What's up with Kurzweil?
Josh Lawrence
something about Kurzweil: the specs just don't compete with what's out there.
Low polyphony, extremely high price, and everything that you would want is an
expensive option/upgrade. Am I missing something here?
Josh
Josh Lawrence
(Remove "nojunk" from email address before responding!)
Wayne Rowley
I admit they are pricey, as are the upgrades. But I have used and heard
a variety of synths and samplers, and in my experience (and opinion)
none sound finer. Besides, the K2x00 range are not just samplers, they
also house what is arguably the most powerful, versatile (and complex)
synth architecture there is - VAST! If all you want is a sampler, look
elsewhere, but don't dismiss the Kurz just because of price - I for one
think it is well worth it!
Wayne
In article <20001216145637...@ng-co1.aol.com>, Josh Lawrence
<hardb...@aol.comnojunk> writes
------------------------
Wayne Rowley
ClifAnd
example, my Roland XV-5080 boasts 128-voice polyphony. But if you layer four
tones in a patch, that is reduced to 32-voice polyphony. I believe that there
is no reduction of polyphony on a Kurzweil K2600 with a four-layer patch.
The Kurzweil synth engine is very flexible and can be applied along with
effects to live inputs. There probably is no more powerful combination of
synthesis plus sampling. If you need just sampling, there are many more
cost-effective alternatives.
www.mayasite.net
philosophy
world dance
KIM S HANSEN
No - using a four layer patch on a Kurzweil gives you 12 note polyphony
for samples ).
ml. Kim
"ClifAnd" <cli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001216160745...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
Ian Kemmish
says...
>
>Hi
>
>No - using a four layer patch on a Kurzweil gives you 12 note polyphony
> for samples ).
I was also disappointed by the fact that the architecture is apparently locked
in to what DSP's were capable of ten or twelve years ago. Thus VAST lets you
select three pretty useless modules or one pretty powerful module to add to
your pipeline, but that's about it.
Kurzweil are not the only people to apply a modular approach to
Sample+Synthesis arhictecture, and on paper at least the current crop of Emu
products look at least as flexible, if not more so. (I own one of the former
but none of the latter, being currently more interested in developing a new
additive architecture than collecting gadgets....:-)).
I suspect, however that the answer may simply be ``instant gratification'' -
there is possibly a larger library of high quality third-party patches avaiable
for Kurzweil than for anything else, simply because the architecture *has* been
frozen for so long.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
i...@jawssytems.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.
HYeong-Min Kim
ClifAnd wrote:
> One point that Kurzweil makes is that there polyphony numbers are "real". For
> example, my Roland XV-5080 boasts 128-voice polyphony. But if you layer four
> tones in a patch, that is reduced to 32-voice polyphony. I believe that there
> is no reduction of polyphony on a Kurzweil K2600 with a four-layer patch.
>
That's not true. If you use a 2 layer patch in the K2600, you'll have only 24 voice
polyphony. I was one of the first people who bought the K2000 and although VAST is
an incredible synth engine, there's much compromise. For example, in most VAST
algorithms, you cannot use a 24db filter. And I personally never liked the sound
quality of the K2k. Some say it's warm, but to me it's dull. Maybe my ears have
been spoiled by Japanese synths.
Marzzz
>algorithms, you cannot use a 24db filter. And I personally never liked
>the sound quality of the K2k. Some say it's warm, but to me it's dull.
Interesting.....I agree re: the 24dB filter, the VAST algorithm is definitely
showing its age, but you have to admire Kurz for getting that much mileage out
of what is essentially a 10 yr old design.
As far as the sound, I owned a K2000 for 3 years, and was never happy with the
"analog-ness" of it. To me, it sounded "thin" AND dull. With the introduction
of the VA synths, out the door it went.....
-M
to reply remove "nospam" from email address
Peter
series is both a synth and a sampler, which makes it more versatile than
either a freestanding synth or a sampler. Some of the Virtual Analog synths
might have a little more umph than the Kurz (although our team has managed
to generate awesome analog tones with the Kurz) , but they have no
sampling/sample-playback capabilities, so in a sense it's comparing apples
and oranges.
A typical ROM based unit is a closed system with a finite number of onboard
sounds and limited sound-shaping capabilities.
Samplers let you load new waveforms, like Romplers, most of them have
limited sound shaping capabilities. They simply play back samples without
any attempt to generate new timbres by means of synthesis. The Kurzweil's
VAST (Variable Architecture Synthesis Technology) makes it possible to apply
synthesis techniques to new samples or waveforms. It's the best of both
worlds - synthesis and sampling.
Peter Schouten
Pyramid Sound Productions
Kurzweil Authorized Soundware Company
Visit: www.pyramid-sound.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
calif...@erols.com
problems with the sonics, still love the entire concept. The polyphony
was manageable with multiple units and sequencing workarounds. My
problem with them was they broke too easily. I just could not keep the
hardware working long enough to depend on them. Is that better now? If
not, they need to work on more than merely modernizing this and that.
Deal with the crap for buttons, switches, etc.
I am running four very long of tooth PCI SCIIs in a mac expansion
chassis thru TDM plugs and outboard have four (equally ancient) Roland
760s. Old is not necessarily bad but crap hardware was unacceptable
given my super short production time frames. Just my take and happy safe
holidays to all. -Bobby
Muskie
Kurzweil uses antiquated manufacturing procedures and antiquated parts. There
is the reason why upgrades and the synths themselves are so expensive.
-Muskie
Lee Sebel
(Muskie) wrote:
Easy wrong answer!
ISO9000 and ICT are certainly not "antiquated procedures".
"antiquated parts"? Please elaborate...site the specific component and
the more contemporary alternative.
Maybe it's just me, but I think Kurzweil costs more than the other guys
because they are better instruments than the other guys. The fact that
the VAST engine in a K2000 (11+ years old) is superior to any other
manufacturer's hardware synth engine supports this.
There is not a hardware synth in existence that can touch a fully-decked
2500 or 2600. You are essentially getting a complete recording studio for
the cost of a premium keyboard.
If you don't "get it" you don't deserve to have one, which suits us
Kurzweilers just fine.
Remove a "syn" from my reply address before replying by email
Tonefully yours...
Lee Sebel€Cool Music Gear You Can't Live Without€888-487-2166
Representing Innovative Instruments of Impeccable Quality
>>>Check out my original music at<<<
http://www.mp3.com/voltz
HYeong-Min Kim
Lee Sebel wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I think Kurzweil costs more than the other guys
> because they are better instruments than the other guys. The fact that
> the VAST engine in a K2000 (11+ years old) is superior to any other
> manufacturer's hardware synth engine supports this.
I have to respectfully disagree. Kurz costs more because of their pricing policy.
In my home country, Korea, where Kurz synths are manufactured, the K2600SX costs
roughly $2,300. I bought my K2000S for something like $1,500 in Korea 7 years ago,
when the same model's street price in the US was like $3,000.
Prodmac
sucks as a Sampler too.The original multieffects is soooo bad and noisy.
There is something lo-fi in my K2000 that doesn't thrill
me anymore
....but...it is a wonderful controller and live gig synth.
Krubb
Josh Lawrence
I was looking on their website, and they have an 88 note piano, woodgrain
finish I think, for $20,000?!?! Why? With the same amount of money, I could
assemble a system that can do 10 times what it does!
JL
jk_st...@my-deja.com
hardb...@aol.comnojunk (Josh Lawrence) wrote:
> But see, all this still doesn't answer my question!! Let me explain...
>
> I was looking on their website, and they have an 88 note piano, woodgrain
> finish I think, for $20,000?!?! Why? With the same amount of money, I could
> assemble a system that can do 10 times what it does!
You know, I was just looking at Porsche's web site, and they have a
Carrera GT that costs over $100,000. Why? With the same amount of money,
I could assemble a car that can do 10 times what it does <g>!
