No, it's not. I just made it as part of the review. I was aiming to assess how good this synth was at doing a 2 osc classic analog 80s bass. It sounded good, but I ended up adding a 3rd osc providing a triangle wave as a sub, just to give it a bit more low-end grunt..
If a choas pad can.model a ball circling around a pad, why don't they allow a flexible pad to vary it's shape to create a cone with adjustable pitched sides which can be dialed up or down in steepness, then propel a ball around... becoming even more interesting when considering the possibilities if using a steel ball on a slightly magnetically charged pad, sufficient to resist gravity, which could otherwise causing the ball to drop directly to the lowest point on the pad. Use of a stylus on such a pad could also be very interesting.
I glossed over this in the review, but there are several parameters to Kaoss. You can dial the height of the "bump" in the pad (negative and positive), you can control the friction of the pad's surface, you can set a tilt on the whole pad, you can determine if the walls surrounding the surface are padded or not... The list goes on. You can even modulate these parameters on the fly. It's a separate world of investigation on its own!
What I don't get is why Korg builds those rather complex synthesizers but includes neither Aftertouch nor a connector for an expression pedal. At the end of the day you have only 2 hands. There are also cheaper synths with AT or even Poly AT (ok, with mini keys, but still...)
Crazy that we've gotten to the level of gear snob that we now complain about what chip is in a digital synth.🙄 I'm sure if your music is lacking it's not this synths fault.
Beautiful sounding filter models on this one. I’ll wait for the plugin version though, as it’s 100% digital. And anyhow, these synths are best programmed on a computer. I have the Wavestate synth, I hope Korg adds these newer filter models to the Wavestate. The SEM would sound *so* good with Wavestate patches.
Regarding the VST in a box topic, here are my thoughts: To understand this i think of the time before VSTs were around, when actual hardware could only produce the best sounds, because of their dedicated chips. Then VSTs came on to the scene and I could hear the improvement. I didn't need a special soundcard or synth now to produce these high quality sounds anymore. But let's just understand what has actually happened. CPUs themselves have gotten powerful enough so that they can emulate electrical circuitry. The whole process now is in software and code, emulated at a certain resolution and complexity to be believable. Here's the thing though, it DOES matter. One is a simulation running inside a CPU (not an exact simulation either). The other, although they are digital chips, they are dedicated to what they do and as such have character and quirks. For example, take the sound chip inside the Amiga, it has a certain tone and brightness to it compared to say the sound chip in other computers. All this matters in my opinion to give the sound device it's uniqueness and also it's limitations too. True hardware synths back in the day were instruments that were set in stone once they were manufactured as you couldn't just add extra effects busses or extra oscillators to them because the dedicated chips in them are physical. With CPU generated sound, since it is an entire emulation of the synth circuitry running in software inside the CPU, then you could add whatever you want potentially such as extra effects and other alterations. Basically at that point it's important to realise what these new synths actually are, they are pure simulations of physical circuitry, not the true waveform. As a result I think they lack the characteristics of hardware synths. They don't perform like a physical instrument either with their quirks, tones, limitations and other hard qualities. I hear a lot of everything with these new synths but I don't hear their tone or nature, and that is because they don't have one.
Sorry to say so, but I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what 'sound' is. There are no good or bad synths, nor does 'good' or 'bad' sound exist. There is nothing such as a character of any given synth. Digital or analog. All these conclusions and descriptions are made, purely on personal findings and taste. There is to much bla bla around in this matter and I need to point out what is reality and science. For starters, there have been numerous (scientific!) blind tests that already long ago proved that people can not hear the difference between analog or digital sound. There is no such thing as 'warm' or 'cold' sound. There is no calibrated measurement possible of 'good' or 'bad sound' (like i.e. temperature) What you think to hear is purely concluded on your personal taste where as your sight (ooh look that analog synth...) influences what you think to hear!! Humans senses are connected and as oon as one of these senses is blinded or cut of, people start to hear different. Taste different, feel different. I started to play synths in the mid 70's. I've played and owned the most sought after analog synths. And digital. None of them was or currently is my favorite. I studied music production. I studied acoustics. Sound is conceived as 'good' by a listener as soon as the 'right' arrangement is played with it. There is a very simple theory that proves this. Almost all people will agree that a Steinway piano is a very high quality acoustic piano that is known for its best possible piano sound. If a talented pianist plays a piece of Mozart, apart from taste, many people will agree it sounds good, acceptable, nice or whatever you like to say about the piece you hear. If we take the same piano, and hit all 88 keys at the same time as hard as we can at a rate op 1000 bpm, what would the sound be like...? How would people experience this?? So please, think and study the acoustical, technical and musical science before you start saying things that are completely wrong...
