Korg Poly800/EX800 Users

On 15 Jan, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Michael Hawkins wrote:

>
>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot  
> of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have  
> noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to  
> almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an  
> arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if  
> you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I  
> doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that  
> direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind  
> if the sequencer was removed.
>
> Let me know,
>
> Mike

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>

>
> Sequencer? This thing has a sequencer?
> 
> :)
> 
> Arpeggiator, please!!!!
> 
> D
> 
> 
> --- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hawkins  wrote:
> >
> > At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> > 
> > Let me know,
> > 
> > Mike
> >
>

From: Alex Drinkwater <the_voder@....uk>
Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
To: "korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com" <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 2:12 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      I must admit, I'm fairly neutral on this one. I have a Hawk-modded EX-800, so I can't really get any sound out of it without connecting it to something else via MIDI. That being the case, if I want either step-sequencing of arpeggiation, there are good software and hardware options for doing that already. If I had to make a choice between the two, I'd probably go for a better step-sequencer, with some kind of limited automation of something other than just note values- maybe a 2nd 'layer' allowing MIDI notes to create control values that could then be mapped to parameters, as a kind of 'sequenced LFO' to create modulation patterns to run in parallel with the note sequence. Either that, or just add the ability to 'accent' and 'slide' notes, bass-synth style. Actually, some of these ideas could probably be adapted for an
 argeggiator, too.
a|x

        From: k9k9dog <domgoold@...>
 To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2013, 19:24
 Subject: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
   
PLEASE KEEP SEQUENCER. (try to have both, even if it 
involves either/or switching)
why? i have owned an Oberheim Cyclone AND a Akai ME20a. 
i also had a Juno-60, my first ever synth. you can get 
bored of up/down/up-down very quickly and there are products 
that offer it via MIDI.

the sequencer could also be a way of inputting note intervals, 
or timing intervals, or maybe chords. and it could also be 
used to run 'off-clock' as well as with midi clock, or accept 
external gate triggering (like jx3p/sh101).

The Cyclone was a very complex, pain in the arse machine, hard 
to figure out and program via the matrix an 2x 7seg UI. but 
very capable.

the Akai ME20a, by contrast was
 oversimple, but could produce 
interesting MIDI effects, like swoooshing piano expression (haha, 
i can't play, so...), but the note entry was simimar to the 
ex800. it isn't a 'real' arpeggiator as such. and you can get 
one of those by buying an Akai mini Keyboard now(LPK??etc?)

how about something a bit funky and 'vintage'? even the old 
SH101 has BOTH step input and arpeggiator. that would be perfect.

it's true that the current sequencer isn't *much* use, without 
an external gate trigger to step it, but the basics are there.

just my opinion.

--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, "scituate_mass"  wrote:
>
> Sequencer? This thing has a sequencer?
> 
> :)
> 
> Arpeggiator, please!!!!
> 
> D
> 
> 
> --- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hawkins  wrote:
> >
> > At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> > 
> > Let me know,
> > 
> > Mike
> >
>




------------------------------------

Feel free to upload into the files section any sysex dumps and tape dumps of patches
 that you may have but please discuss (with the entire group) the posting of other files *before* posting them. This helps us to keep redundant information from showing up everywhere and also allows us to constantly improve the format and structure of the documentation. We talk about the HAWK-800 quite a bit but we also discuss and help owners of the original Poly-800 models. So don't be shy if you haven't got the HAWK-800.Yahoo! Groups Links


    korgpolyex-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

>
>    korgpolyex-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>

From: Michael Hawkins <korgpolyex800@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
To: "korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com" <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 5:59 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      You got any soundcloud or youtube of your performances? I'd love to check it out.

Mike


        From: Harvey Peekar <audaciouspen@yahoo.com>
 To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:20 PM
 Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
   
















 



    
      
      
      PLEASE KEEP THE SEQUENCER.  i use the poly 800 as the main bass-maker in my band, and having 7 sequences stored at once has made my live show so much more dynamic and fluid.  this was one of the main reasons that i bought the upgrade in the first place.