Sorry to poke fun at you, Josh, but Kurz has always been viewed as a
prestige brand, and you're going to pay extra for the exclusivity of
owning one.
- Jeff, TASCAM Guy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lee Sebel
hardb...@aol.comnojunk (Josh Lawrence) wrote:
> But see, all this still doesn't answer my question!! Let me explain...
>
> I was looking on their website, and they have an 88 note piano, woodgrain
> finish I think, for $20,000?!?!
Are you talking about the 2500/2600 AES or a piano?
If it's the AES you are not factoring all the extras it comes with, like
$12,000 worth of CDROMs, some unavailable anywhere else, and special FTP
access. Free Kurzweil-produced CDROMs for life.
It includes an extended warranty and back up plan that "normal" Kurz's
don't have. There are also 2 DMTi's in the package, another several
thousand dollars retail value.
Take out the CDROM library and yes you could assemble a more potent
system, but then you couldn't pick it up under one arm and take it to a
gig. Some artists have a need and a budget where the AES package makes
sense.
Lee Sebel
wrote:
But this is typical throughout the industry. You can buy Roland and Korg
and Yamaha in Japan for considerably less than in the states. There is
less overhead (shipping, customs) and so prices are less.
An argument could certainly be made that perhaps YCA are a bit greedy in
their pricing, but to expect a superior instrument (kurz) to sell for the
same money as an inferior instrument (everyone else). A single keyboard
(with expansions) that does more than any other single keyboard (with
expansions) should cost more, though it would certainly be nice if it
didn't!
Lee Sebel
<pro...@videotron.ca> wrote:
I was underwhelmed by the sound when it first came out...they didn't know
what the heck they were doing for a few years with such a powerful
engine. Same thing happened with the DX7. Initial sounds were lame
compared to what was available later as people figured out how to
musically use FM.
As for UI, I would totally disagree. The Kurz interface is wonderfully
musical, with all values represented in real world increments, not just
0-127 or whatever.
The multiple editor environment is what truly sets it apart. The ability
to edit a synth patch (and save it with automatic program change update!)
while the sequencer is running is an incredibly valuable feature, and one
not found on any other workstation. And they have been able to do this
for years. The new Roland XV monster is $3k and it's not even a
workstation for chrissakes.
el...@westworld.com
Kurzweil has been releasing the same product for the past 9 years...
Josh Lawrence
>
What? Roland hasn't? (Did someone mention the JV series?!?)
Josh Lawrence
No worries...I got a pretty big kick out of your answer! :) I guess your
right about a high-end instrument, which is why I posted this topic in the
first place. I don't know a damn thing about Kurz, I just always hear that
they break down, and they don't seem to have specs that match what other
companies are doing.
KIM S HANSEN
Kurzweil does the opposite - who else tries to sell a basically 10 year old
product for over 6 grand?
Kim Hansen
"Josh Lawrence" <hardb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20001220225222...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
Lee Sebel
You are basically correct, but it is still a superior hardware synth to
anything else on the market. And they have been producing major upgrades
to that product on a regular basis. Well worth the investment in my
book...just hope you get a good one. Their quality control is suspect...
Lee Sebel
old" instrument. With triple modular processing and the recent upgrade to
KDFX it is a totally modern instrument, less than 6 months old.
In article <91slpr$g0s4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "KIM S HANSEN"
<KI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Steve
<synsynman-211...@1cust96.tnt1.salt-lake-city.ut.da.uu.net>,
syns...@usa.net (Lee Sebel) wrote:
>If you are referring to K2600 then you cannot call it a "basically 10 year
>old" instrument. With triple modular processing and the recent upgrade to
>KDFX it is a totally modern instrument, less than 6 months old.
>
Lee, you can't explain certain things to these people. They think a 01/W
is a completely new instrument from an M1, a JV2080 is completely new
compared to a JV880, etc.
None of these synths mentioned above are also samplers, can take
internal hard drives or RAM, or act as a sampler, or read samples from
CD Roms and play them back. I don't even use the stock sounds. I have
my K2000 loaded with 64megs RAM and a hard drive loaded with samples,
and use those for sounds, not that the stock sounds are bad, they are
fine, but I can pick and choose my samples.
I own 2 JV's, and 2 K2000 (a keyboard and a rack). Maybe someone has
top own one to understand how superior the entire system is, and how it
offers you so much more. With an open system of upgradeable operating
systems, a superior synth engine, a sample player, built-in sequencer,
and sonically is very clean, you have an instrument with incredible
potential. The pro users see it.
The others see only the bottom line, a keyboard with the same number on
it for over 10 years (K2000 series). I think the fact that it is 10
years old, and updated by Kurzweil fairly often, makes it better than a
new Roland or Korg every 6 months. New features added, more features
added, just for the cost of an operating system update. My investment
in sounds and CD Roms is not going to waste, even eventually when I move
to a K2600.
Somehow, I think that if Roland made the JV880 completely upgradeable to
a JV2080, people would think it was the greatest thing for a company to
do that. Keep the same instrument and update it. Yet, some people seem
to need that change. If Kurzweil came out with a K2000, then when they
updated the operating system, came out with a K2001, then a K2002,
K2003, etc, these people would be happy to see that.
I don't need the latest and the greatest, I can make music on anything.
Just give me something with the most potential, and I'll find a way to
use it. I understand what a Kurzweil instrument can do.
Kirk Dupont
else's after 9 years, why change?????
Kirk
Lee Sebel
Amen, brother!
Lee Sebel
I stand by a previous statement...those that don't get it don't deserve to
have it. And those of us that do are glad they don't!
In article <maestro-steve-B6D...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Steve <maestr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Muskie
>At least Roland tends to repackage their stuff to sell it cheaper.
>Kurzweil does the opposite - who else tries to sell a basically 10 year old
Check out the Vp 9000.
Muskie
>You are basically correct, but it is still a superior hardware synth to
For 6,000$, you can get Korg Triton(with MOSS), Access Virus B or Nord Lead,
plus a PC fitted wit Digi 001.
Gee...which setup would you take?
And it could be argued that the MOSS engine is deeper than VAST.
-Muskie
Muskie
>When you make a synth engine that still blows the socks off of every one
Lets see....blocky, kindergarden interface from 1985, cheap , antiquated parts
from Korea, unreliable parts, ect ect.
Those reasons are good enough to have a change.
Lee Sebel
your post.
Pray tell, which synth has a better interface than Kurzweil?
In article <9237o0$p...@dispatch.concentric.net>, mik...@concentric.net
(Muskie) wrote:
Lee Sebel
(Muskie) wrote:
> And it could be argued that the MOSS engine is deeper than VAST.
For maybe a nanosecond, and then you lose the argument.
VAST as implemented in K2000 and K2500 offers over 40,000 potential DSP
configurations for synthesis.
VAST 2.0 in the 2600 adds more than 3 times the number of algorithms,
increasing the potential exponentially.
No other hardware synth comes close.
And the Triton FX are mere toys compared to KDFX.
If you think the Korg is better by all means go get one. You obviously
don't "get" Kurzweil, and therefore don't deserve to have one.
Muskie
>For maybe a nanosecond, and then you lose the argument.\\
Nice to see you don't have any way to back up your claims.
\\
>And the Triton FX are mere toys compared to \KFDX\\
ARE you serious man? The Triton EFX BEAT KDFX, and KDFX doesn't even come
standard with the board!
\\
>If you think the Korg is better by all means go get one. You obviously
>don't "get" Kurzweil, and therefore don't deserve to have one.
>Remove a "syn" from my reply address before replying by email \\
Oh I get Kurzweil. I was looking at purchasing one. I got the Triton instead
thanks to its superior effects, modern O.S., modern controls, and solid build.
If I wanted an antique from 1980's technology I would have gotten a Juno 106.
-Muskie
>
Muskie
>Yeah...well at least everything is spelled properly in the Kurz, unlike
Yeah, and this pertains so well to the topic at hand. Beautiful distraction
from your losing argument.
