Why is all the talk about G70‘s, Tyros‘s, Korg PA’s (once in a while) and Ketron’s (once in a greater while) and no talk of the Korg Oasys on this forum? I tried one a few years back and thought it was the Roll-Royce of keyboards if only for the sounds of acoustic instruments. I didn't spend a lot of time on it because it was $8,000 at the time. I understand the technology is now in the Korg M3 workstation. I'm sure it must be improved even over the years.

I'll eventually get time to stop at GC and try it out again (the M3), but in the meantime I'm wondering what you folks who are familiar with it think about the acoustic instrument sounds (guitars, horns, pianos, etc) with this Korg platform?

Lucky

Its not an arranger?

...maybe also because it has been discontinued as of July 2008. What a piece of technology that ... was ahead of it's time.

Truly, it was far more than an arranger, PROVIDED you had plenty of time to tweak it..Multiple Karma engines meant you could really get some spectacular arranger type things happening, as it also recognised chordal structures. But it needed a lot of work..Nothing O.O.T.B about the Oasys

Sad to hear it has been discontinued, but not surprising considering the price!!

Dennis

PS Lucky, I was THAT close to going for the M3 module over the PA2x. It was the "ready-made" ease of the PA2x that won me over in the end.


[This message has been edited by miden (edited 06-28-2008).]

Might have to keep an eye out for one..being discontinued might mean some bargains to be had

I thought it was awesome too, but the price................


Sheesh!

Why it as been discontinued?
Will they continue fix the full open bugs or they have stopped the OS developements too?
What happen now with the all old Oasys clients? No more OS support??

Korg ran out of hardware parts to create more units...

Expect an OASYS 2 with better/faster hardware and downwards compatible OS.

Great instrument it was, the only current produced hardware instruemnt to come close to vst quallity. (but then it actually was just another software synth)

Part of the myth of 'open' keyboards is this assumption that, once you buy the hardware, software will keep it contemporary into the far future...

Now, I don't know about you, but I keep a fairly careful eye on the state of audio software and computers. I've been using them for decades now (well, over one decade, anyway!). And probably the first thing you learn is, it doesn't matter how powerful a computer you have, someone WILL make a program that taxes it beyond it's capabilities. This is especially true when it comes to VSTi's.

The realtime generation of synth and sampler sounds, with programming FAR in excess of hardware capabilities comes at a price. That price is the need for the latest computer hardware, and the latest computer OS's. This is what all the 'open' users like to forget about (or rarely discuss, at least). Both of our most vocal 'open' arranger users here (abacus and Fran) admit that their hardware needs upgrading considerably before they can even run the CURRENT OS and VSTi's, yet alone any future ones. So much for 'open'....

The Oasys has, I think, fallen into the same hole, touting itself as 'open' but without an easy processor upgrade path, not to mention all the periphery hardware. At it's highly elevated cost, it's users were expecting just a bit more than the 'Triton on steroids" they got... There has been next to no groundbreaking software added to the system, and bugs have been extremely slow to squash. And, for a fraction of the price, anyone can put together a computer system with hardware synths that not only rivals it's sound, but is FAR more easily upgradeable.

Let's face it, folks... What on earth is the point of putting DAW capabilities in a hardware unit? The entire industry has gone software. Pro-Tools rules the roost, with Cubase, Sonor and Logic vying for the 'composer' field. All of these programs dwarf ANY hardware's capabilities, at a fraction of the cost. The Oasys (and I believe the FantomG and other DAW equipped keyboards) are trying to address a market that just doesn't exist. Anyone worth their salt is working with computers, and the remaining computer-phobic wannabes are not a big enough market segment to allow continuing development of hardware (a far more costly endeavor than writing software).

It is time for keyboard manufacturers to concentrate on making the best KEYBOARD they can, not a keyboard/DAW/VSTi host hybrid that will always be outperformed by separate components.

The Oasys was a great concept although poorly executed. The synth sounds were phenomenal but as a whole I wouldn't classify it as a usable workstation. The sequencer and audio recorder were merely afterthoughts and because Korg used a 16 BIT sound card for the audio with limited track count, it couldn't be remedied without a hardware change.

Korg's inability to do significant software changes other than adding some new sound engines wasn't enough to make it what it should have been from the onset. As an Oasys owner who became disgruntled with Korg's lack of software support and bug fixes, I sold my Oasys in hope that one day they'd get it right and I'd jump back on board. Now it seems that will never happen.

I doubt there will ever be an Oasys II as the Oasys itself didn't sell well and in this business it's a numbers game. Now Korg will use variations of the Oasys technology in many other Korg products to recoup their R&D costs.

[This message has been edited by Ensnareyou (edited 06-29-2008).]

.

[This message has been edited by Ensnareyou (edited 06-29-2008).]

That is very true. However, if a keyboard manufacturer makes a keyboard, whether an arranger or a workstation, and the hardware is able to be upgraded along with the software then theoretically you could stay current technology wise for years into the future. Or at the very least, until you decided to sell it. That was the problem with the OASYS in my opinion, in that it was not upgradeable in every aspect and area of the hardware. Take a look at your computer on the other hand. If it is a white box i.e. (open architecture and pieced together using custom parts) you can theoretically achieve the same goal by replacing and (upgrading) parts when necessary, and consequently, to continue to stay current regarding cutting edge computer technology, well into the future. Some things on the OASYS were upgradeable but Korg's mistake was in not making the OASYS "fully" hardware upgradable. I think Korg or any other keyboard manufacturer could make out like hogan's goat if they decided to produce such a beast. First of all, since the concept would be considered revolutionary in its ability to stay fresh and cutting edge, it would demand a higher premium for its initial cost(s). Additionally, they would also make major bucks selling the upgradeable parts to product owners, especially if they were able to do it on a large mass scale, depending of course on how well the concept caught on and how many people eventually buy into the concept.