--- On Tue, 1/15/13, Alex Drinkwater <the_voder@...> wrote:

From: Alex Drinkwater <the_voder@...>
Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
To: "korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com" <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 2:12 PM
















 



    
      
      
      I must admit, I'm fairly neutral on this one. I have a Hawk-modded EX-800, so I can't really get any sound out of it without connecting it to something else via MIDI. That being the case, if I want either step-sequencing of arpeggiation, there are good software and hardware options for doing that already. If I had to make a choice between the two, I'd probably go for a better step-sequencer, with some kind of limited automation of something other than just note values- maybe a 2nd 'layer' allowing MIDI notes to create control values that could then be mapped to parameters, as a kind of 'sequenced LFO' to create modulation patterns to run in parallel with the note sequence. Either that, or just add the ability to 'accent' and 'slide' notes, bass-synth style. Actually, some of these ideas could probably be adapted for an
 argeggiator, too.
a|x

        From: k9k9dog <domgoold@...>
 To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent:
 Tuesday, 15 January 2013, 19:24
 Subject: [korgpolyex] Re: HAWK - sequencer or arpeggiator - you choose
   
PLEASE KEEP SEQUENCER. (try to have both, even if it 
involves either/or switching)
why? i have owned an Oberheim Cyclone AND a Akai ME20a. 
i also had a Juno-60, my first ever synth. you can get 
bored of up/down/up-down very quickly and there are products 
that offer it via MIDI.

the sequencer could also be a way of inputting note intervals, 
or timing intervals, or maybe chords. and it could also be 
used to run 'off-clock' as well as with midi clock, or accept 
external gate triggering (like jx3p/sh101).

The Cyclone was a very complex, pain in the arse machine, hard 
to figure out and program via the matrix an 2x 7seg UI. but 
very capable.

the Akai ME20a, by contrast was
 oversimple, but could produce 
interesting MIDI effects, like swoooshing piano expression (haha, 
i can't play, so...), but the note entry was simimar to the 
ex800. it isn't a 'real' arpeggiator as such. and you can get 
one of those by buying an Akai mini Keyboard now(LPK??etc?)

how about something a bit funky and 'vintage'? even the old 
SH101 has BOTH step input and arpeggiator. that would be perfect.

it's true that the current sequencer isn't *much* use, without 
an external gate trigger to step it, but the basics are there.

just my opinion.

--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, "scituate_mass"  wrote:
>
> Sequencer? This thing has a sequencer?
> 
> :)
> 
> Arpeggiator, please!!!!
> 
> D
> 
> 
> --- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, Michael Hawkins  wrote:
>
 >
> > At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> > 
> > Let me know,
> > 
> > Mike
> >
>




------------------------------------

Feel free to upload into the files section
 any sysex dumps and tape dumps of patches
 that you may have but please discuss (with the entire group) the posting of other files *before* posting them. This helps us to keep redundant information from showing up everywhere and also allows us to constantly improve the format and structure of the documentation. We talk about the HAWK-800 quite a bit but we also discuss and help owners of the original Poly-800 models. So don't be shy if you haven't got the HAWK-800.Yahoo! Groups Links

 required)

    korgpolyex-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

The sequencer is dead to me. A flexible, programmable arpeggiator would be very welcome.

Nate

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Michael Hawkins <korgpolyex800@...> wrote:

At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.

Let me know,

Mike

--
n a t e

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>

>
> At this point, the HAWK has been a wonderful project. I've met alot of great people from all over the world. Most of you would have noticed that development of the HAWK software has slowed down to almost none at all. However, I would still like to put an arpeggiator into the HAWK. To do that I would like to ask you all if you would mind if I took the old step sequencer out entirely. I doubt many of you use the sequencer at all. But before I pursue that direction, I thought I would ask all HAWK owners if they would mind if the sequencer was removed.
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> Mike
>