\\
>Pray tell, which synth has a better interface than Kurzweil?\\
Korg Triton. Nord Lead. Andromeda. Korg Trinity.
-Muskie
Steve
(Muskie) wrote:
>
>Oh I get Kurzweil. I was looking at purchasing one. I got the Triton
>instead
>thanks to its superior effects, modern O.S., modern controls, and solid
>build.
>
>If I wanted an antique from 1980's technology I would have gotten a Juno
>106.
>
>-Muskie
>>
>
Kurweil's latest operating system was released within the last year.
It's very modern, tried and tested thru many versions over many years,
and is more complete and bug-free than any other OS for any other synth
on the market.
I've seen your posts against Kurzweil. You obviously have a bug up your
ass about them, for what reason I don't know, but you don't know enough
about them to make blanket statements. It's also not a 1980's keyboard.
It's YOUR facts that don't hold up.
Now, if you told me you owned both, worked with both, had sounds for
both, and could be completely objective, your OPINION might hold some
water. I tour, play both all the time, and while each has it's own
pluses and minuses, I chose to own 2 Kurzweils. I do think the Tritons
sound absolutely wonderful, but the Kurzweils sound great also, and lots
more sounds are available, both public domain, and CD Roms for the
Kurzweil, because it has been around so long. The more sounds that are
available, the more chance of you finding that version of a sound that
suits your particular gig (at that moment), and isn't owning an
instrument about making music?
As far as I'm concerned, and this is my opinion, Kurzweil got it right,
and as it has been said before by another knowledgeable Kurzweil owner,
If you don't get it, you probably don't deserve to own one.
Enjoy your Triton, it is a fine instrument, but panning Kurzweil shows a
real lack of product knowledge.
Steve
Lee Sebel
(Muskie) wrote:
> \\
> >Yeah...well at least everything is spelled properly in the Kurz, unlike
> >your post.\\
>
>
> Yeah, and this pertains so well to the topic at hand. Beautiful distraction
> from your losing argument.
>
Then you are too easily distracted!
>
> \\
> >Pray tell, which synth has a better interface than Kurzweil?\\
>
>
> Korg Triton. Nord Lead. Andromeda. Korg Trinity.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Every synth you mentioned displays values in the ever-so-intuitive 0-127
format.
Kurz displays every parameter in real-world, musical values, making for a
more musical, intuitive interface.
None of the instruments you mention offer a mulitple editor environment,
something Kurz has offered for 10 years or so.
Kurz navigation is mode-less...highlight what needs changing and hit
"edit" regardless of what playback mode of the machine you are in.
Only the Kurz let you edit and save a patch (including automatic program
change update) while the sequencer is running (obviously not applicable to
Nord and Andromeda, but it smokes the Korgs).
The Kurz interface and implementation allows you to stay in the creative
lobe of your brain for longer stretches than any other machine out there.
I've worked with synthesizers for over 25 years, including stints with
major manufacturers (anyone remember ARP???). No hardware instrument
comes close to the power and relative ease of use than the Kurz stuff.
Lee Sebel
issue. Korg definitely has a better reliability ratio.
I liken the experience of owning a Kurz to owning a Ferrari. Both are
temperamental beasts, requiring a particular personality in the owner.
Both require a bit of patience...the payback being you get more power
under the hood then anything else in the niche.
It's interesting that the sadly misinformed poster mentioned both Trinity
and Triton. IMNSHO, if Korg really cared about their customers a Trinity
would have been totally upgradeable into a Triton.
Better yet, they would have done their homework and never released Trinity
to begin with. That severely underpowered machine proved to be a major
disappointment in the marketplace, forcing Korg to re-address their
concepts and do the Triton.
In article <maestro-steve-D40...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Steve <maestr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Remove a "syn" from my reply address before replying by email
Tonefully yours...
The Number 23
created 100 new K2x00 patches every month. The patch creator truly knew the
innards of the K2x00 series, as he was able to create totally new sounds
that I doubt any other synthesizer could create (even today).
It is because of those patches that I could never sell my K2000 - there are
way too many signature sounds in those patches which will likely star in my
music for years to come.
-Brian
"Lee Sebel" <syns...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:synsynman-291...@sdn-ar-001utslcip215.dialsprint.net...
mo...@industrial.org
> Better yet, they would have done their homework and never released Trinity
> to begin with. That severely underpowered machine proved to be a major
> disappointment in the marketplace, forcing Korg to re-address their
> concepts and do the Triton.
I am no Korg fan but stating that the Trinity was not a success does not
match up to everything I have ever heard about it. To my knowledge the
Trinity was totally popular (which explains why it was around for so long,
had so many options and came in multiple sizes and even a rack form).
The Trinity is about as upgradeable as the K2000 was (disk recording,
extra outputs, sample RAM if memory serves, etc.). Likewise the Triton vs
the K2600. The main differences are price (Kurzweil is ridiculously
priced), polyphony (K2600 is old technology and it shows) and religion
over synth architecture. As many folks who have gushed over the K2000 have
complained that the the thing was a bitch to program or that anything
interesting caused it to run out of DSP horsepower. Complexity does not
necessarily equate to ease of use of course.
And personally, I like binary values.
=)
--
|) __,,_____________ codeGRUNT : <sl...@codegrunt.com> (|
|) < ___________/ moron : <mo...@industrial.org> (|
|) / /-' send EEEI news to : <info...@industrial.org (|
|) /___/ industrial & DIY culture : http://industrial.org (|
|) narc : http://industrial.org/narc/ (|
Frank Benn
Are they still in business?
The patches sound interesting.
The Number 23
still active, though.
Sound Subscriptions
Soun...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/SoundSubs/SOUNDSUBS.html
Email group: www.eGroups.com/list/soundsubs
I believe they have a free demo, as well. Note: I am in no way affiliated
with Sound Subscriptions.
-Brian
"Frank Benn" <spa...@NOSPAMINTEGRATEDARTShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A4D3FF1...@NOSPAMINTEGRATEDARTShotmail.com...
Muskie
>Every synth you mentioned displays values in the ever-so-intuitive 0-127
>format.
>
>Kurz displays every parameter in real-world, musical values, making for a
Are you done reading the Kurzweil brochure now?
-Muskie
Muskie
overrated, and uses antiquated parts, which is entirely true.
-Muskie
Frank Benn
Lee Sebel
(Muskie) wrote:
> Lee- I never said the Kurz was a bad synth. I have been saying that it is
> overrated, and uses antiquated parts, which is entirely true.
Overrated by whom? And whether something is overrated or not, that is an
opinion, not something that can be proven true or false.
It is the synth of choice of Stevie Wonder, arguably the single most
gifted musician currently alive. Would one of the best musicians in
modern history choose to play an instrument that wasn't one of the best?
Considering he's blind, that's quite a testament to the user interface you
have so much disdain for. I'd love to see him try to get around on a
Triton!!!
As for "antiquated parts", please be more specific.
If you are referring to the Motorola CPU's (I can't think of anything else
that you might mean), just because they are old doesn't mean they are
outdated. The 68340 CPU in the 2500/2600 runs at 25mHz, considerably
faster than anyone else's machine.
Kurz is to be lauded for making sure their instruments have plenty of
processor headroom. Even a K2000 with an older slower Motorola 68000 can
still play Pong while the sequencer is playing a full blown tune, with no
lag or stutter whatsoever.
Why was the Trinity so f*cking sluggish, taking almost 2 seconds to update
after a patch change (without patch remain which the Kurz has been doing
for 10 years)? It's because instead of using a CPU that was man enough
for the job, Korg used as cheap a CPU as they could find that would at
least work. That touch screen ate up so much CPU power it shorted the
instrument on features and speed. THAT MADE THE INSTRUMENT LESS MUSICAL!
While they were able to address the issues somewhat with system updates,
it doesn't hide the fact that they released a FLAWED instrument, and had
the nerve to charge several thousands of dollars for it.
