twiceduo,

notice what i said:

one of the FEW places the AUDYA is not available
(MAYBE the only place)

the words FEW and MAYBE were used for a reason,

Friend, i'll repeat again, stop listening to lies, noone in here knows better then AJ and me
where and when is the Audya released and as of now its not oficially released anywhere,
except on their website, nowhere else. I use harsh words cuz it makes me sick to my stomach
how certain people in here are ignorants and liars and how others are naive like hell. Its a bunch
of people having nothing else to do and just talking nonsense in here, nothing else.
As for compression, i dont know about Ratio and numbers, i am stupid but i know for a fact that
Audya loads only 96MB real life Waves into 64 MB Ketron RAM, now you figure out the Ratio.
Yes, you can take 96MB of waves and load into 64MB RAM.
And no, i am not deffending Ketron, it just happened for me to have the opportunity to have more
inside information on Korg and Ketron and i can only share what i am alowed to share.

Nedim,

i guess Portugal and Italy all got the UNOFFICIAL version of the AUDYA.

i would be mad as hell

oh, and as far as being able to load 96mb into 64mb of RAM,
that equates to a 1.5:1 ratio, NOT quite the 12:1 ratio that AJ mentioned

Bro, as i said, i am too stupid for quotations and calculations and numbers, it was never my
thing, all i know is that 64MB on AUDYA equals
96MB real life Wave files.

That leaves it short by 672 MB going on the official word from AJ's and his 12:1

I think he was “slightly” off....lol

I cant speak of AJ, he explained to me today what he meant by 12:1 but i didnt understand.

What did he say to you because your test proves him wrong.

Just repeat back exactly what he said and I'll work it out myself.

Regards.
James.

James, AJ told me about 96MB too, not only me but i cant remember what technically he told me
about the compression Ratio, i dont remember none
of it, he said its 12:1 but not loose, he explained but i am dumb...lol.

Thanks for that.
12:1 = 96MB is mathematically impossible and the two things he is saying are in complete conflict with each other.

Take his 12 and stick a decimal point in between the 1 and the 2 and you get for the first time a realistic figure that mathematically balances perfectly.

My bet is that the compression is at it's worst is 1.2:1 when loading lost of small files, and at it's best 1.5:1 when using longer samples.

And it just so happens 1.5:1 = 96MB which is in line with the test you just did.

lol... could it be that all this was just because AJ thought is was looking at 12 instead of 1.2

Regards.
James.

1.2 or 12
what's the difference? :-)
just a decimal