However, nobody claimed it to be analog. He said it's an "analog modeling" synth, which is another term for "virtual analog". It is of course a digital emulation of an analog synth. But these can be very good these days and extremely close to a truly analog synth in sound, to the point where it can be really hard to tell them apart.
If you are waiting for Korg, Yamaha or Roland to bring something new to the synth world, you are VERY naive my friend. New things and innovation are already here, but from other companies and the big3 have lost people's respect in that aspect, a long time ago. Nowadays they are either making toys, or bad copies of their own machines of yesteryear. They have become so ridiculously sad, it hurts, to think that these companies used to be so big, once. Oh, how the mighty fall.. Such a pity..
@@thejollyjoker187The fact is…there are more hobbyists than actual producers and if you want to stay in business you need to make new gear for “the many” and every once in a while make gear “for the few”. The latter of which, sound wise, can be relevant for 20-30 years, with diminishing returns on connectivity and convenience as the years progress. The former, has a more upto date feature set, and keeps you relevant and in the black.
I still have my Mono/Poly purchased new in 83. This, is reminiscing and revolutionary ohmage to grandaddy! And I want one!
Great! Selling my original Mono/Poly was one of my regrets.
You have such an easy listening calm voice ...I'm actually paying attention lol ...great review...nice synth
I would love to hear a full song based on the intro. Can you make one, please? 😁
Korg nailed it with this one!
Seems like the perfect compact synth for my little studio project. Just this one synth instead of 3 others
And the price seems good for what you get
Excellent presentation of the Multi poly!
I subscribe because you deserve them.
Much appreciated!
Waiting for the module version...
Great work! It stopped so abruptly, I hope second look is close!
It is - subscribe and stand by!
4:29
Love that bass sound
Is it a stock preset?
No, it's not. I just made it as part of the review. I was aiming to assess how good this synth was at doing a 2 osc classic analog 80s bass. It sounded good, but I ended up adding a 3rd osc providing a triangle wave as a sub, just to give it a bit more low-end grunt..
Nice one
Good job Molsey!
If a choas pad can.model a ball circling around a pad, why don't they allow a flexible pad to vary it's shape to create a cone with adjustable pitched sides which can be dialed up or down in steepness, then propel a ball around... becoming even more interesting when considering the possibilities if using a steel ball on a slightly magnetically charged pad, sufficient to resist gravity, which could otherwise causing the ball to drop directly to the lowest point on the pad. Use of a stylus on such a pad could also be very interesting.
I glossed over this in the review, but there are several parameters to Kaoss. You can dial the height of the "bump" in the pad (negative and positive), you can control the friction of the pad's surface, you can set a tilt on the whole pad, you can determine if the walls surrounding the surface are padded or not... The list goes on. You can even modulate these parameters on the fly. It's a separate world of investigation on its own!
@deanwalliss8739 Thank you so much for explaining!
Desktop version please
Can I do a Hoover sound?
Cool
Great video and wonderful patches. Yours or Korgs?
Thanks! Mostly presets with a few of my own thrown in.
What I don't get is why Korg builds those rather complex synthesizers but includes neither Aftertouch nor a connector for an expression pedal. At the end of the day you have only 2 hands. There are also cheaper synths with AT or even Poly AT (ok, with mini keys, but still...)
Holiday..... Celebrate..
what is the boot time?
About 5 seconds. Similar to Opsix.
Does it have the multi or after touch keyboard?
Crazy that we've gotten to the level of gear snob that we now complain about what chip is in a digital synth.🙄
I'm sure if your music is lacking it's not this synths fault.
Should have had a 4 octave keyboard. At least.
If will be issued soon
Beautiful sounding filter models on this one. I’ll wait for the plugin version though, as it’s 100% digital. And anyhow, these synths are best programmed on a computer. I have the Wavestate synth, I hope Korg adds these newer filter models to the Wavestate. The SEM would sound *so* good with Wavestate patches.