This is not a good thing! They essentially used YOU, their customer, as a
paying beta tester. Roland pretty much does the same thing. Buy the
instrument, and then find out what is wrong with it after putting it to
use. (Anyone try to do some serious editing on a VS880 with that crap,
non-backlit display???)
And then you get to grouse when the manufacturer, instead of fixing the
problem with your instrument, just discontinues it and brings out a new
model (often less expensive) with the features the original should have
had to begin with. THIS SUCKS!
Kurz is about the only hardware synth manufacturer that does not work this
way. They just added a whole new set of features for the K2000. Nobody
else spends valuable RnD $$$ to update 10 year old instruments, meaning
nobody values their existing user base as much as Kurz.
Lee Sebel
> Lee Sebel <syns...@usa.net> wrote:
> > Better yet, they would have done their homework and never released Trinity
> > to begin with. That severely underpowered machine proved to be a major
> > disappointment in the marketplace, forcing Korg to re-address their
> > concepts and do the Triton.
>
> I am no Korg fan but stating that the Trinity was not a success does not
> match up to everything I have ever heard about it. To my knowledge the
> Trinity was totally popular (which explains why it was around for so long,
> had so many options and came in multiple sizes and even a rack form).
Yes it was popular, but I can guarantee you it did not put up the sales
numbers that were expected. Korg was offering major bucks to store
personnel to get them to push the keyboard. If a manufacturer has a truly
successful instrument on the market, you don't see them trying to bribe
retail sales personnel.
And "around for so long"??? The thing was discontinued less than 2 years
after it was released. Unless you are smoking a lot of weed and are
undergoing a major case of the slowies, 2 years does not qualify as
"around for so long".
> The Trinity is about as upgradeable as the K2000 was (disk recording,
> extra outputs, sample RAM if memory serves, etc.).
About as upgradeable, with less functional polyphony, for more than $1000
more? And you accuse Kurz of being overpriced? And if it was so
upgradable, WHY IS IT GONE???
> Likewise the Triton vs
> the K2600. The main differences are price (Kurzweil is ridiculously
> priced), polyphony (K2600 is old technology and it shows) and religion
> over synth architecture.
First of all, when it comes to polyphony, for most of the people out there
working with synths, if they can't say it with 16 simultaneous sounding
voices I don't want to hear what they have to say anyway. Just listen to
some of the garbage on mp3.com.
If you truly understood Kurz you would understand that polyphony is
absolutely not an issue. For starters, instead of using an "antiquated"
last-note priority scheme as does every other manufacturer, the Kurz
employs a much more sophisticated and MUSICAL approach, analyzing
velocities, damper pedal usage, keyboard position and activity.
Were you aware that the Kurz will tend to ignore note-ons below a certain
velocity level (depending on a majority of current velocities being
played) to account for the fact that you may have accidentally brushed a
key you didn't mean to play??? The other guys can't do this, meaning you
do not get maximum available polyphony at any given time.
Properly equipped (i.e. with sampling option) a K2600 (in a studio
environment) offers UNLIMITED polyphony and UNLIMITED effects.
With Korg and Roland, because of their architecture (and their inability
to resample while playing) you have to divide their polyphony by 2 or 4 to
determine how many "real" notes can be played at one time. Then you have
to deal with the less-than-musical last-note-priority scheme.
>As many folks who have gushed over the K2000 have
> complained that the the thing was a bitch to program
Anyone who thinks a Kurz is a bitch to program has not thoroughly
investigated the editing features. Yes...if you want to go into adjusting
each little parameter to come up with a new sound the Kurz architecture
can be rather daunting. But they provide ways that allow for much easier
sound design, much easier than anyone else.
The single most valuable edit is the "import layer" feature, which allows
one to take any or all layers from one sound and combine them with the
layers of another sound. And the way it works on the Kurz allows you to
hear the new combination before you commit to it.
The other synths let you copy elements from one sound to another, but you
can't hear it before you do it. You have to go through the motions, only
to find out that the result is not what you wanted. Then you get to keep
jumping through those same hoops until you get it right.
Same scenario with editing patches so they "work" within a sequence. Even
on a K2000 I can edit a program in context WHILE THE SEQUENCER IS RUNNING,
so I only have to edit once to get it right. The other workstations
require you to edit out of context: stop the sequencer, leave that mode of
operation, enter a different mode to edit the sound. Leave that mode to
get back to the sequencer...and if the edit isn't quite right you get to
do it all over again!
> anything interesting caused it to run out of DSP horsepower.
If anything, you have hit on the one downside to an instrument remaining
viable for so many years. Users are constantly pushing the envelope, and
eventually reach a point where they are demanding more than the machine
can provide.
If you "hit the wall" with a K2000, for an investment about equal to a new
hardware synth you can get the sampling option and a DAT machine (if you
don't already have audio software on a computer). This will give you the
same UNLIMITED polyphony that a 25/2600 w/sampling offers.
The only thing that is really substandard in a 2000 is the effects, and
even that is not much of an issue. In a studio environment you can forget
the thing even has an effects chip in it.
For a majority of live applications the Digitech chip in the 2000 is more
than adequate, and you can always implement it with additional processors
using the send/return loops available on the separate outputs. And of
course I must point out that neither Korg nor Roland offer this feature,
despite the competition (Kurz and Emu) having offered it for years!
>Complexity does not necessarily equate to ease of use of course.
That is why I used the term "relative ease of use". The Kurz stuff is
insanely complex compared to the other guys (function generators,
anyone?), but the quality of the interface makes it relatively easy to use
given that the horsepower under the hood runs rings around other hardware
synthesizers.
DaveBryce9
<<> Korg Triton. Nord Lead. Andromeda. Korg Trinity.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
Every synth you mentioned displays values in the ever-so-intuitive 0-127
format.
Kurz displays every parameter in real-world, musical values, making for a
more musical, intuitive interface. >>
So does Andromeda. Nice try, though.
dB
Miles Bader
> > >Pray tell, which synth has a better interface than Kurzweil?\\
> >
> > Korg Triton. Nord Lead. Andromeda. Korg Trinity.
>
> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
>
> Every synth you mentioned displays values in the ever-so-intuitive 0-127
> format.
Um, the Nord doesn't _display_ anything, it has a knob for every parameter.
The K2000 is a nice synth, and it has a decent example of a menu-based UI
(certainly any other kind would be impossible given the complexity of the
voice architecture).
But it's far, far, far easier to make patches on a Nordlead. I expect the
same will be true of the Andromeda.
-Miles
--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche
Greg
I would think it would be nice to have both the Kurzweil and the Korg...
Greg
Greg
> In article <92ju5r$p...@dispatch.concentric.net>, mik...@concentric.net
> (Muskie) wrote:
>
> It is the synth of choice of Stevie Wonder, arguably the single most
> gifted musician currently alive.
???
Greg
Muskie
> gifted musician currently alive. \\
huh? I don't give a crap what synth Stevie Wonder plays, and I think
his music for the most parts stinks.
\\> Considering he's blind, that's quite a testament to the user
interface you
> have so much disdain for.\\
Dang you are *really* grasping for straws now.
\\I'd love to see him try to get around on a
> Triton!!!\\
Depends on how you look at it. Any synth Stevie Wonder can't play is a
good thing from my view.
\\Korg used as cheap a CPU as they could find that would at
> least work. That touch screen ate up so much CPU power it shorted the
> instrument on features and speed. THAT MADE THE INSTRUMENT LESS
MUSICAL!\\
Right.....thats why Trinity's dont have to go into the shop every six
months like the Kurz.....
I guess thats what happens when you try and buy an old design loaded
with new gags. Sort of like a Dodge Ram pickup with leather seats.
Sure, the feature set is nice, but everything underneath is crap.
\\ And then you get to grouse when the manufacturer, instead of fixing
the
> problem with your instrument, just discontinues it and brings out a
new
> model (often less expensive) with the features the original should
have
> had to begin with. THIS SUCKS! \\
I agree with this. But Korg has been making strides with the Triton
O.S. to be sure. They have added several new features and fixed some
bugs. Also, the next update will improve the Triton even more.
