Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-06-14 by yazzofever
The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old dw-8000. I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is that true? has anyone ever checked them out side by side? micah
2005-06-22 by Richard Brackin
My DW-8000 has only 16 waveforms and I've never compared them to the microkorg. yazzofever wrote:
> The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old dw-8000. > I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been > told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is > that true? > > has anyone ever checked them out side by side? > > micah > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Yahoo! Groups Links* > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DW8000/ > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > .
2005-06-22 by Stefan Rinass
yazzofever wrote: > The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old dw-8000. > I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been > told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is > that true? > > has anyone ever checked them out side by side? > Nop, the DW (i have the EX) sounds imo totally different compared to the KORG MS-2000 (which is nearly the same like the Microkorg). The DW sounds after all better, more "analogue" (who\ufffds surprised: the DW/EX -is- analogue, except the Wavetable-Oscillators, the MS2K/Microkorg has a (slow) DSP inside). Can\ufffdt understand why the MKorg/Ms2K should have 64 different "DW"-Waveforms; the original DW has 16 WF (together with OSC2=so seen 256 WF). The MKORG has so seen four Oscillators and the DW/EX 8000 eight. I think that the DWGS-Waveforms are rather unuseful on the newer machines, they\ufffdre imo only good for emulating weird organs. The MS2K/MKorg is good for short leads and effects while the DW has more its strenght in smooth strings/"emulating" flutes etc and -some- basslines and afterall it sounds more "fat". So they\ufffdre imo absolutely not comparable together. The MS2000-DSP-driven Synths from KORG are, referred to the sound, so seen "alone" between all other KORG Synths=>they sound good, but not like KORG (bcoz of this was the MS2K so seen a big flop, they wanted to produce a MS20-successor, but it didn\ufffdt succeed and the Microkorg/Legacy Pack is the rest of this era) . Ever heard a MS20, Polysix, Mono/Poly? I know, they are expensive (specially the MS 10/20, but i don\ufffdt know why the Polysix is nowadays such expensive=>it isn\ufffdt -that- special machine, as everyone believes!).... Greetings Stef
2005-06-26 by jezzthomas
//posted this a few days ago, but for some reason it did not get through// Not side by side, but I have owned a Polysix, a DW8000, played about with a MS2000 and currently own a DSS1 IMO, it's down to the filters. The MicroKorg is basically a MS2000 engine, and the MS2000 is basically a re-engineered MS20. It's sharp and bleepy. A very extreme filter, I think 2-pole. I've not owned any of these, but from playing about with them, I would say that they are very different beasts from a DW8000 The Polysix has a superbly smooth filter. IIRC, it's the same filter chips as a Prophet-5, and much better than it's close rival, the Juno60. The Juno has a better oscillator section though. Both the Juno and Polysix have rather distinctive sounds, and you can often hear both of them on albums recorded about 1982-3, notably Simple Minds' New Gold Dream. The DW8000 is a strange one. It's a complete failure at what it sets out to do - basically to use complex waveforms as the basis fo the sound instead of simple ones. The piano waveform for instance does not sound like a piano, and you don't have the control that you need to shape the sound into piano shape. The filter is on the weak side - it neither has the smothness of the polysix, or the nastyness of the MS20. But despite the failings of the DW range (I understand the DW6000 is just plain crap), the DW8000 does have a good (but again very distinctive) feel and sound to it. But it either works for you or not - It's a love it or hate it synth. The DSS1 is everything that the DW8000 wanted to be and wasn't. If you're familiar with a DW8000, you'll recognise most of the programming parameters, but inside, it's a different beast alltogether. You sample your own waveforms, the new-improved 2-4pole filter has all the qualities I loved in the Polysix, and it sounds fan-tas-tic, all this without really coloring the sound so you can tell what it is in a mix. Of all the older Korgs, the DSS1 is the one synth you just cannot argue with. It is awsome. I know that Korg included a lot of the old DW waveforms and then some on the MS2000, but they will sound different with the MS2000 filter - it's no substitute for a DW8000 --- In DW8000@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Rinass <st@r...