Openlabs and Lionstrac are leaning in that direction but as far as their products being able to be "fully" customized by being able to be "fully" hardware upgradable, I'm not sure. If there were one, two, or possibly other additional parts that couldn't be replaced by being upgraded by the owner, then needless to say they would eventually have to fork over big bucks for a whole new unit somewhere down the line. Because like you said, software would eventually bring it to its knees if some of the hardware parts couldn't be upgraded to stay current with the future advancement of software technology.

Of course all of the product customization and hardware upgradableness to the "nth degree for eons into the future" will not mean a hill of beans if the thing doesn't sound good. Just as location is the epitomy in Real Estate, sound is the epitomy in a keyboard. Everything else pales in comparison, including the ability to "fully" upgrade a product (both hardware and software) well into the future.

Best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 06-29-2008).]

The Oasys project was not so much about selling as it was about marketing and development..

The technicall knowledge gained with Oasys will be the core of the future Korg products for the next ten years to come...


People complaining about the medicore DAW functions in Korg don't grasp the product... Oasys was all about sounds and KARMA...

Absolutely!! +1

Dennis

And to go further, I reckon Korg put a whole lot of concepts in the oasys JUST to see how they would work out (the M3 is a result of that experiment)..

And hey, they managed to sell a few as well..I don't see Stephen Kay going anyhwere in a hurry, so methinks there is more to come, much more...

Dennis

[This message has been edited by miden (edited 06-29-2008).]

Hi Mike
Not sure where you have been for the last 8 years or so, but a product that is both hardware and software upgradeable has been on the market for that long already.
They also sell without problems to pretty much anybody that tries one. (How many manufactures do you know that builds the board to the owner’s requirements?)
The downside is that being a small company, there is a limited amount of dealers, making the ability to try the product difficult in some parts of the world.
Still if you ever get the chance, try one, do so, as while not a 100% certainty, most folks that do, fall in love with them. (Figuratively speaking)
Enjoy life; choose the best board for YOUR needs, not others.

Bill

Right, if you're talking about Wersi products, there's simply NO WAY to tray one in Italy.... nobody here trades them.

Are our concerns misdirected? Maybe we should be less obsessed with technology and more concerned with improving our playing skills. Great players trump great technology every time. Think about which (performer vs technology) you go to see when you go to an entertainment venue.

chas

Your right, its not an Arranger, its a proffesional synthesizer/workstation, played by

Pete Townshend (The Who)
Tuomas Holopainen - Nightwish
Jordan Rudess - Dream Theater
Keith Emerson - Emerson Lake and Palmer, Keith Emerson Band
Tony Banks - Genesis
Greg Phillinganes - session keyboardist, now playing with Toto
Herbie Hancock
Chuck Leavell - The Rolling Stones
Sly Stone
Derek Sherinian
Michael Cretu - Enigma
John Paul Jones-- at 2007 reunion of Led Zeppelin
Murray Gold -Doctor Who composer (2005-?)

Household namse here I had an O.A.S.Y.S. last year, as i grew "out" of arrangers, as (for me, at least) having most of the work done for you with the flick of a button didn't appeal. Don't get me wrong, arrangers are useful tools, with plenty of musicians on these forum who use them VERY WELL(scott yee, Andrea(dreamer) Uncle dave TonyW (hi mate)!. and lots of others

However, i was brought up in a pianistic family, and was encouraged to do more for my self, than the instrument for me. With the oasys, you have many of the sounds of the arrangers, (better sounds IMO -as the Oasys has 2 gig of ram to play with, as well as the EXi instruments). The "Brass" ex is superb, for example.

I'm not sure wether the oasys is being discontinued, but it;s changed the way i approach music nowadays, and this instrument really inspires me to create" music", and with the oasys, you do have the tools in which to create.

Hope everyones keeping well on these forums, and keep making music that YOU love to make

Regards

Anthony



[This message has been edited by Jupitar5 (edited 06-30-2008).]

All of those names will happily be playing the NEXT whiz-bang keyboard that they get for free (or heavily discounted) and someone else will be touting their using it as justification for how good it is.

What will prove it to be a classic is whether anyone is still playing it twenty years later...

Hammond B3
Rhodes
Wurli
Minimoog
Prophet5
Fairlight CMI
CP70

THESE are 'classics'... an instrument barely out of production has a LONG way to go before it makes that list.

FWIW, The audio I/O system is 24-bit, not 16-bit, and is a custom Korg design. The track count is determined solely in software, and not by the audio I/O.

------------------
Product Manager, Korg R&D

[This message has been edited by Dan Phillips (edited 06-30-2008).]

I agree: it's reasonable to maintain some level of skepticism regarding endorsements.

On the other hand, to my knowledge, almost no-one has received an OASYS for free. Jordan Rudess, for instance, is on record as having sold a good amount of gear to afford his several OASYS keyboards. Even at an endorsee discount (which may not be as heavy as you'd imagine), the OASYS is not a casual purchase...and that's about the best real endorsement that a piece of gear can have.

Nice to see someone from the home office making an appearance...