\\
> Kurz is about the only hardware synth manufacturer that does not work
this
> way. They just added a whole new set of features for the K2000. \\
I think this is great as well.
-Muskie
Lee Sebel
> \\> It is the synth of choice of Stevie Wonder, arguably the single most
> > gifted musician currently alive. \\
>
>
> huh? I don't give a crap what synth Stevie Wonder plays, and I think
> his music for the most parts stinks.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but I think he's written a
few more chart toppers and sold a few more albums than you. So his
opinion of a keyboard is worth more to me than yours.
I'm guessing he has more talent in his toejam than you have in your entire body.
> \\> Considering he's blind, that's quite a testament to the user
> interface you
> > have so much disdain for.\\
>
>
>
> Dang you are *really* grasping for straws now.
Absolutely not...you've been ragging on the Kurzweil user interface, and I
am providing yet another example of how the Kurz UI is better. If it
weren't so logically and musically laid out there is no way a blind person
could handle it...there are many more than Stevie that do.
>
> \\Korg used as cheap a CPU as they could find that would at
> > least work. That touch screen ate up so much CPU power it shorted the
> > instrument on features and speed. THAT MADE THE INSTRUMENT LESS
> MUSICAL!\\
>
>
>
> Right.....thats why Trinity's dont have to go into the shop every six
> months like the Kurz.....
How about addressing a point with a comment that is maybe slightly related?
There is nothing in my quoted comment that has anything to do with service
issues, yet that is what you throw back to me? I'm guessing you were
never in your school's forensic society, or even know what one is.
FWIW, I've had a fully loaded 2500 for years and it has logged 10's of
thousands of miles on the road, including as checked airline baggage in a
semi-hard case. The instrument has yet to go into the shop.
So what is your point? Are you claiming that a Trinity or Triton has
never broken down? Korg has an excellent reliability record, but it ain't
that good.
> I guess thats what happens when you try and buy an old design loaded
> with new gags. Sort of like a Dodge Ram pickup with leather seats.
> Sure, the feature set is nice, but everything underneath is crap.
I don't follow this at all. Please cite examples of "underneath crap".
Lee Sebel
<mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> syns...@usa.net (Lee Sebel) writes:
> > > >Pray tell, which synth has a better interface than Kurzweil?\\
> > >
> > > Korg Triton. Nord Lead. Andromeda. Korg Trinity.
> >
> > Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong.
> >
> > Every synth you mentioned displays values in the ever-so-intuitive 0-127
> > format.
>
> Um, the Nord doesn't _display_ anything, it has a knob for every parameter.
Well mine has a display, as does every other one I've ever seen.
>
> The K2000 is a nice synth, and it has a decent example of a menu-based UI
> (certainly any other kind would be impossible given the complexity of the
> voice architecture).
I think it is a more than decent example, especially seeing as most other
instruments are page-based. Page-based navigation sucks, and combined
with the other guy's mode-restrictive approach makes editing a pain in the
ass.
> But it's far, far, far easier to make patches on a Nordlead. I expect the
> same will be true of the Andromeda.
Well of course it is...you've got maybe a tenth (or less) of the
parameters to deal with.
Please note that in all my responses I have used the phrase "relative ease
of use". Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could), it
is relatively easier to use, and capable of a much broader range of sounds
than any subtractive synth.
Lee Sebel
<abr...@nb.aibn.com> wrote:
How could anyone possibly disagree with that? I'd gladly have a Triton in
my studio. It looks and sounds cool...anyone got one they are tired of?
Donations gladly accepted...but I'm not dropping my hard earned cash on
one.
Lee Sebel
daveb...@aol.com (DaveBryce9) wrote:
Thanks for the clarification...and I'm not surprised that Alesis has done this.
Just wish more companies would...it makes things so much more musical.
Jon Drukman
>Right.....thats why Trinity's dont have to go into the shop every six
>months like the Kurz.....
My K2000RS has been powered on almost continually since 1995
and it has never gone to any kind of shop.
-jsd-
Miles Bader
> Well mine has a display, as does every other one I've ever seen.
The display is only used to display patch numbers.
> I think it is a more than decent example, especially seeing as most other
> instruments are page-based. Page-based navigation sucks, and combined
> with the other guy's mode-restrictive approach makes editing a pain in the
> ass.
Hmmm... I owned a K2K, and the UI seemed pretty damn page-based to be
(I'm talking about the voice-editing UI, mind you). This was one of the
things I hated about it. [Perhaps the K2500s &c have changed this?]
> Please note that in all my responses I have used the phrase "relative ease
> of use". Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
> Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could), it
> is relatively easier to use, and capable of a much broader range of sounds
> than any subtractive synth.
You're right, that comparing the Kurzweil with most existing VA synths
is a bit apple-orangey -- one major reason the NL has the best UI out
there is because there are few enough parameters that it's *possible* to
devote a knob to each one.
The ability to play back samples certainly gives the Kurzweils a
different quality, but I think it's debatable whether you can really
call VAST `insanely more powerful' than, for instance, a Waldorf Q.
Despite the Kurzweil's many parameters, there are many things that
e.g. the Q can do that the Kurzweils can never touch, and in my
experience, most VAs get a lot more mileage out of what parameters they
*do* have. In other words, the Kurz has many more parameters, but each
parameter in the VAs typically does more (i.e., can change the character
of the sound more).
Thus it seems misleading to talk of `relative ease of use' with regard to
*number* of parameters; it would be better to somehow normalize for the
efficacy of each parameter as well.
The Danimal
I wish I had your luck. My K2vx decided to stop booting one
day and then it spent four months in Sweetwater Sound's repair
shop waiting for a replacement main board. Fortunately it
was still under warranty, and fortunately music is just a hobby
for me. I imagine anybody trying to make a living from this
gear would need to to have spares of everything critical.
I like my K2vx a lot. Eventually I might get a K2600 or
whatever the successor will be when I feel like buying another
instrument. The KB3 mode sounds tempting, as does the ribbon
controller, more polyphony, and 88 keys.
What do the Kurzweil users here recommend for a K2***
patch editor/librarian program? It would be nice to have
something that could work with every kind of Kurzweil
object, including sequences, drum kits, samples, etc.
Despite all the talk of how wonderful the Kurzweil interface
is, to a spoiled computer user like me it seems like a giant
step backwards to have to edit dozens of parameters by poking
through tiny menus on a ridiculously small LCD. And let's not
even talk about entering file names by dialing letters with
the alpha wheel. When I saw that on the Kurzweil video tape,
I kept waiting for the announcer to say "Hey, just kidding."
Does anybody actually do that?
That's not to knock Kurzweil. My Roland XP-30 has an even
more paleolithic interface. It seems even more obtuse,
modeful, and unobvious than Kurzweil's. I don't know why
these vendors don't just put a standard PC keyboard jack
on their instruments. How hard could that be? Then at least
you'd be able to type. I guess they assume 99% of their
customers won't do anything more than play the presets.
-- the Danimal
Muskie
is, to a spoiled computer user like me it seems like a giant
step backwards to have to edit dozens of parameters by poking
through tiny menus on a ridiculously small LCD. And let's not
even talk about entering file names by dialing letters with
the alpha wheel. When I saw that on the Kurzweil video tape,
I kept waiting for the announcer to say "Hey, just kidding."
lol! Yep. Give me a nice big screen, or knobs. The days of this thin LCD
garbage should be gone, at least on workstations.
The Korg Triton window, touchscreen and interface is the best in the business.
-Muskie
Muskie
>Well mine has a display, as does every other one I've ever seen.\\
It has a display to list the patch. Thats it. Kurzweils "display" is not much
bigger and tries to cram all the business of an option filled workstation into
it.....lol.
>\\
>Well of course it is...you've got maybe a tenth (or less) of the
>parameters to deal with.\\
Yet it still sounds so much better........
