Korg Poly800/EX800 Users

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Michael Hawkins wrote:

> i) I plan to implement an arpeggiator with features somewhat similar to
> a cut down version of the Kawai K5000 arp. Obviously how much "cut down"
> depends upon time and my inclination to do it which depends upon
> musician input and how much pizza and beer is provided. :-)

================

http://optimolch.de/jens.groh/K5000/GregWaltzer/egw/equipment/k5000arp.htm

that sounds... ambitious. the more of a good job you do implementing it,
the more i'm afraid of how bad the UI will be ;)

> ii) Route the sequencer to VCF cutoff, resonance or EG1/2/3 attack (with
> the sequencer notes either playing or not).

==================

overkill. see below about the sequencer.

as long as velocity can be routed to amps, filters, etc (envelope
parameters would be nice, but IMHO not crucial) then a *reasonable* 303
emulation can be done with the hawk-800. *BUT* the hawk-800 will never
~really~ emulate a 303 because, among other things, the filters are too
different. so... i say do what's reasonable, but don't go overboard trying
to turn the hawk-800 into a 303 emulator.... make it do some of the 303
tricks (apparently it already does!) and support for a velocity/accent
(which i think it can do?), but then let people use it for the 2 DCO,
2/4-pole DCF, weird ENVs, 4(?!?!) LFOs, 21st century firmware/hardware
modified 80s geek synth that it is. the world does *not* need another 303
emulator.

to emulate a 303: all non-accent notes have a velocity 1. all accent notes
have a velocity 127. edit a patch so the velocity makes it a little
louder, opens up the filter a bit, and if it implemented, shorten the
filter-env attack (or something like that, it's been a while since i
studied the 303 schematics).

personally, i don't want a 303 emulator, as such. it would be nice to have
those features available so i could use it as a hawk-800 that's just that
much funkier, and be able to program ~other~ "accent" and/or slide style
tricks. ya know, not the kind of things where people hear it and say "that
sounds almost like 303", but they'd say "holy shit! that has a 303 kind
groove, but how the hell did he do that??"

> iii) Provide multiple sequencer patterns that can then be sequenced in a
> user set order.

===================

no comment. see below.

> Now the big issue here, is that the ARP will take a lot of work and I
> have it as the highest priority of things to do. But the question should
> be directed to HAWK-800 owners as to what they would rather see first.
> ARP or better sequencer? Since I think using a Poly as a sequencer is
> just plain silly ( :-) ), that is why I chose to work on the ARP first.
> I do know that I would like to have points ii and iii though because
> they would make a really bad sequencer - well - a little less bad.

======================

i'd rather see a good arp, and don't care about a sequencer. but... maybe
an arp can be a mini-sequencer too?

good hardware or software sequencers are easy to find and cheap. the same
cannot be said for good arpeggiators. my logic, then, is that nearly
anyone with the resources to get a hawk-800 should have the resources to
find a suitable external sequencer. the same does not apply to a good
arpeggiator. so (IMHO) the hawk-800 should skip the sequencer and focus on
the arpeggiator.

maybe a good feature that would blur the line between a mini-sequencer and
an arpeggiator would be this: enter a series of notes that can be played
back entered. program arpeggiator functions. then (per "sequence") assign
a value that determines what percentage of the notes are arpeggiated.
so... select a "arp" value of zero and the notes play back as entered;
select an "arp" value of 99 and all of the notes are arpeggiated; select
an "arp" value of 50 and each note has a 50% chance of either playing as
entered or being arpeggiated. i'm not sure if the hardware can handle that
(we've already discussed the random generation issues of the CPU) but it
might solve the "arpeggiator or sequencer" question.

> Anyway, the bottom line is ARP or sequencer features - which to do
> first?

=================

arp.


--
...atom

________________________
http://atom.smasher.org/
762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
-------------------------------------------------

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the
goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other
living beings, we are still savages."
-- Thomas A. Edison

Ok, if the arp is anything like as sophisticated as the K5000 one then I'd happily go for that as a priority over the sequencer. As long as I can still have my slide notes and accents. The arp on the Novation Nova might also be a good, simpler model. It's somewhere between an arp and a sequencer too, in that it allows different gate-lengths, slides and accents to be preprogrammed, while still acting like an arpeggiator.