Skepticism at marketing is an essential tool for survival in the US, Dan.. As I said, these artists' commitment to this instrument will be displayed in the next few years, as they continue to play it while newer, more powerful instruments come out.

And, while we have you here, how about some confirmation as to the Oasys's demise, and whether there is an Oasys MkII in the works, or has Korg bailed on the $8000+ keyboard market...?

It must definitely be hard to be making hardware items such as this in the days of software and multi-core computer CPU's

...and as also noted previously, some might say that a level of commitment has already been demonstrated by paying for the instrument with their own hard-earned cash!



I think you're savvy enough to not expect answers to questions about future product plans. :-)



The tricks are to make instruments with technically superior algorithms, resulting in noticeably better audio quality; to make those algorithms and their environment computationally efficient, so that the musician isn't significantly hampered by performance limitations; and to create sounds which use those algorithms and our hardware controllers to good musical effect. We are fortunate to have many good people working for Korg, and can make all of that happen.

------------------
Product Manager, Korg R&D

Thanks for your input Dan. It is really good to see a Korg person here, so welcome.

I have to agree that its the products that artists PAY for that gives the recommendation, not that they get it for free.

I remember reading somewhere the story about Rudess and what he went through to get the Oasys which made me sit up and take notice of it, and research it for a replacement 'board. In the end it only came down to money.

It was even used in a couple of top ten hits (including a number one) out here with a band called Rogue Traders, and the keys guy from that band also bought one, it wasn't given to him.

People cannot, in my view, compare hardware instruments from a totally different era, GREAT as they are, to a modern DAW instrument like the Oasys. It is chalk and cheese.

It would be like comparing baseball teams (I cannot use cricket, 'cause you blokes over there probably don't know about that game!!!) from now to those in the 30's and 40's, both great in their era, but impossible to compare for a "which is better" contest as there are SO many variables.

Stephen Kay (in association with Korg) has come up with a super keyboard, (although he already did that with the Karma) even though I couldn't afford it.

One immediate legacy I can think of is the M3 series from Korg. As I said previously, I was a hair away from buying it over the PA2xpro.

Anyway, enough of that, again good to see you on board Dan and I hope you can frequent the forum in an on-going and regular way.

Cheers
Dennis

Well, on the whole, I'm not that concerned whether the guys at the top of the pyramid pay for their gear or not. Let's face it, Jorden Rudess is probably making enough to afford whatever he wants, discount or no...

But to compare hardware to software is pretty difficult, these days. The lead time on bringing a hardware keyboard to market is such that it always guarantees that it is a generation behind computers in sheer horsepower, not to mention the peripherals that seem to get changed on a monthly basis If you add that to the software innovations like Mega-triggering or rules-based sample triggering, that require massive HDs, streaming samples, and load times a fraction of any hardware system, and hybrid sound generation that is only limited by your soundcard (24/96, anyone?), you can see what a struggle it is to make a keyboard with even a fraction of a well-tuned computer system's capabilities...

But to get back to an earlier point... I can see the point in making a keyboard with highly adaptable sound generation capabilities, but let us not forget what these things are really needed for. It isn't the studio, where computers rule. It is for LIVE music making. As such, can ANYONE explain to me why on earth you try to put a DAW inside a live music keyboard?

Why waste the R&D money on shoe-horning a capability that, firstly, everybody with the money for an $8000+ keyboard already HAS a far better DAW if they need one, and secondly has virtually no use in a live keyboard (unless you plan on doing karaoke with it! ).

You want to put something into a live keyboard we can use? How about a sampler that loads up at TODAY'S computer speeds, not something that takes minutes (that we don't have to spare) to load up the generous RAM. Gigabytes of Ram are USELESS when they take minutes (if not hours) to load up. Scrap the DAW. Give us a sampler we can use...

OASYS HDR records polyphony strapped Virus TI




That would be the OASYS, which loads as fast as a Pentium 4, 2.8 gighz. I can load 700megs of samples (Karo Strings) from internal HD, in 30 seconds. Try that on any other hardware workstation/sampler. I've experienced the sample loading extreme, from slow Yamaha A5000 to fast E-MU E4 loads. The OASYS smokes them.

The fast sample loading is also good for Songs, with audio tracks. Also, those audio tracks can be opened up and put in any sample slot.

The OASYS OS and ROM samples boot up slightly faster than my Toshiba dual core laptop (about 90 seconds). No different than load times from people taking computers on tour.

It is "computer fast". Like a computer, I would recommend battery backup (that you can get at Best Buy, Fry's, etc.) in case of an outage. I don't play live, but if I did, I would get one.

Dan,

So you're saying the audio recorder and its track count aren't on a dedicated Korg PCI card in the Oasys and not 16 BIT? It's my understanding the audio card for the recorder is 16 BIT and all audio recordings are 16 BIT at 48K but the D/A outputs of the Oasys are 24 bit. Even Korg's literature states the audio recorder is 16 BIT at 48K (see link below). When did those specs change to 24 BIT at a higher sample rate?

