Korg Poly800/EX800 Users

I like it!

________________________________
From: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Michael Hawkins korgpolyex800@yahoo.com [korgpolyex] <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:47:24 PM
To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: The latest news on HAWK



i read yesterday that the practical difference between a DCO and a 'digital osc'
is that the digital will always start with the same phase, and that analog,
including DCO, are free-running. don't know to what extent this is true.

Well, that can be avoided by various methods that I can immediately think of.

the other issue with a digital osc used in unadulterated form is aliasing at
high pitches,

Well, that depends upon how fast the digital oscillators are. Too slow, not good.

and for the filter,..so you are suggesting you would reproduce the existing
filter, which is single across 8 voices, and offer a filter for each voice. like
a 'proper' poly. question: is there a big difference between 'global' and
individual filters?(if all are calibrated the same)
(what will be left of the original Poly ? ...!!!)

Yes, I think it's a big difference being that you get to hear consecutively played notes being affected by their own EG with their own filter. One filter limits the sound experience.I consider the single filter and the lack of independently variable waveforms to be Poly's major shortcomings on the sound generation side of things. HAWK gave Poly all of the MIDI control and extra modulations and stuff. But HAWK didn't do diddly squat for enhancing the sound experience of the Poly.

I figure, any new waveforms, modulations and filters are going to be a huge benefit to Poly. Yes, there isn't much left of Poly once we do this upgrade. But as with HAWK, if the external Poly looks exactly the same and the cost of doing of an upgrade is kept low enough, what's not to like?

/Mike


________________________________
From: "domgoold@... [korgpolyex]" <korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com>
To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Re: The latest news on HAWK


thought i'd mention: i'm messing around with MFB Synth Lite II and PolyLite
synths at the moment. much lamenting online that the oscillators are not
VCO, and not quite DCO - they are to be considered 'digital oscillators'...

point being: still an excellent (tiny) synth that does a great job of sounding
like a large analog poly. it's filter and VCA are analog.

the 1st edition elicited complaints, and he eventually revised the waveforms,
which are generated by a cpu (these were made in 2003 and again in 2006,
if that means much re: what was available then - and now). saw sounds
pretty cool now.

just saying that digital oscillator doesn't have to mean 'VA', and the thing can
still sound juicy and analog. korg poly saw isn't exactly (isn't exactly a saw)
a showstopper, so pretty much anything will sound good there :)

i read yesterday that the practical difference between a DCO and a 'digital osc'
is that the digital will always start with the same phase, and that analog,
including DCO, are free-running. don't know to what extent this is true.

the other issue with a digital osc used in unadulterated form is aliasing at
high pitches, and weird digi-artifacts (quite good when you find them on the
MFB) - you can generate a saw that looks good in the midrange but if you
want to avoid aliasing, you have to start limiting bandwidth as you go up
in pitch (nyquist etc) -

if you are thinking of using wavetables:are wavetables 'honest'(?)
*in a DCO synthesizer?* 8-)  (hey, who cares, more waveforms to mess
around with is good....could have squares and saws from a multitude of
machines.

the MFB has ringmodulation and sync - apparently these are-necessarily-
digital,  with whatever sound differences that implies (in practice, it's a
machine that makes loads of good sounds,  has loads of variation, so it
isn't an issue, for me,anyway) - so if you want to do crossmodulations of
oscs, will that also be 'digital'?(worth worrying about?)

and for the filter,..so you are suggesting you would reproduce the existing
filter, which is single across 6 voices, and offer a filter for each voice. like
a 'proper' poly. question: is there a big difference between 'global' and
individual filters?(if all are calibrated the same)
(what will be left of the original Poly ? ...!!!)