\\ Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
>Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could),\\
Ooops....you just ran into a brick wall called MOSS.
-Muskie
Lee Sebel
And I'm guessing there are still parameters you've yet to explore even
after 5 or 6 years. Definitely the sign of an outdated synth. NOT!!!
Lee Sebel
<dNmOcS...@NmOfSmP.cAoMm> wrote:
> Jon Drukman wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 05:17:06 GMT, Muskie <arv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >Right.....thats why Trinity's dont have to go into the shop every six
> > >months like the Kurz.....
> >
> > My K2000RS has been powered on almost continually since 1995
> > and it has never gone to any kind of shop.
>
> I wish I had your luck. My K2vx decided to stop booting one
> day and then it spent four months in Sweetwater Sound's repair
> shop waiting for a replacement main board. Fortunately it
> was still under warranty, and fortunately music is just a hobby
> for me. I imagine anybody trying to make a living from this
> gear would need to to have spares of everything critical.
>
> I like my K2vx a lot. Eventually I might get a K2600 or
> whatever the successor will be when I feel like buying another
> instrument. The KB3 mode sounds tempting, as does the ribbon
> controller, more polyphony, and 88 keys.
>
> What do the Kurzweil users here recommend for a K2***
> patch editor/librarian program? It would be nice to have
> something that could work with every kind of Kurzweil
> object, including sequences, drum kits, samples, etc.
Sound Diver from Emagic is the way to go. They do a good job of staying
on top of Kurzweil updates, which have occured faster than some coders
could keep up with (can you say Opcode?!?)
> Despite all the talk of how wonderful the Kurzweil interface
> is, to a spoiled computer user like me it seems like a giant
> step backwards to have to edit dozens of parameters by poking
> through tiny menus on a ridiculously small LCD.
Agreed...but I have become quite comfortable with the K as I had a long
period between a version of Galaxy that worked and the latest version of
Sound Diver.
> And let's not
> even talk about entering file names by dialing letters with
> the alpha wheel. When I saw that on the Kurzweil video tape,
> I kept waiting for the announcer to say "Hey, just kidding."
> Does anybody actually do that?
I use the 10-key pad for naming files...much quicker than the wheel.
And they implemented Keyboard Naming for K2500 a couple of system
revisions back which lets you enter letters and numbers by hitting
different keys. Chris Martirano, Kurz product development guru can fly
with that one...
>
> That's not to knock Kurzweil. My Roland XP-30 has an even
> more paleolithic interface. It seems even more obtuse,
> modeful, and unobvious than Kurzweil's.
Great adjectives! And very applicable to most synths on the market.
> I don't know why
> these vendors don't just put a standard PC keyboard jack
> on their instruments. How hard could that be? Then at least
> you'd be able to type. I guess they assume 99% of their
> customers won't do anything more than play the presets.
This and video monitor outputs have always been at the top of most feature
wish lists. Probably a combination of money (hardware parts add
significantly to the cost) and the fact that you can do it with ed/lib
software, making the need for the feature less critical.
>
> -- the Danimal
Lee Sebel
(Muskie) wrote:
>
>
> \\ Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
> >Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could),\\
>
>
>
>
> Ooops....you just ran into a brick wall called MOSS.
WRONG! MOSS does not come close to VAST in terms of signal processing
potential, nor does any other hardware synth engine.
Even being generous and calling each different MOSS model an algorithm, it
does not scratch the surface.
VAST v1.0 (K2500) offers 31 synthesis algorithms, most which support
multiple choices for DSP functions. This offers more than 47,000 possible
DSP paths that can be configured for processing audio data, and Kurz will
read from a much larger audio library than Korg, so the sound generating
potential is much greater.
VAST envelopes generally have at least one more stage than the
competition's, so the ability to shape sounds is more capable. And nobody
offers anything remotely resembling function generators, which are
essentially algebraic equations used in mixing and manipulating
controllers.
VAST 2.0 as implemented in K2600 adds more than 90 algorithms, designed to
be used in triple modular mode. This yields another 27,000+ DSP
configurations before you factor in the multiple DSP blocks available in
those 90+ algorithms.
You do the math...
And when you consider that KDFX (optional on 2500, standard in 2600) seems
almost as deep as VAST (even before the recent FX upgrade), with more
individual parameters than many subtractive synths, you have a hardware
sound creation tool that is broader and deeper than any other yet
available.
I have no problems with you opinions...you like Korg better than Kurz and
you don't like Stevie Wonder. Fine. Opinions are like
sphincters...everyone has one and 99.9% of them stink!
But before you enter into debate with anyone, much less a synth expert
with 25 years experience and an international clientele of major recording
artists, you should get your facts straight.
Dave Bryce
of use". Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could), it
is relatively easier to use, and capable of a much broader range of sounds
than any subtractive synth. >>
Lee,
While I admire your enthusiasm for the Kurzweil product (which is extrremely
understandable given the amount of toime that you spent as a product specialist
and rep for the company) it might be a good idea for you to stop quoting facts
about Andromeda, since this is now the second time that I have had to correct
your "facts". Unless I am sadly mistaken, you have not had the opportunity to
spend any time on an Andromeda, nor have you gotten to delve into it's editing
capabilities.
For your information, Andromeda is an amazingly powerful synthesizer, possesing
many of the capabilities that the Kurzweil engine does. While I happily admit
that it is not as flexible as the VAST engine, it can do a bunch of things
that the VAST engine can't - produce a pure analog tone, for starters...
Andromeda also has a fully programmable tracking generator and a series of
higher math functions that allow it to do many of the things that are
achievable using the FUNs. Once again, admittedly, the FUNs are more powerful
- but since the majority of Kurzweil owners that I've ever met don't go
anywhere near the FUNs, it may be kind of a moot point.
<<Well of course it is...you've got maybe a tenth (or less) of the
parameters to deal with.>>
Once again, you need to become better informed. I suggest that you have no
idea how many parameters Andromeda has, and I guarantee you that there's quite
a few more than you think.
I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm for the Kurzweil product. As a former
product specialist for Kurzweil myself, I too am quite fond of the VAST synths
- they are insanely powerful, and the fact that they still sell proves that
have withstood the test of time. However, your arguments may hold more water
if you base them on fact, or at the very least refrain from discussing products
about which you are uninformed.
dB
-------------------
Check out the Keyboard Corner
www.musicplayer.com
Lee Sebel
daveb...@aol.comnospam (Dave Bryce) wrote:
> << Please note that in all my responses I have used the phrase "relative ease
> of use". Given that the VAST engine is insanely more powerful than either
> Nord or Andromeda (can you say function generators? I knew you could), it
> is relatively easier to use, and capable of a much broader range of sounds
> than any subtractive synth. >>
>
> Lee,
>
> While I admire your enthusiasm for the Kurzweil product (which is extrremely
> understandable given the amount of toime that you spent as a product
specialist
> and rep for the company) it might be a good idea for you to stop quoting facts
> about Andromeda, since this is now the second time that I have had to correct
> your "facts". Unless I am sadly mistaken, you have not had the
opportunity to
> spend any time on an Andromeda, nor have you gotten to delve into it's editing
> capabilities.
Well, starting with your excellent presentations for Alesis at trade
shows, and in my travels through my territory and on the web, I have spent
more than a fair amount of time investigating Andromeda. What synth nut
wouldn't?
And while you may feel you are correcting me, VAST offers considerably
more audio processing potential than Andromeda. You said so as quoted
below. So my statement was factual, if a bit hyperbolic. Passion will do
that to you...I know...I've seen you in action!
> For your information, Andromeda is an amazingly powerful synthesizer,
possesing
> many of the capabilities that the Kurzweil engine does. While I happily admit
> that it is not as flexible as the VAST engine, it can do a bunch of things
> that the VAST engine can't - produce a pure analog tone, for starters...
I wouldn't expect Alesis to release anything that wasn't powerful.