If the audio and track count aren't fixed by the PCI card why would Korg claim the Oasys to be 24 BIT yet make the audio recorder 16 BIT and only 16 tracks? That makes absolutely no sense. Korg needs to update their information on the Oasys if the audio recorder is now true 24 BIT which I doubt that it is.
http://www.korg.com/gear/prod_info.asp?A_PROD_NO=OASYS

The operative word is "CAN" the question is if they ever will make that happen? So far that hasn't happened yet and it's the primary reason I got rid of my Oasys. The Oasys is a phenomenal synthesizer with incredible build quality but hardly what I'd call a complete workstation. The audio recorder and sequencer are lackluster at best and were afterthoughts in my opinion. Being that the Oasys is computer based Korg could easily have made a custom DAW/Sequencer combo that was similar to top brand competitors but they didn't. Why? Korg should have just sold the Oasys as a real time performance synthesizer which it is but I doubt many people would pay $8000.00 for that.

I owned an Oasys and Korg could have kept me as an Oasys user had they only updated the software to make it a viable workstation. That never happened and instead Korg chose to add new EXi banks rather than functionality. I saw the writing on the wall much like I did with Yamaha and the 9000 Pro so I moved on to greener pastures while the grass was still green. Now it seems the Oasys may be discontinued which most likely means little to no future software development. Only time will tell.

(duplicate post)

[This message has been edited by Dan Phillips (edited 06-30-2008).]

and



I just did an informal load-time test.

I started with software. Reason loads 497 MB in 31 seconds (16.03 MB/sec). Pretty fast!

I remember when I first bought my e6400, many years ago now, and how impressed I was with its fast load times. It loads 128 MB in 46 seconds (2.78 MB/sec). Much slower than Reason, as you predict above.

Then, I tried the OASYS. It loaded 464 MB in 31 seconds (14.97 MB/sec), almost as fast as Reason, and more than 5x faster than the e6400.

An advantage to the workstation approach is that, in comparison to even my streaming software instruments, changing sounds on the OASYS generally takes no time at all (since usually, the samples are already loaded - if the sounds use samples in the first place; I use the synth parts of the OASYS quite heavily).



and



In my experience, the opposite is the case. For instance, I know of two software instruments that deliver approximately equivalent sound quality to the OASYS: NI's Massive (on its highest quality setting), and Wayoutware's TimeWARP. Even on powerful computers, these deliver only a handful of notes. Compare this to OASYS's 172 voices of HD-1, PolysixEX, or CX-3, and 96 voices of AL-1.

It's also worth noting that higher sample rates may improve the sound quality of less sophisticated synth and effects algorithms, but they are no guarantee of superior performance. As has been noted in the past, the OASYS outperforms many other hardware and software instruments, including those which use higher sample rates, in various objective ways (such as the maximum resonant frequency of the modeled VA filters).

Aliasing oscillators are another frequent problem with digital synths, software and hardware alike. This can be reduced by using higher sample rates, but it is more effectively and (in my opinion) elegantly addressed by improving the algorithms themselves, as evidenced by the OASYS's extremely low aliasing even at a "mere" 48kHz.

There's also the OASYS's dynamic resource allocation between different synthesis algorithms, with protection against CPU overload glitches - something that no software system offers, as far as I know.



This is an understandable opinion, but not necessarily a universal one. For instance, I have a fairly well-appointed home studio (see http://www.danphillips.com/equipment.htm ). While I own several software synths and samplers, and enjoy them for various reasons, at the moment the only one I use frequently is Stylus RMX, which is really great for working with drum loops. My OASYS handles most of the synth duties, since in my opinion, it generally sounds better than the alternatives.

I've worked with people who did demo tracks using large streaming software libraries, and then switched to using OASYS sounds instead when they brought the tracks to my studio.



For backing tracks, for instance - very common in otherwise "live" performance.

While many people, including myself, use a computer-based DAW system, there are many others who want to separate their music-making from the computer; this is in strong evidence on the Korg Forums, for instance.

[edited, again, to remove weird copy/paste problem from the start of the message]

[This message has been edited by Dan Phillips (edited 06-30-2008).]

Scoopicman... Didn't realize that with respect to sample load times. Very cool. Of course, not reason enough for an $8000+ keyboard, but at least it's a start. I haven't heard anything about THAT technology trickling down to the M3, though. BTW, will the Oasys play while it loads? That's another thing all samplers should work on...

And sorry, but an $8000+ keyboard to record a sub-$2000 keyboard's sounds on, rather than an $800 laptop seems an extravagance. I could have an Oasys in front of me right now. It would still not persuade me to use it instead of a pro DAW. Just the quality of the plug-ins (I use UAD-1 cards for non-native stuff) and range of choice can't be matched by hardware, yet alone the 24 bit recording issues...

NIce if you have one, but I'll stick to more affordable superior alternatives, if you don't mind...

That's correct. Audio recording is handled by the main CPU system, along with the rest of the synths and effects.



I think two points became conflated here. I was responding to your statement that the OASYS was limited by a 16-bit sound card; this is not the case.

However, you're absolutely correct that the samples and audio recording are 16-bit. These are the only parts of the system which are 16-bit; all synthesis and effects processing (filters, amps, mixers, VA oscillators, physical models, etc.), including any processing of samples and audio tracks, is done at 32-bit floating point or better. A/D and D/A are 24-bit.



------------------
Dan Phillips
Product Manager, Korg R&D

Interesting - I just tried another set of samples, 709 MB, and they loaded in 32 seconds - only one second more than the previous test of ~460 MB, and 22.15 MB/sec. I think the load time must vary depending on the number of samples, as well as the size in MB; thinking about it, that makes some sense.



------------------
Dan Phillips
Product Manager, Korg R&D

Dan... an $8000+ keyboard to play a linear two track file? A $1600 PSR can do that.

