4 inputs, where 2 are mic-preamped phantom power providing XLR/jack combos, whereas the K has 2 inputs.

The K can be connected to a computer with USB, the O can not, and you have to use midi. (major advantage for the K)

All buttons, sliders, controllers etc are way better on the O than on the K, and the O has those awesome led indicatros on sliders and knobs. Everything feels much more solid on the O.

ADCs and DACs are the same.

Other details:

check out the detailed comparison http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=58229


In summary:

The Kronos _is_ an OASYS, you get everything from the O in the K, exept the massively solid monolith exterior. In addition you get 2 extra sound engines. You loose some of the badass harware that very few users need.

The Kronos is a much more affordable, and "sober" synth than the O was (and is), and you get everything sound-wise in that K that is in the O.

However the overall look and feel is more impressive with the O. When using one you get the distinct feeling that no expenses where saved, whereas the Kronos is just another synth. The O is something it feels natural to spend 10000$ on, but the K doesnt invite spending 4000$ in the same way, if you see what i mean.

So my conclution? The K is the better choice for most users, but the O is so much cooler.

No.
The Kronos is so much cooler, because it has some desicive(!) advantages over the Oasys.

Concerning AL-1:
I think this is the most underrated engine in the Kronos, because many of us need a while to detect it's great potential. It is a whole big VA of it's own, and while I certainly like my Access TI for the irreplacable sounds and functions it offers, this might soon become similar with AL-1.

The problem is that you need a lot of programming skill to really use it's potential. The best thing which could happen to AL-1 would be a series of really convincing patches done on it. Something like Arturia Origins "Synth heros" sounds would get AL-1 out of the dark in no time. Some Video Tutorials concentrating on this engine would ptrobably be helpful as well. But where's a skilled synth programmer who could and would develop something like that quite fast?

Anyway: I will really try to work my way into AL-1 (which could well use a more intuitive user interface like the classics, with subpages for extra funtionality) - and I am sure that exploring this engine will pay with great sounds. I think I understand Dan's enthusiasm for this one.

jimknopf wrote:Concerning AL-1:
I think this is the most underrated engine in the Kronos, because many of us need a while to detect it's great potential. (...)

The problem is that you need a lot of programming skill to really use it's potential. The best thing which could happen to AL-1 would be a series of really convincing patches done on it. (..)

Yes, I totally agreee. The OASYS/KRONOS AL-1 is one of the most underrated "analogues" out there, and it is basically because the extreme possibilities that is also making it pretty complex and hard to use, which i guess is part reason for why the radias was made based on the AL-1, allthough the factory combos on the radias also could have been much greater. (Yes I am aware of the dofferences bwteeen the AL-1 and the Radias, but the sound core in the radias is still based on the AL-1 model).

A real good program set for the AL-1 would be much apprechiated. Didn't Korg just realease a couple AL-1 sets for the Kronos, that was made by Katsunori Ujiie, or was that for the Mod-7? If it was for the AL-1, has anyone tried them yet? I can dl them for free, since Korg gives away lots of Kronos upgrades for free to those who have a fully expanded OASYS, but i don't have a Kronos on which to test them

As for Radias on Kronos, it doesn't make that much sense to add the radias to the Kronos, as the Radias sound engine is based on the AL-1, which is allrady in the K, and the additional stuff in the R you can achieve in other way on the K. Also the AL-1 is way more powerful than the Radias implementation. The thing you'd miss would be the knobs and stuff on the R, which are nice, but not transferrable to the K's screen in any good way. You could always get a R and use it to control the K, if it is the buttons and knobs you want

I guess the question about the R on the K comes from the fact that the M3 has a radias expansion board, which I would guess is korgs way of making AL-1-like capabilities available for the M3.