Help me Understand This... Korg 199x Vs. Korg 2011

O.K., maybe I'm just getting old. But is it really possible that models like these:

N5EX, X5D, 01/W, X3, N364

... are much more sonically appealing to my ears than:

M50, PS60, R3, etc.?

Of course this excludes the high-end workstations like the M3 and Kronos. I'm talking about straight-up 2nd-tier synths.

Got rid of my M50 because it was just sterile to me. On the hunt for a mint N5EX or X5D now.

... ALSO... models like the X5D and N364 seem to be holding their resale value pretty well, too.

AFAIK, only the X-series could have concievably been considered a second-tier synth. I mean, have you checked out the prices a used N364 still commands these days?

If you found the sound of the M50 to be sterile, then you won't like the "high-end" M3, either. They have exactly the same synth engine, and (as has been discussed at length on Korg Forums) they also have exactly the same converters (confirmed repeatedly by the proverbial "people in the know"). As far as I know, it was only "2nd tier" in terms of functionality, not sound.

But what the hell am I talking about? I got rid of my M50, too...

the N5EX was sterile to me, comparing to 01,M1,T series. 01 was most sonically pleasing gigging keyboard ever. hope to hunt down another again. does the PS60/M50 sound sterile because of its realism, more cleaner output, coupled with interior keyboard action ? is the biggest difference quality in op-amp/DA converters?

I think I know what you are asking and I have a theory.

#1 When the Oasis and M3 came out, they were the next generation of a more sophisticated synthesis. The M-50, the Microstation, and even the PS60 needed to be based off that new technology at a reduced price. This is so people would believe that the products were in fact new and going forward. Many features and bells and whistles remained on these lite boards so something had to give. Therefore ROM size, bit rate, and effects quality probably took a hit. The sounds now felt more compressed and sterile.

#2 The Triton series was at an end of an era. It was easier to do entry level keyboards based on that sound source because the technology was already outdated.

#3 the M-1 was an even earlier and pioneering technology, thus allowing the room for growth and improvement. It was very easy to build on it and reduce prices at the same time. Electronics often due this as they mature. the M-1 had many evolutions, some better and some cheaper, but they all sounded familiar. If you liked the M-1 you probably liked it's offsprings.

We are getting to the stage where it is hard to squeeze current technology into the same boxes so that is why Korg has reinvented themselves with the Kronos.

Does this make sense...

I think you're on the right track here, but I also think you've got it backwards in this case. There are plenty of bells and whistles from the M3 that didn't make it into the M50 (color touchscreen; 8 velocity sensitive pads; X/Y mode on touchscreen; aftertouch on keyboard; sampling; Karma; possibility of adding Radias expansion; etc.), but what DID make it was the sound engine, in its totality (including effects). In that respect, I think Korg made the right call (though I ditched mine, I still believe the M50 is the best value-for-money workstation available).

Microstation and PS60, maybe. But the M50 has the exact same sample set, same effects, same bit rate, same DA converters as the M3. They saved money on the keybed and removing things like aftertouch and the sampler but owning both the M3 and M50, I can confidently say they sound exactly the same and even used a spectrum analyzer in a studio to verify. I believe the PS60 and Microstation has smaller ROM and less samples - they didn't reduce the bitrate to fit all of the samples in the reduced ROM.

As far as your 2nd and 3rd point, you do realize that the Triton and M1 have MUCH smaller ROM, right? We're talking 256MB in the M3, 32MB in the original Triton, and 4MB in the M1. Tack on the fact that as technology advances they can fit more functionality on a single chip or board vs. what used to take much more system hardware.

As far as the "sterility" of the newer boards, the sound programmers no longer have to rely on a crapload of effects to hide the poor quality of the older samples. I'll put the "real" instrument sounds on the M3 against any of the older Korg equipment. There's simply no comparison. I also found a lot of people who remember how awesome their old gear was vs. how crappy the new gear is has a fuzzy memory of how awesome it was for the time. But when you compare the two, you wonder what you ever saw in the older gear. I kept my DSS-1 because of how awesome the piano sample was. When I loaded it up a year or so ago I couldn't believe how little it resembled a piano.

As far as people dumping their M50, I bought mine AFTER I bought my M3 strictly for gigging. It's absolutely perfect for that. I never use samples or XY screen, karma live so I might as well save 35 pounds.

You guys are right about the M-50 as the exception. I guess my point was to say it is becoming an increasingly harder task to put the full fledged engine in the lower units and still offer some bells and whistles at a low price. You did however hit a very good point I forgot to mention. One important factor in expressing sounds for me is the quality and action of the keyboard, which the lower models often lack; aftertouch and all.

I think when it comes to the big three companies some people feel as though the sounds are starting feel a bit, crunched, cramped, decimated, or compressed. It is as though we have hit the ceiling of technology. This in my mind somewhat factual, but then synths are cheaper in price more than ever, both literally and in comparison to the dollar 20 years ago. We simply get a whole lot more for our money these days, and our memories of the good days are in fact skewed and fuzzy.

One thing is true though the sounds these days are in fact better, Period. Maybe not as warm as the olden days but more realistic.

It is my hope that the Kronos is the start of a best of all worlds thing: the realism of soft-synths, the fatness and warmth of uncompressed hardware samples and synth algorithms, and the stability of having a hardware machine with a large capacity computer hard drive inside to avoid any and all limitations.

100% correct.

I owned the X5 and X5DR and the programs were awash in FX. when I removed the FX , I realized the FX dominated the samples in the program.

And the programs without FX were not interesting.

After the M3 ( or M50), there is no way I would go back to the mid 90's X5/X5D, etc.

This is excellent, McHale.

Just like our memories of past relationships, vacations, experiences, etc. mellow in the "wine cellar" of our minds... our memories of yesterday's keyboards are often colored and inaccurate.

The M50 is a very good sounding synth by any standards...

PS60 not so much, I have to agree there. But it seems to be one dud in their catalog, most of the stuff they sell has good sound and value.

O.K., thanks for the replies. That settles it... I'm getting old!!

yeah AJP, I'm getting old too. we just love the pristine quality efx of yesteryears (or maybe the imperfect warm sounding efx)

i'm still getting shivers when listening to my wavestation, as opposed to my (ex) motif xs. how can lousier, smaller bit rate samples can sound better? clever programming?

I think I was trying to say that as well, just said awkwardly.

If i'm not mistaken, they've found quite a bit of popularity with goth/industrial/black metal bands as they have a very good sound for cutting through a busy mix.

yeah purity, X5D because of the choirs, bells and dimmu borgir

something's not right. Korg M1's sax can still sound better than newer synths from korgs, for example.

Really depends on what you're using the M50 for. I have a Yamaha XS so I'm spoiled with acoustic sounds. The M50 just makes me gnash my teeth in that dept. The electronica sounds and drums are good though. I agree the M50 is kinda sterile. What's SCARY is my old 01/w with Piano card in some regards sounds better. Like the Brass and Piano. I mean seriously HOW is that possible? Anyways... As soon as I've tested Kronos I'll probably upgrade.

I use to love the Sax on both the M-1 and Roland U-220 so odd. Used to love the Brass sounds as well.