And yes, while you CAN use an Oasys as a DAW and VSTi alternative, let's be realistic. I haven't seen one ProTools facility give up their HD Accel cards and Apogee converters, etc., to go the workstation route.

It just strikes me as neither flesh nor fowl. Neither powerful enough to replace a pro DAW (it's a pro price, it should have been a pro DAW), nor stripped down enough to act as a simple track playback for a live show. On the whole, a pro-priced piece of kit is going to end up in the hands of pros. Who already HAVE ProTools, or Logic or Cubase4, etc.. Why waste the R&D money on something 99% of all it's likely owners will already have something far superior?

Oasys2.... do away with the DAW. A simple two track player with markers will suffice. Then drop the $1500 all this programming must have cost you. $6500 sounds a LOT more affordable...

In fact, make a sampler that loads at Oasys speeds. Make it Akai compatible. One rack space, 128 voices. Clean up BIGTIME!

Yes, you can play while loading. BTW, $800 awful cheap for a laptop that will actually do anything, and the Virus TI keyboard is not sub $2K - Sweetwater and Musicians' Friend list it at $3,560. I think I've fallen prey to conspicuous consumption! (Sorry, I can't have my Virus value demeaned.)

Only KARMA and the HD-1 (ROMpler) architecture have passed on to the M3. It doesn't have Wave Sequencing and the other synth engines.

Anyway, I have Sonar 6, but have not recorded a song on it. I keep it as backup, as I intend to use it, someday. In the meantime, I'm one of those who uses hardware sequencers/recorders.

I know there have been complaints, but I'm one of the people who actually like the OASYS' sequencer/HDR. The fact that you can bus any track into a synth engine is one cool aspect of the bus system. I use the Vocoder, sequencer and bus system a little differently than your typical robot jox:

Voice controlled Choir

What I often like to do is setup 2 or 3 keyboards and just jam - laying down a soundscape. (you need at least 2 keyboards to do the riff for "Enjoy The Silence", so a DAW won't solve that for me. ha ha!) Anyway, the OASYS has Multi-Rec (not found on a lot of hardware, at least), which allows you to record up to 20 tracks (16 MIDI, 4 audio), simultaneously. For the 3 keyboards, I can record them, sing along - hear it all through the L/R outputs, but record what I want to isolated record busses.

Obviously, I've heard some outstanding work done with Logic and other DAWs. There's no denying that. As some of you know, better recordings may require multiple computers and sample libraries. I just asked someone what he was using and this was his reply:



That's a lot of dongles! (and money) I have 4 computers, including a dual Xeon beast. I'm not technology shy, but when it comes to music, I like to sit at a keyboard or two and do everything right there. I'm more likely to fix a part by physically replaying it, than editing - though I do both. I actually like the direction that keyboards, like the Roland Fantom G are taking (OS-wise).

See, I wasn't pulling your chain! I've been saying that, since I bought the String library, about 2 years ago.

I'm not sure what's intended by the above. You had asked why one might want audio recording on a workstation, and speculated that this would be useless in live situations; I explained that there are users who want non-computer music workstations, and that there are also uses in live situations for backing tracks (which aren't necessarily only two track files, btw).

I think it's clear that one would not by an OASYS for the audio recording feature alone. Indeed, as I've said, I don't personally use its audio recording or sequencing at all, other than for testing purposes; I use Digital Performer, and frequently talk about using the OASYS within the context of a larger studio.
I expect that most people, instead, buy it for its unique sounds and synthesis capabilities. That's certainly what I personally value about the instrument!



I'm nothing if not realistic. :-) I've been making professional music instruments for almost twenty years, and I use them in my own music as well. I don't think anyone at Korg has ever implied that a DAW studio would ditch their computer and use an OASYS instead; certainly I have never said anything like that. On the other hand, every serious Pro Tools facility I've seen uses hardware synths and outboard gear alongside their computer systems.

Btw - the idea of an OASYS as a "VSTi alternative" made me chuckle. :-)



I don't understand why audio playback features would have to be stripped down in order to make them applicable for live use. Just press play and you're good to go...



If you look around the net a bit, I think you'll find that there are many semi-pros and hobbyists, as well.



Users say that they want audio playback in their workstations, which is presumably why Korg has offered this feature for many years (dating back to the Trinity, in the mid-1990s), and why Roland offers it in their workstations as well.

One advantage of the OASYS system is that since the hardware already includes a hard drive, audio I/O, and a CPU, the DAW features cost only software engineering time. Which leads smoothly into...



While I can't get into details, that's probably more than the entire cost for the software as a whole, of which the DAW features were a fairly small portion. As has been discussed elsewhere, the prices of all Korg hardware products, including the OASYS, are based primarily on the cost of the hardware components.

------------------
Dan Phillips
Product Manager, Korg R&D

[This message has been edited by Dan Phillips (edited 06-30-2008).]

Well, biggest fault of Korg...


They did not make the OASYS harware (CPU, RAM, mainboard) upgradable... so they ended up with a less open system.

Wersi is much better on track, as both software system and hardware are open and still growing and developing.

Mediastation on the same way..but I think we are more fast for developing and add new features.

fortunally, we don't have the sampler loading time issue like this all keyboards, because we use the Streaming technology:
Steinway D grand, 1680Mb loaded with SATA-2 HD. 9 seconds!
500/600Mb single instrumens about 4 second.
less than 100Mb instruments in about 0.5 second.