> wrote: > yazzofever wrote: > > > The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old dw-8000. > > I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been > > told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is > > that true? > > > > has anyone ever checked them out side by side? > > > Nop, the DW (i have the EX) sounds imo totally different compared to the > KORG MS-2000 (which is nearly the same like the Microkorg). The DW > sounds after all better, more "analogue" (who�s surprised: the DW/EX > -is- analogue, except the Wavetable-Oscillators, the MS2K/Microkorg has > a (slow) DSP inside). Can�t understand why the MKorg/Ms2K should have 64 > different "DW"-Waveforms; the original DW has 16 WF (together with > OSC2=so seen 256 WF). The MKORG has so seen four Oscillators and the > DW/EX 8000 eight. > > I think that the DWGS-Waveforms are rather unuseful on the newer > machines, they�re imo only good for emulating weird organs. The > MS2K/MKorg is good for short leads and effects while the DW has more its > strenght in smooth strings/"emulating" flutes etc and -some- basslines > and afterall it sounds more "fat". So they�re imo absolutely not > comparable together. The MS2000-DSP-driven Synths from KORG are, > referred to the sound, so seen "alone" between all other KORG > Synths=>they sound good, but not like KORG (bcoz of this was the MS2K so
> seen a big flop, they wanted to produce a MS20-successor, but it didn�t > succeed and the Microkorg/Legacy Pack is the rest of this era) . Ever > heard a MS20, Polysix, Mono/Poly? I know, they are expensive (specially > the MS 10/20, but i don�t know why the Polysix is nowadays such > expensive=>it isn�t -that- special machine, as everyone believes!).... > > Greetings > > Stef
2005-07-12 by Stefan Rinass
I also own a DSS-1 and it\ufffds a quite cool machine, but imo too complex to handle/program. The problem of my DSS-1 are the disk loading errors, if one byte of the waveform isn\ufffdt loaded correctly, the entire Loop will be destroyed. That often appears on my "OBX-Strings"-Disk, which i mainly use. But overall is the sound of a DSS-1 very cool and very fat! Of course, the MS2000 is also so seen not bad, and one is able to do a lot of cool things with it, but it is -in my opinion- not "that" Synth, it has for me only a backround function. I mainly use it for re-programming interesting sounds of older songs, because it is almost easy and very simple with this machine and one comes very fast to a result (presupposed, one knows, how one has to deal with it). If I am content, then I (mostly) take over the parameters to another Synthesizer. The best analogue Synthesizer which i ever had was my Waldorf Pulse! It was hard to program and only monophonic, but it had -that- sound which i call "analogue": Hard, sharp, pressureful, in the mix penetrationable, absolutely not comparable to devices like DW\ufffds/MS2K! There was -really- no Bassline or Lead which i wasn\ufffdt able to re-program 1:1, the same, if the original sound was from a Moog/Arp/whatever. If Waldorf would ever have released a 8-Voice polyphonic Synth based on the Pulse, I would have bought it immediately! Greetings Stef jezzthomas wrote:
> //posted this a few days ago, but for some reason it did not get through// > > Not side by side, but I have owned a Polysix, a DW8000, played about > with a MS2000 and currently own a DSS1 > > IMO, it's down to the filters. > > The MicroKorg is basically a MS2000 engine, and the MS2000 is > basically a re-engineered MS20. It's sharp and bleepy. A very extreme > filter, I think 2-pole. I've not owned any of these, but from playing > about with them, I would say that they are very different beasts from > a DW8000 > > The Polysix has a superbly smooth filter. IIRC, it's the same filter > chips as a Prophet-5, and much better than it's close rival, the > Juno60. The Juno has a better oscillator section though. Both the Juno > and Polysix have rather distinctive sounds, and you can often hear > both of them on albums recorded about 1982-3, notably Simple Minds' > New Gold Dream. > > The DW8000 is a strange one. It's a complete failure at what it sets > out to do - basically to use complex waveforms as the basis fo the > sound instead of simple ones. The piano waveform for instance does not > sound like a piano, and you don't have the control that you need to > shape the sound into piano shape. The filter is on the weak side - it > neither has the smothness of the polysix, or the nastyness of the > MS20. But despite the failings of the DW range (I understand the > DW6000 is just plain crap), the DW8000 does have a good (but again > very distinctive) feel and sound to it. But it either works for you or > not - It's a love it or hate it synth. > > The DSS1 is everything that the DW8000 wanted to be and wasn't. If > you're familiar with a DW8000, you'll recognise most of the > programming parameters, but inside, it's a different beast > alltogether. You sample your own waveforms, the new-improved 2-4pole > filter has all the qualities I loved in the Polysix, and it sounds > fan-tas-tic, all this without really coloring the sound so you can > tell what it is in a mix. Of all the older Korgs, the DSS1 is the one > synth you just cannot argue with. It is awsome. > > I know that Korg included a lot of the old DW waveforms and then some > on the MS2000, but they will sound different with the MS2000 filter - > it's no substitute for a DW8000 > > --- In DW8000@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Rinass <st@r...