Considering the architecture of the QS series is based on Oberheim's
Matrix stuff, arguably the most powerful engine pre-VAST, I'd be surprised
if they chose not to expand on that in Andromeda.
>
> Andromeda also has a fully programmable tracking generator and a series of
> higher math functions that allow it to do many of the things that are
> achievable using the FUNs. Once again, admittedly, the FUNs are more powerful
> - but since the majority of Kurzweil owners that I've ever met don't go
> anywhere near the FUNs, it may be kind of a moot point.
I can live with that...I've barely scratched the surface of them myself.
But FUNs do exist, and they are more wicked than anything else I know when
it comes to mangling controllers and sources. And they are certainly
evident in the factory programs thanks to the likes of Daniel Fisher and
others who have a thorough understanding of how they can be applied.
And if someone is going to enter into a comparison between synths, they
must be mentioned. Especially when someone is touting a synth that has
nothing remotely close in its feature set (Triton).
>
> <<Well of course it is...you've got maybe a tenth (or less) of the
> parameters to deal with.>>
>
> Once again, you need to become better informed. I suggest that you have no
> idea how many parameters Andromeda has, and I guarantee you that there's quite
> a few more than you think.
Can I give you an exact count...no. I would hope that you could
considering your involvement with the product.
And my comment was directed in general, not specifically at Andromeda. If
anything, Andromeda (and Nord for that matter) should have been expunged
from the thread a while back.
The "discussion" turned into a Triton/Kurz thing with comments directed at
other workstations. As neither the Nord nor Andromeda fit that niche it
was inappropriate for me to leave them in the thread. And it was poor
posting on my part to not delineate which synths were the target of which
comments.
> I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm for the Kurzweil product. As a former
> product specialist for Kurzweil myself, I too am quite fond of the VAST synths
> - they are insanely powerful, and the fact that they still sell proves that
> have withstood the test of time. However, your arguments may hold more water
> if you base them on fact, or at the very least refrain from discussing >
>products
> about which you are uninformed.
Well, I don't consider myself uninformed about any of the mentioned
synths. I own Nord and Kurz, and I've worked with Trinity and Triton on
the odd studio date.
While not an Andromeda expert I have enough time investigating it to know
that my comments were not inaccurate...if anything I may be guilty of
hyperbole, defending Kurz to someone who truly was uninformed about the
synth they were discussing.
If I had said "considerably less" as opposed to "a tenth (or less)"
<referring to Nord, not Andromeda> my parameter comment would have been
indisputable.
You basically supported my comments above: FUNs do more than the advanced
elements in Andromeda, VAST is deeper and broader than any other hardware
engine and "insanely powerful".
If my posts came off as knocking Andromeda that was certainly not my
intent. It's one of the best sounding synths I've heard, and definitely
has the coolest looking control panel. Given it's capabilities and
Alesis' ability to effectively market and support a niche-killing product
it is well on its way to becoming a classic.
Meanwhile I'm guessing that Korg are well on their way to producing some
other silver touchscreen synth starting with "Tr" and Roland are working
on the next version of the XV series, even though their current ad
campaign calls it the "ultimate". Apparently their marketing personnel
forgot that ultimate means "last".
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Miles Bader
> VAST 2.0 as implemented in K2600 adds more than 90 algorithms, designed to
> be used in triple modular mode. This yields another 27,000+ DSP
> configurations before you factor in the multiple DSP blocks available in
> those 90+ algorithms.
> You do the math...
This is a pointless comparison. The Kurzweil `algorithm' system is a
reasonable way to save DSP power (by only allowing precalculated,
hardwired layouts, they can can optimize each of those layouts), but
many of the algorithms are redundant from the user's point of view, and
they are (or, were on the K2000, I've never used a K2500/K2600) for the
most part easily achievable on a powerful VA synth like the Q (which
also has audio-rate modulation paths).
If you want to point out the power of VAST, I think it's better to point
out those DSP blocks that are unique to the K2x series.
> And nobody offers anything remotely resembling function generators,
> which are essentially algebraic equations used in mixing and
> manipulating controllers.
The modulation matrix on some Waldorf synths allows functional
combinations similar to the Kurzweil FUNs.
[I've not mentioned the Clavia Nord Modular, but of course, from the
programmer's point of view, it takes flexibility to a completely new
level.]
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Lee Sebel wrote:
> Even a K2000 with an older slower Motorola 68000 can
> still play Pong while the sequencer is playing a full blown tune, with no
> lag or stutter whatsoever.
Wow - what a monster! Seriously ... do you remember the discussion on Compuserve
forum
where you took part as a Kurzweil enthusiast (if I remember correctly)? When I had
my K2500RS I complained about the fact that it wasn't tight when sequencing drum
arrangements, and that without any Pong running. First everything was of course
denied by Kurzweil - later confirmed.
The Kurzweil was never a satisfying instrument for me, soundwise or in ergonomics.
Digital implementation was/is poor. Has the KDFX still a 48 Khz fixed rate with
SRC for other
sampling rates? If yes ... you get the picture.
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Lee Sebel wrote:
> Properly equipped (i.e. with sampling option) a K2600 (in a studio
> environment) offers UNLIMITED polyphony and UNLIMITED effects.
>
> With Korg and Roland, because of their architecture (and their inability
> to resample while playing)
You must be out of real production situations. If you do music for a
film or other big projects you don't want to take the time to resample your
48 voices. It's just a necessary convenience to have hundreds of voices
for layering and alike. Resampling is for me a method for creating new sounds
but not a substitution for 'real' polyphony.
> Anyone who thinks a Kurz is a bitch to program has not thoroughly
> investigated the editing features.
Yes, count me in. I managed to operate my Kyma or the sigfile editor for
my DSP4000 etc., but I barely got something usefull out of the K2500RS I had.
Of course, problems are always on the user side - a Kurzweil can't be wrong.
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Dave Bryce
and in my travels through my territory and on the web, I have spent more than a
fair amount of time investigating Andromeda. What synth nut wouldn't? >>
Since the first Andromeda units only shipped last Friday, I was under the
impression that pretty much no one had ever gotten a chance to familiarize
themselves enough with Andy's OS and feature set to make the type of comments
that you were making as authoritatively as you were making them except for the
beta team (who are all under non-disclosure agreements). I commend you on your
ability to have done so.
<< While not an Andromeda expert I have enough time investigating it to know
that my comments were not inaccurate >>
I'd be curious to hear any of the methodology and/or results of your
investigating that led you to these conclusions.
<< If I had said "considerably less" as opposed to "a tenth (or less)"
<referring to Nord, not Andromeda> my parameter comment would have been
indisputable. >>
Actually, it still would have. I might have even taken issue with "less"
without any adjective at all. My point is not which has more parameters...it
is that you do not know how many parameters Andy has. You can't, man - the
engineers were still adding them last month - there's parameters I haven't even
found yet!. Trust me, Lee - I have an Andromeda sitting right over a Kurz -
Andy has waaaaaay more editable parameters than you think, and can do things
that would knock your socks off..
<< Meanwhile I'm guessing that Korg are well on their way to producing some
other silver touchscreen synth starting with "Tr" and Roland are working on the
next version of the XV series, even though their current ad campaign calls it
the "ultimate". Apparently their marketing personnel forgot that ultimate
means "last". >>
Sorry, Lee, but I'm not going to join you in busting the Triton since I think
it's a very cool synth with an excellent and facile UI and the best arpeggiator
that I've ever played with; nor will I bust the Roland stuff...sure, they've
been rehashing the same platform for years - so has Kurz. Big deal. It works
- they sell synths. LOTS of synths. So does Korg - especially the Triton,
which I believe outsold just about every other synth last year hands down.
Relax, dude - the VAST synths are really powerful, and many people know it.
You don't have to belittle anyone who says that they like something else, or
feels a need to support their choice. There's lots of great synths...
...plus, the true mark of a musical instrument's power lies in its ability to
satisfy its owner. There are just some people who don't dig the Kurzweil
thing, and are happier with other pieces of gear. They're not wrong.