I still want my NRPNs though,and velocity mappable to various things.

a|x

--- On Wed, 12/11/08, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:

> From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Bugs, 303's and sequencers
> To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008, 11:58 PM
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Michael Hawkins wrote:
>
> > i) I plan to implement an arpeggiator with features
> somewhat similar to
> > a cut down version of the Kawai K5000 arp. Obviously
> how much "cut down"
> > depends upon time and my inclination to do it which
> depends upon
> > musician input and how much pizza and beer is
> provided. :-)
> ================
>
> http://optimolch.de/jens.groh/K5000/GregWaltzer/egw/equipment/k5000arp.htm
>
> that sounds... ambitious. the more of a good job you do
> implementing it,
> the more i'm afraid of how bad the UI will be ;)
>
>
> > ii) Route the sequencer to VCF cutoff, resonance or
> EG1/2/3 attack (with
> > the sequencer notes either playing or not).
> ==================
>
> overkill. see below about the sequencer.
>
> as long as velocity can be routed to amps, filters, etc
> (envelope
> parameters would be nice, but IMHO not crucial) then a
> *reasonable* 303
> emulation can be done with the hawk-800. *BUT* the hawk-800
> will never
> ~really~ emulate a 303 because, among other things, the
> filters are too
> different. so... i say do what's reasonable, but
> don't go overboard trying
> to turn the hawk-800 into a 303 emulator.... make it do
> some of the 303
> tricks (apparently it already does!) and support for a
> velocity/accent
> (which i think it can do?), but then let people use it for
> the 2 DCO,
> 2/4-pole DCF, weird ENVs, 4(?!?!) LFOs, 21st century
> firmware/hardware
> modified 80s geek synth that it is. the world does *not*
> need another 303
> emulator.
>
> to emulate a 303: all non-accent notes have a velocity 1.
> all accent notes
> have a velocity 127. edit a patch so the velocity makes it
> a little
> louder, opens up the filter a bit, and if it implemented,
> shorten the
> filter-env attack (or something like that, it's been a
> while since i
> studied the 303 schematics).
>
> personally, i don't want a 303 emulator, as such. it
> would be nice to have
> those features available so i could use it as a hawk-800
> that's just that
> much funkier, and be able to program ~other~
> "accent" and/or slide style
> tricks. ya know, not the kind of things where people hear
> it and say "that
> sounds almost like 303", but they'd say "holy
> shit! that has a 303 kind
> groove, but how the hell did he do that??"
>
>
> > iii) Provide multiple sequencer patterns that can then
> be sequenced in a
> > user set order.
> ===================
>
> no comment. see below.
>
>
> > Now the big issue here, is that the ARP will take a
> lot of work and I
> > have it as the highest priority of things to do. But
> the question should
> > be directed to HAWK-800 owners as to what they would
> rather see first.
> > ARP or better sequencer? Since I think using a Poly as
> a sequencer is
> > just plain silly ( :-) ), that is why I chose to work
> on the ARP first.
> > I do know that I would like to have points ii and iii
> though because
> > they would make a really bad sequencer - well - a
> little less bad.
> ======================
>
> i'd rather see a good arp, and don't care about a
> sequencer. but... maybe
> an arp can be a mini-sequencer too?
>
> good hardware or software sequencers are easy to find and
> cheap. the same
> cannot be said for good arpeggiators. my logic, then, is
> that nearly
> anyone with the resources to get a hawk-800 should have the
> resources to
> find a suitable external sequencer. the same does not apply
> to a good
> arpeggiator. so (IMHO) the hawk-800 should skip the
> sequencer and focus on
> the arpeggiator.
>
> maybe a good feature that would blur the line between a
> mini-sequencer and
> an arpeggiator would be this: enter a series of notes that
> can be played
> back entered. program arpeggiator functions. then (per
> "sequence") assign
> a value that determines what percentage of the notes are
> arpeggiated.
> so... select a "arp" value of zero and the notes
> play back as entered;
> select an "arp" value of 99 and all of the notes
> are arpeggiated; select
> an "arp" value of 50 and each note has a 50%
> chance of either playing as
> entered or being arpeggiated. i'm not sure if the
> hardware can handle that
> (we've already discussed the random generation issues
> of the CPU) but it
> might solve the "arpeggiator or sequencer"
> question.
>
>
> > Anyway, the bottom line is ARP or sequencer features -
> which to do
> > first?
> =================
>
> arp.
>
>
> --
> ...atom
>
> ________________________
> http://atom.smasher.org/
> 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is
> the
> goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other
> living beings, we are still savages."
> -- Thomas A. Edison
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>