Dan wrote:
In my experience, the opposite is the case. For instance, I know of two software instruments that deliver approximately equivalent sound quality to the OASYS: NI's Massive (on its highest quality setting), and Wayoutware's TimeWARP. Even on powerful computers, these deliver only a handful of notes. Compare this to OASYS's 172 voices of HD-1, PolysixEX, or CX-3, and 96 voices of AL-1.

well..for me the NI Massive and Galaxy M51 are the two VST that can compete with the all Oasys sounds: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/gui2007/m51galaxy.jpg http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/2008/massive.jpg
Here no problems about Voice, because we can just upgrade the CPU to Quad core and Up to 16Gb RAM, then we can hosting a lot of this VST in realtime: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/information_pages.php?info_id=24

The PLUS now of mediastation is the Multiple ASIO Host support:
Under Single Host, ( up to 10 now)we can just press one MS KEY and the new ASIO host will be recalled and then switch patches are all in realtime.

New MS COMBI 3.0 manager: can forward the midi Outs to the all JACK Midi IN available, inlcuding the 10 ASIO host, just by the simple COMBI interface without use the Mouse and PC keyboard.
Added also the single GIGA Loader for each Layer, it mean that now in each COMBI Patch is possible loading the desidered GIGA file from the whole GIGA library.
With this new feature under COMBI we are now allowed to play in realtime UP to 8 layered zone with velocity switch feature and MIX each layer with the sounds take from the 10 ASIO host and GIGA library installed.
All in realtime by pressing one patch key, NO waiting time for loading!
It mean:all the keyboards now are smoked out.
IF the NI Massive and some other VST together can be compared with the Oasys...now with 10 ASIO Host and COMBI GIGA loader...

remain the DAW issue...
Qranger is a simple BUT amazing Audio-midi SEQ, unlimited on tracks, Full integrated on the MS engine and pannel keys features.
Qranger can be used like one Arranger styles player, BUT can be used under SEQ mode too, without Chords table.
It mean that we are allowed to compose standard songs DAW session BUT always controlled by the MS keys features Patterns markers.
IF is not enough is also available the Ardour:http://ardour.org/
Finally, really soon the 64studio developers will release the new Mediastation OS, based on the new Kubuntu 8.0: http://kubuntu.org/

This mean a Open system keyboard and the MS don't need to be discontinued at all..is only software and PC hardware parts to upgrade.

I'm not talk bad about the Oasys, because my partners already buy 2 Oasys too and I know well how is working: http://mediarec.it/

Enjoy what you play

Chas,

Verrrrrry interesting.....that no one took the opportunity to explore what you said here!

Lucky

Because it's been done to death!!

Yes...you're absolutely right! I'm real tired of reading the numerous postings here about "improving our playing skills." It's going into overkill. Every other post here (no...I meant 1 out of 2) reeks with patter about how we should concentrate on playing first and instrument technology second. Don't folks get tired of talking about actually making music as compared to keyboard talk? C'mon now, stop with this flood of dribble about how you make your music when I really want to hear more about keyboards!

Lucky backs up at this point to remove his tongue from his cheek and proceeds to read the Oasys reports!

Lucky

LOL!

Guess it all depends on where your interest is, DESIGNING keyboards.....or PLAYING them.

chas

And in closing, how does the technology that was introduced with the Oasys translate into an Arranger Keyboard? I own the Pa2xpro. I owned then returned the Korg M3. Both of those have chipsets with Oasys lineage.

However, there are not many features of the Oasys that have propagated to the Pa2 other than maybe the fidelity of the chip and some of the soundset.

If you look at Yamaha for a second, they tend to create their sound chips for the Arranger first, then roll that technology into the workstation; IMHO. The Tyros 2 introduced Super Articulation and a sound chip that was not yet available in the Motif series. Does this mean the the Arranger product lines outsell workstations?

I would love to hear Korg's take on R&D philosophy when it comes to arrangers vs. workstations and how the two teams either play nice or not at all.

------------------
Al Giordano
http://www.arrangerworld.com


Korg Pa2xpro, Roland VK8-M, DW Collectors Series Drums, Roland TD-12 Vdrums, Roland SPD-S.

Al, I had been seriously considering getting a Korg M3 (the thinking being that I'd get a 'poor man's' Oasys). Can you descripe briefly your ownership experience and say why you decided not to keep it.

Thanks,

chas

The Pa2xPro and the M3 share a chipset, but the OASYS hardware is completely different. It doesn't use a Korg chipset for audio at all; instead, it is entirely based on software running on the P4 CPU. One of the OASYS synthesis engines, the HD-1, was designed to be similar to the M3's chipset (which was in development at the same time as the OASYS), and in many ways sounds similar.

However, the HD-1 also offers various advantages over its chipset-based siblings, including faster & smoother envelopes, LFOs, etc., lossless compression of sample data, improved sample transposition, wave sequencing, per-voice vector, etc.

The software-based nature of the OASYS allows completely different synthesis engines to be implemented, as well. In the OASYS, these are called Expansion Instruments (EXi). These EXi include a tonewheel organ model, a plucked string physical model, a waveshaping/FM/PCM-processing modular synth, and three VA synths with different oscillators and filters. One of these VA synths is called the AL-1.

The RADIAS synth board, available as an option for the M3, includes as one of its synth types a VA oscillator based on the AL-1, although without the AL-1's low-aliasing oscillator sync. Some of the filters are also similar.



Our teams work together as much as possible.