Muskie
processing
> potential, nor does any other hardware synth engine.\\
The MOSS programming is incerdibly deep, and does things VAST can't do.
\\> VAST v1.0 (K2500) offers 31 synthesis algorithms, most which support
> multiple choices for DSP functions. This offers more than 47,000
possible
> DSP paths that can be configured for processing audio data, and Kurz
will
> read from a much larger audio library than Korg, so the sound
generating
> potential is much greater.
>
> VAST envelopes generally have at least one more stage than the
> competition's, so the ability to shape sounds is more capable. And
nobody
> offers anything remotely resembling function generators, which are
> essentially algebraic equations used in mixing and manipulating
> controllers.
>
> VAST 2.0 as implemented in K2600 adds more than 90 algorithms,
designed to
> be used in triple modular mode. This yields another 27,000+ DSP
> configurations before you factor in the multiple DSP blocks available
in
> those 90+ algorithms.
> You do the math...\\
Are you done reading from the brochure yet?
\\
> And when you consider that KDFX (optional on 2500, standard in 2600)
seems
> almost as deep as VAST (even before the recent FX upgrade), with more
> individual parameters than many subtractive synths, you have a
hardware
> sound creation tool that is broader and deeper than any other yet
> available.\\
The Triton standard EFX are BETTER than KDFX. Like you say, they are to
be considered another programming aspect of the synth.
\\> But before you enter into debate with anyone, much less a synth
expert
> with 25 years experience and an international clientele of major
recording
> artists, you should get your facts straight.\\
Doesn't everyone eventually make a product that goes to major recording
artists? Catchup makers, shoe makers in China sweat shops, John Q.
Public at the Tyvek factory..... I don't see any of them bragging.
Some Guy
<snip>
> Despite the Kurzweil's many parameters, there are many things that
> e.g. the Q can do that the Kurzweils can never touch, and in my
> experience, most VAs get a lot more mileage out of what parameters
they
> *do* have. In other words, the Kurz has many more parameters, but
each
> parameter in the VAs typically does more (i.e., can change the
character
> of the sound more).
<snip>
This is also how I feel about VAs. I'd rather have a knob for every
parameter than tons of buried menus. All the parameters in the world
don't mean a thing if you have to jump through hoops to access them.
Workstations do more to hamper my creativity than anything else.
David W. Bertoni
wa...@werowley.freeserve.co.uk wrote on 12/16/00 3:39 PM:
> Yes, quite possibly the best synth engine in existence... :)
>
> I admit they are pricey, as are the upgrades. But I have used and heard
> a variety of synths and samplers, and in my experience (and opinion)
> none sound finer. Besides, the K2x00 range are not just samplers, they
> also house what is arguably the most powerful, versatile (and complex)
> synth architecture there is - VAST! If all you want is a sampler, look
> elsewhere, but don't dismiss the Kurz just because of price - I for one
> think it is well worth it!
>
> Wayne
>
> In article <20001216145637...@ng-co1.aol.com>, Josh Lawrence
> <hardb...@aol.comnojunk> writes
>> In all the research I've been doing on samplers recently, I've noticed
>> something about Kurzweil: the specs just don't compete with what's out
>> there.
>> Low polyphony, extremely high price, and everything that you would want is an
>> expensive option/upgrade. Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Josh
>> Josh Lawrence
>> (Remove "nojunk" from email address before responding!)
>
> ------------------------
> Wayne Rowley
>
> wa...@werowley.freeserve.co.uk
> wa...@booty.demon.co.uk
>
> http://www.mp3.com/WayneRowley
Sorry, but EMU, in my humble opinion, blows the Kurz away in terms of sound
quality, ease of use, and reliability.
Ø. J. Eide
> my K2500RS I complained about the fact that it wasn't tight when
sequencing drum
> arrangements, and that without any Pong running. First everything was of
course
> denied by Kurzweil - later confirmed.
Hmmm, is this true? Do the Kurz really suffer from poor timing?
Nirto Karsten Fischer
"Ř. J. Eide" wrote:
> "Nirto Karsten Fischer"
>
> > my K2500RS I complained about the fact that it wasn't tight when
> sequencing drum<
> Hmmm, is this true? Do the Kurz really suffer from poor timing?
Some years ago when I had the K2500RS quite new I compared it to the timing of
AKAI S1100 after hearing some strange slope in K2500 MIDI timing.
This is what I wrote Thursday, July 20, 1995:
>>>I have bought a K-2500R and did some tests about it's performance. I've
doubled a simple 16 note snare drum track and played it very fast and there
was a bad timing to encounter on the 2500. You need only simple tempos like
120-150 bpm to hear clear phasings between the doubled notes. In comparison I
played it back on an AKAI S-1100 and it was no problem, as expected, up to
very fast tempos. Why is the timing so lousy? Are there any plans to improve
the timing in the future? At the moment I would not program grooves with it,
which have to be tight, and I really like very tight grooves (g).<<<
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote other persons from this past discussion,
so I don't. But the speculation was in DSP processing sacrificing MIDI timing
somewhat. All this was not really confirmed by the Kurzweil rep as I now saw
in my archives, but he came up with the idea of reducing DSP processing (which
wasn't involved) so confirming in a way my (and others) suspicions that the
K2500 may be underpowered for giving out voices in a tight timing grid.
At least this is for me history now as I sold my Kurzweil around two years ago
and I can't speak about later software revisions.
I suspect similar problems on other brand samplers/synthesizers too. My goal
was to stop the irrational praise and sales pitch of Kurzweil instruments from
the well known Kuzweil fan.
Nirto Karsten Fischer
Ø. J. Eide
news:3A63CA09...@compuserve.com...
I see. Hmm, well, I'd love to know if the K2600 suffers from the same
problem(s). A friend of mine is looking to sell his Akai sampler to buy one,
and he's really into the whole beat programming thing, so if this is true
I'm afraid he's making a big mistake.
Nirto Karsten Fischer
"Ř. J. Eide" wrote:
> A friend of mine is looking to sell his Akai sampler to buy one,
> and he's really into the whole beat programming thing, so if this is true
> I'm afraid he's making a big mistake.
As a lot of people pointed out, the MPC series of AKAI has a very good timing -
I use a MPC2000 myself quite often to program basic groove tracks. One of the
most important things for tight MIDI timing IMO is to spread the MIDI load over
several instruments/samplers via multiple MIDI outputs.
Nirto Karsten Fischer
The Number 23
if the MIDI interface doesn't share bandwidth between the ports. I.e., it
provides a dedicated 31250 bps MIDI stream for each of the outs, not just a
shared 31250 bps for all the outs and a control bit to designate which out
port the MIDI message is destined.
Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to check which method a MIDI interface
uses, short of using my ears.
-Brian
"Nirto Karsten Fischer" <forced...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3A64EA2B...@compuserve.com...
Nirto Karsten Fischer
The Number 23 wrote:
> It would make sense to spread the load via multiple MIDI outputs, but only
> if the MIDI interface doesn't share bandwidth between the ports.
I assume the old Opcode Studio 5LXs I use do exactly this. For sequencing I use
two of them networked and connected to both serial ports of a MAC. Of course the
new interfaces with 'time stamp' technology are very appealing. Unfortunately
there is no current interface (I know of) that can be stacked in the way these
old Opcode interfaces can do. After a misleading info from EMAGIC I bought four
of their AMT interfaces to substitute two of my 5LX. They failed because of the
fact they just merge the inputs in groups of eight (A1+B1, A2+B2 etc.) so I
cannot route freely as I'm used to. Furthermore they have a massive bug
concerning sending larger sysex packets at the same time they receive them on
inputs (limited sysex routing). I had to reinstall my old 5LXs.
Anyway ... the 'time stamping' technology sounds very good to me for further
balancing the MIDI out load. But unfortunately no way for me at the moment.
Nirto Karsten Fischer