> wrote: > > yazzofever wrote: > > > > > The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old > dw-8000. > > > I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been > > > told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is > > > that true? > > > > > > has anyone ever checked them out side by side? > > > > > Nop, the DW (i have the EX) sounds imo totally different compared to > the > > KORG MS-2000 (which is nearly the same like the Microkorg). The DW > > sounds after all better, more "analogue" (who\ufffds surprised: the DW/EX > > -is- analogue, except the Wavetable-Oscillators, the MS2K/Microkorg has > > a (slow) DSP inside). Can\ufffdt understand why the MKorg/Ms2K should > have 64 > > different "DW"-Waveforms; the original DW has 16 WF (together with > > OSC2=so seen 256 WF). The MKORG has so seen four Oscillators and the > > DW/EX 8000 eight. > > > > I think that the DWGS-Waveforms are rather unuseful on the newer > > machines, they\ufffdre imo only good for emulating weird organs. The > > MS2K/MKorg is good for short leads and effects while the DW has more > its > > strenght in smooth strings/"emulating" flutes etc and -some- basslines > > and afterall it sounds more "fat". So they\ufffdre imo absolutely not > > comparable together. The MS2000-DSP-driven Synths from KORG are, > > referred to the sound, so seen "alone" between all other KORG > > Synths=>they sound good, but not like KORG (bcoz of this was the > MS2K so > > seen a big flop, they wanted to produce a MS20-successor, but it > didn\ufffdt > > succeed and the Microkorg/Legacy Pack is the rest of this era) . Ever > > heard a MS20, Polysix, Mono/Poly? I know, they are expensive (specially > > the MS 10/20, but i don\ufffdt know why the Polysix is nowadays such > > expensive=>it isn\ufffdt -that- special machine, as everyone believes!).... > > > > Greetings > > > > Stef > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "DW8000 > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DW8000>" on the web. > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
2005-07-14 by Glen Stegner
--- In DW8000@yahoogroups.com, "jezzthomas" <jezosaurus@g...> wrote: > > The DW8000 is a strange one. [......] The filter is on the > weak side - it neither has the smothness of the polysix, or > the nastyness of the MS20. But despite the failings of the > DW range (I understand the DW6000 is just plain crap), the > DW8000 does have a good (but again very distinctive) feel > and sound to it. But it either works for you or not - It's > a love it or hate it synth. Well, I'd have to disagree with you on the DW-8000 filter, it's one of the saving graces of this synth. It may be quite different in character from the Polysix or MS-20 filters, but I wouldn't call it weak at all - I think it's a lot better sounding than the filters on the midrange Roland synths like the Juno's and JX's. It is capable of some really wicked self-oscillation, it is round and smooth, it squelches nicely without sounding too harsh. The DW-6000 is just a stripped-down 8000 - it has the same basic architecture but loses a lot of features available on the 8000, such as the digital delay, velocity and pressure sensitivity, arpeggiator, 8 additional waveforms, all of which make it a much more flexible synth. > The DSS1 is everything that the DW8000 wanted to be and wasn't. > If you're familiar with a DW8000, you'll recognise most of the > programming parameters, but inside, it's a different beast > alltogether. You sample your own waveforms, the new-improved > 2-4 pole filter has all the qualities I loved in the Polysix, > and it sounds fan-tas-tic, all this without really coloring > the sound so you can tell what it is in a mix. Of all the older > Korgs, the DSS1 is the one synth you just cannot argue with. > It is awsome. I own both the DSS-1 and the DW-8000, and I'd have to agree with you on the great sound of the DSS. It can do extremely phatt and lush synthbrass and strings the DW could only dream of. But I haven't found that having the DSS was a reason to get rid of the DW, mainly because the DSS left off two crucial things IMO for doing certain kinds of sounds: the portamento (for unison leads) and the arpeggiator. Just those two features on the DW make it still useful to me. But yes the DSS completely blows away the DW for thick pads without a thought. The synthesis engine is more robust, including osc sync, an extra DDL, bit-crushing, and more advanced detuning. The twin DDL section can create cool flanging effects that make the flanger on the Trident look weak. It's too bad that the DSS takes a ridiculing from the synth community and is very undervalued, prolly 'cause of the lack of knobs/sliders, difficulty of sampling, and prone to disk drive failure. But forget about the sampling section and just load up analog type waveforms, and synthesize! It's a beast!