Best regards,

Dan

Hey Chas,

In many ways I loved the M3. The case, style, and ergonomics were smart and beautiful. I had been a Triton/Triton extreme owner previously so I knew the keyboard history very well.

I was hoping the M3 would bring with it a sensational Piano. I didn't find that to be the case. In order to get a decent Piano sound out of the M3, I had to bit-fiddle with the multi-samples and filtering. Some of the sounds were phenomenal, but the variety and selection quantity was quite low, especially compared to the well appointed TE76. I had felt the value was an issue at the time. Korg have since released many new banks of sounds for the M3 that were not available when I had it.

The other reason I was looking to the M3 was for the Karma features. The website demos at Karma-Lab blew me away. I had lot's of fun playing with those. However, I really didn't see myself as a Karma author, just a user.

So in the end I decided to go for the Pa2xpro which has almost the same look and feel as the M3, same chipset, but with arranger functions rather than Karma. The two boards really compliment each other very well.

That's my short version.
Al

[This message has been edited by kbrkr (edited 07-02-2008).]

Just curious, but did the Oasys's speed of sample loading make it down to the M3?

How many MB/sec can you load up in one of those?

BTW, this is one of those specs which ought to be on ALL sampler spec pages. It is one of the most fundamental things for a live sampler user (that, and whether it goes dead while you load).

Thanks, Al. Even your 'short version', coming from a actual user/pro musician, is more valuable to me than pages of 'specs'. I have a PA1xPro and a Triton but felt that the newer M3 technology, including Karma, would dramatically enhance my available sound palette. I doubt if I'd ever take it out of my little home studio. Glad you mentioned the release of new sound banks for it. That may still make it a contender.

Thanks again,

chas

chas, you did know that, if you have a Triton, the Karma engine is available in software from Karma-Labs, to run on a computer?

BTW, tried the M3, was very underwhelmed by it... flimsy knobs, VERY unreliable triggering off the pads, sounds that, other than in a Karma preset, were not what you would expect for being an entire generation away from the Triton.

I think I'm going to wait until the NEXT Korg generation, and keep using my Triton

Diki,

Have you tried the Fantom G? It is on my list, but I just can't seem to get to the music shop. That also has some mixed reviews. I was hoping they would include a really dynamite piano patch ala the Fantom-X or R-700sx.

It's on my list to audition.
Al

------------------
Al Giordano
http://www.arrangerworld.com


Korg Pa2xpro, Roland VK8-M, DW Collectors Series Drums, Roland TD-12 Vdrums, Roland SPD-S.

Diki, thanks. I was aware of the 'add-on' Karma package but just never really investigated it, don't know why. BTW, I love my Triton. In fact, despite it's age, I still prefer it for lots of stuff (like el. piano) over all my other synths (including Roland Sonicell, Motif ES). It just sounds fatter and somehow more playable to me. Probably just personal taste.

On the M3, I'll drive in for a listen, but I think you two guys may have just saved me a few bucks. My resolution this year was to not succumb to gearlustitis. Of course I may have to distance myself from the influence of Capt. Russ who seems to be starting a Noah's Ark for keyboards .

chas

Dan,
I wanted to e-mail you off list with a very important question on the M3/PA2. Looks like you don't have that otion on your profile.

Please e-mail me of list here.

Thanks,
Lee

My group works on the OASYS, so I'm not the one to contact about the M3 or the PA series. Your national Korg distributor should be able to help:
http://www.korg.co.jp/English/Distributors/

Best regards,

Dan

Yeah, chas... props to the old Triton. Still a contender, definitely my go to axe if I'm trying to sound 'radio'.

Plus, that Wurli patch, although nothing like a real one, is still deliciously playable

First, the Oasys is as a live as ever. It does not need a hardware upgrade, sorry folks you are dead wrong.

The Oasys knoks down any vst. synt on the market today. You make it, the o will do it better.

There will be an Os upgrade again, bigger than any other they have ever come up with.

And for those that keeps telling that the O is dead...If Korg did´nt say it, then it´s bullshit...and you know it.

The O will be even stronger than it already is. And Korg can build on it for years.
It´s Linux based...Means it is SO overpowered with what it only has today.

Having owned a Oasys I can say first hand it was by no means the mother of all workstations. As a real time performance synthesizer it was fantastic but the sequencer and audio recorder were a joke considering the relative cost of the Oasys. Korg could easily have fixed much of this with software updates but sadly that never happened. Instead Korg chose to dedicate software updates to new sound sets and a few bug fixes here and there. In a few years time you'd think Korg would have made the Oasys the powerstation it could have been but that never came to fruition.

Contrary to what you wrote the Oasys is hardly overpowered and would require a hardware upgrade in order for it to add extensive features that currently aren't present. While some software updates aren't CPU or RAM intensive certain functions are and would seriously hinder the Oasys without a hardware upgrade. That's true for any instrument that tries to run such CPU intense code be it Linux or Windows based. In the world of computer based software emulation there is no such thing as overpowered.

As for the Oasys knocking down any VST synth. Give the Sonic Core/Creamware products a listen running dedicated VST's. This combination is easily the most realistic emulation of analog instruments I've heard to date. The dynamic range and tone are second only to the analog synths they emulate. The same can't be said for most VST's.

There probably will be a new Oasys in the future but it won't be a software update for the existing Oasys. Korg will most likely introduce an entirely new system based on newer architecture rendering the old Oasys a rhelic although a usable one at that.




[This message has been edited by Ensnareyou (edited 09-24-2008).]