Regarding the VST in a box topic, here are my thoughts:
To understand this i think of the time before VSTs were around, when actual hardware could only produce the best sounds, because of their dedicated chips. Then VSTs came on to the scene and I could hear the improvement. I didn't need a special soundcard or synth now to produce these high quality sounds anymore. But let's just understand what has actually happened. CPUs themselves have gotten powerful enough so that they can emulate electrical circuitry. The whole process now is in software and code, emulated at a certain resolution and complexity to be believable. Here's the thing though, it DOES matter. One is a simulation running inside a CPU (not an exact simulation either). The other, although they are digital chips, they are dedicated to what they do and as such have character and quirks. For example, take the sound chip inside the Amiga, it has a certain tone and brightness to it compared to say the sound chip in other computers. All this matters in my opinion to give the sound device it's uniqueness and also it's limitations too. True hardware synths back in the day were instruments that were set in stone once they were manufactured as you couldn't just add extra effects busses or extra oscillators to them because the dedicated chips in them are physical. With CPU generated sound, since it is an entire emulation of the synth circuitry running in software inside the CPU, then you could add whatever you want potentially such as extra effects and other alterations. Basically at that point it's important to realise what these new synths actually are, they are pure simulations of physical circuitry, not the true waveform. As a result I think they lack the characteristics of hardware synths. They don't perform like a physical instrument either with their quirks, tones, limitations and other hard qualities. I hear a lot of everything with these new synths but I don't hear their tone or nature, and that is because they don't have one.
Sorry to say so, but I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what 'sound' is. There are no good or bad synths, nor does 'good' or 'bad' sound exist. There is nothing such as a character of any given synth. Digital or analog. All these conclusions and descriptions are made, purely on personal findings and taste. There is to much bla bla around in this matter and I need to point out what is reality and science. For starters, there have been numerous (scientific!) blind tests that already long ago proved that people can not hear the difference between analog or digital sound. There is no such thing as 'warm' or 'cold' sound. There is no calibrated measurement possible of 'good' or 'bad sound' (like i.e. temperature) What you think to hear is purely concluded on your personal taste where as your sight (ooh look that analog synth...) influences what you think to hear!! Humans senses are connected and as oon as one of these senses is blinded or cut of, people start to hear different. Taste different, feel different. I started to play synths in the mid 70's. I've played and owned the most sought after analog synths. And digital. None of them was or currently is my favorite. I studied music production. I studied acoustics. Sound is conceived as 'good' by a listener as soon as the 'right' arrangement is played with it. There is a very simple theory that proves this. Almost all people will agree that a Steinway piano is a very high quality acoustic piano that is known for its best possible piano sound. If a talented pianist plays a piece of Mozart, apart from taste, many people will agree it sounds good, acceptable, nice or whatever you like to say about the piece you hear. If we take the same piano, and hit all 88 keys at the same time as hard as we can at a rate op 1000 bpm, what would the sound be like...? How would people experience this?? So please, think and study the acoustical, technical and musical science before you start saying things that are completely wrong...
It doesn't have 4 oscillators. It has 4 voices, each one has 4 oscillators, giving it a total of 16 oscillators.
Ok, yep. You got me. It's a 16-oscillator synth. 🙂
It has 60 note polyphony, each with 4 oscillators, so there might be up to 240 oscillators playing at the same time 😊
They just wont let go of the whole Kaoss thing lol
Have you tried a modwave with Kaoss Physics? I'd recommend it!
If is it virtual, it is'nt analog, man. And therefore it sounds digital. But all is well in this world of pigeons
However, nobody claimed it to be analog. He said it's an "analog modeling" synth, which is another term for "virtual analog". It is of course a digital emulation of an analog synth. But these can be very good these days and extremely close to a truly analog synth in sound, to the point where it can be really hard to tell them apart.
As the video was playing, I scrolled down and only listened to it, without watching. I couldn't stand the ugliness of this thing. Sounds good though..
All synths spund the same. There's nothing new.
They don't all sound the same
Not all synths 'spund' the same. They don't even sound the same either! Try comparing a DX7, Jupiter 8, Prophet 5 and a Kronos for a start!
If you are waiting for Korg, Yamaha or Roland to bring something new to the synth world, you are VERY naive my friend. New things and innovation are already here, but from other companies and the big3 have lost people's respect in that aspect, a long time ago. Nowadays they are either making toys, or bad copies of their own machines of yesteryear. They have become so ridiculously sad, it hurts, to think that these companies used to be so big, once. Oh, how the mighty fall.. Such a pity..
@@thejollyjoker187The fact is…there are more hobbyists than actual producers and if you want to stay in business you need to make new gear for “the many” and every once in a while make gear “for the few”. The latter of which, sound wise, can be relevant for 20-30 years, with diminishing returns on connectivity and convenience as the years progress. The former, has a more upto date feature set, and keeps you relevant and in the black.
@@digitaldiezel5870 That is absolutely correct. And so, quality drops as quantity rises, affecting both the gear makers and the music itself.
Such FAT sounds..................