I see lots of talk about technical reasons for poor selling volumes and discontinuing Korg Oasys but in my opinion Oasys ended up like this not because of hardware of software, but because of its concept.

When it came out, it was marketed as studio-in-a-keyboard, so you wont need another keyboard, or DAW, or anything else from studio, to record your own song. But the problem was the following:

- the price was so high you had to sell your studio to get the Oasys

- those that didn't have studio of their own where not able to afford Oasys

- the ones that could afford it didn't need it's DAW capabilities because they already had (better) one in studio

- really the most intriguing part of the Oasys was Karma engine and multiple sound generation engines, almost everything else was kind of 'dead load'

So what actually happened, there was simply no market big enough for that kind of the concept of the keyboard. If you need a keyboard you will buy one, if you need studio you will build one, but no one buys the keyboard to have studio, or build studio to have keyboard.

I purchased a Triton Studio 76 from Guitar Center...with in a couple weeks I traded it to DanO for a new in the box Roland VR760...and a smile...

Triton to this day does not impress me..I even liked my Fantom X6 better than the Triton....and that had to go.....I will take a top arranger any day over a "workstation"...

In regard to your statements above:

I don't feel the price of the Oasys was "so high you had to sell your studio to afford it". I have microphones that cost much more than the Oasys. The cost of the Oasys also doesn't compare to most of my outboard gear.

I do agree that many couldn't afford the Oasys but that was never Korg's intention to make it a mass market product. Korg never intended to or expected to sell tens of thousands of Oasys keyboards although had that happened they'd have been ecstatic. Ferrari doesn't expect to sell hundreds of thousands of cars and these types of items are made for but a select few. Why then should anyone expect an $8,000.00+ instrument to be a runaway sales success?

I completely disagree with your statement that those that owned a studio didn't need the Oasys to have DAW features because we already had a better one in the studio. Had the Oasys matched my studio DAW then I could have easily transported the Oasys with me to gigs, other recording sessions, and when I traveled to compose while I was away from my studio. Unfortunately the Oasys failed on that level and I was left with no choice but to sell it. I sold the Oasys hoping Korg would come through some day on its promise of a software update to the sequencer and audio recorder but so far that hasn't happened and likely never will.

When I keep an instrument it has to meet my expectations on many levels. On a synthesis level the Oasys truly shined. As a real time controller the Oasys was quite good there as well. As an all in one solution that I could compose with, sequence, record audio, lock to code, and mix a finished track, the Oasys fell seriously short. I could have easily justified the cost had the Oasys met all my expectation but as a glorified Karma Synth for $8,000, my money was better spent elsewhere.

The Oasys did and will continue to spawn products that utilize similar technology and for that I commend Korg. I'd love to see new software developed for the Oasys but Korg will most likely develop and entirely new product rather than update one on an older platform.

Well, at least the M3 has benefited from the trickle down... Now that the Oasys seems off the page, about 650MB of sound sets developed for the Oasys are being given away FOR FREE to lucky M3 owners.

I will try to review one of these expanded M3's soon, and see if the additional sounds (although still no mention of how long it would take to actually LOAD them) make the difference. I still was shocked at how flimsy the knobs, sliders and especially the pads felt, though. Looks like Korg are taking a leaf out of the Yamaha arranger playbook... make it SOUND good, but make sure it won't hold up for ten years under heavy use.

In the meantime, I'm still shocked that anyone would prefer to use a lo-res tiny touchscreen to do entire audio/MIDI production on, rather than a glorious 30" hi-res computer display. No school like the old school, I guess...

Ensnareyou,

I was 'a little bit' ironic when compared the price of Oasys to the price of studio. Of course it wasn't that much expensive, but still it was really expensive.

For 8.000,00 USD you could buy 3-4 different top-of-the-line synths that cover most of the Oasys sonic capabilities (although Karma engine would still be missing).

Also, for that amount of money you could buy PC/laptop with enough software (sequencer,VSTi...) to rival Oasys (again without Karma).

As for the expectation to have DAW capabilities on keyboard to match DAW capabilities of studio equipment (or even software DAW) I doubt it will happen soon. Big screen, computer keyboard and the mouse combined with good MIDI/DAW controller are much easier to use then anything a synth keyboard could offer.

I'am not saying that Oasys was bad product, it was really great keyboard, but they should have stick to the Karma and different sound engines, and throw out everything that doesn't belong to the keyboard.

While you could buy a PC/Laptop and load it with VST's that would rival most of the sound capabilities of the Oasys, it would not be possible to put together a PC/Laptop that could match the real time performance controls and GUI integration of the Oasys. That's a big selling point for the Oasys.

If the Oasys were truly "Open" then Korg could have bundled the Oasys with professional grade DAW software such as Cubase or Logic and that would have taken care of the DAW problem. Wersi has included Cubase with their OAS system for many years and those who use it see the power an all in one package can offer.

The Oasys does have the capability to utilize a mouse and a larger screen (the hardware exists inside the Oasys for these features), Korg just didn't make that hardware accessible to the end user. Korg has done everything in their power to claim the Oasys is open ended but Korg kept it closed by only utilizing Korg software and Korg updates. Korg could have taken Wersi, Lionstracs, and Open Labs queue and offered a much more open ended system that would have significantly benefitted the end user but they chose not to. The reasoning for that is highly questionable but I'm sure greed had a lot to do with it. If you control every aspect of the instrument then any additional software must be purchased through the manufacturer and not a third party.