Rocky Theme.

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

No doubt you could build some interesting brass arrangements by using several parts on the Integra. But then finding just the right effects and cross modulating and sequencing it all would be too much work for the Doogenator! What I was specifically referring to on the OASYS was that on some of the EXs3 (Brass and Woodwind) combi's, there are like 10 or 11 horn programs assigned, and they all sound at different times, and can be programmed to sound on certain Pads and so forth with the KARMA function. You can get these rich sounding "bands" going on real quick.

What I do is get those going and then add a V-Synth horn or lead synth sound or another V-Synth arpeggio to sync up with the KARMA groove. I added the JayB patch "PluckdSomethng" with an arpeggio (thanks Paulo!) to my tune "Sir Trancelot (Tilting at Windmills)" to great effect. That is what I meant by the different synths being so complimentary.

Are OASYS combi's the equivalent of Roland Performances and/or Studio sets, i.e., setups where you assign one 'patch' (or instrument) per part (and MIDI channel)for multimbral or layering purposes, or are they something different entirely? Just trying to understand what the difference would be the OASYS version and assigning 10 separate horn 'sounds' (some of which could be duplicate) to 10 separate parts and MIDI channels in an Integra-7 Studio Set. Each part in the Integra could have its own insert effect (only one per part, alas), although there's only master reverb setting for all parts (also alas). Can I assume that the "KARMA groove" is either a built-in arpeggio or rhythm or loop or some kind of 'internal MIDI sequence' that can be used as a backdrop for playing your own notes over it? As you can see, I know nothing about the whole OASYS/Karma thing.

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

By the way, the jury is still out on that "1 voice at a time" with the SN-A sounds! ;-)

I wish SOMEONE would come up with a definitive answer for this. How would you measure this, other than create a composition with 128 notes playing at the same time and seeing if and where dropoff occurs? And then repeat this with every single SN-A sound? What a pain in the keister!

While KARMA could be thought of simply as an advanced arpeggiator, it is actually much much more. It is a highly advanced algorithmic way of generating very complex musical loops and phrases that can be manipulated in a myriad of ways.

Broken down, a KARMA "master module" is composed of up to 4 independent modules (A, B, C & D), and each of the modules can have a different GE (Generated Effect) which then can be used to independently control Drums, Bass, and Motion like arpeggiations or slow wave type drones for example. Now, here is where it gets interesting...there are 8 different "scenes" across the 5 "layers", all with 128 variations on each (that's 32,768 possibilities!) . Basically, each scene will have a different "groove" and by combining all of those different grooves, an entire song can be realized with a lot of variation and color, unlike a simple wavesequence which can get a little monotonous after a while (like the old Wavestation).

Now, you can have up to 16 different musical "instruments" known as Programs (Korg's version of "patch") in each combination, and once all of those are chiming away along with the KARMA function (with the different instruments all assigned to the different modules or just in there as an upper keyboard split) you can get some really interesting things going on.

I would invite you to go over the karma-lab.com and watch some of the videos where the KARMA inventor Stephen Kay demonstrates what his invention is capable of. The KARMA drum kit that he builds sounds like Neil Peart banging away on a solo! Cool stuff.

As far as the SN polyphony goes...the manual clearly states it all! "Varies according to engine load." Sure glad they cleared that up for us! ;-(|)

Hi everyone,
I am new to this forum.
Just ordered the I7 from GC but have not received it yet.
I am an OASYS owner and got the I7 for the JP80 and classic Roland sounds.

This is an excellent comparision.
I agree with Sharp.
Unless the recordings were not normalized and ended up with different dB levels, the Kronos certainly sounds warmer with more spatial "presence". And as Sharp pointed out is partly due to the fact the O-Verb (OASYS-KRONOS) is exceptional!

I would like to find out if the I7 was spatially programmed using motional surround for the various channels.

So basically, does the Kronos sound better because it was recorded better compared to the I7 or are the Kronos engines better than the I7's?

tk110 wrote:

Hi everyone,
I am new to this forum.
Just ordered the I7 from GC but have not received it yet.
I am an OASYS owner and got the I7 for the JP80 and classic Roland sounds.

This is an excellent comparision.
I agree with Sharp.
Unless the recordings were not normalized and ended up with different dB levels, the Kronos certainly sounds warmer with more spatial "presence". And as Sharp pointed out is partly due to the fact the O-Verb (OASYS-KRONOS) is exceptional!

I would like to find out if the I7 was spatially programmed using motional surround for the various channels.

So basically, does the Kronos sound better because it was recorded better compared to the I7 or are the Kronos engines better than the I7's?

Hi and welcome to the Clan tk110!!
I wouldn't say that the Kronos sound better, as that is definitely a matter of taste, but that the Kronos version has a more "polished" finish, that is true. But on the other hand, the Integra-7 sounds seem more "real" (again, a matter of taste here...).

I think you made a very good decision to buy an integra-7 and added to the mighty OASYS. They would complement each other VERY nicely!

Cheers,
Paulo

PauloF wrote:

I wouldn't say that the Kronos sound better, as that is definitely a matter of taste, but that the Kronos version has a more "polished" finish, that is true. But on the other hand, the Integra-7 sounds seem more "real" (again, a matter of taste here...).

I think you've hit it on the head here. I think over the past decade or so the dominance of electronic music and overuse of effects in pop music has created a kind of "acoustical expectations" that equates "smooth" and "polished" with "real." The Integra's sounds--particularly the woodwinds and brasses--can sound very 'raw,' because that's how these instruments really do sound. When you play an Integra sax in the upper registers, it's more 'noisy' because it's emulating the extra breath it takes for a player to reach that sound. Compare to that most sax sounds in other instruments, where there's no variation in breathiness. For me, having acoustical instruments sound more like acoustical instruments and less like 'smoothed out' synth versions of electronic instruments is one of the Integra's key strengths. Personally, I'd rather have instruments that sounds 'raw' and 'natural' and then use outboard or DAW effects to 'smooth it over' in the mix than to have 'smooth sounding' sounds to begin that you can't "mix" to be natural. But that's just my .02.

rolandvet wrote:

PauloF wrote:

I wouldn't say that the Kronos sound better, as that is definitely a matter of taste, but that the Kronos version has a more "polished" finish, that is true. But on the other hand, the Integra-7 sounds seem more "real" (again, a matter of taste here...).

I think you've hit it on the head here. I think over the past decade or so the dominance of electronic music and overuse of effects in pop music has created a kind of "acoustical expectations" that equates "smooth" and "polished" with "real." The Integra's sounds--particularly the woodwinds and brasses--can sound very 'raw,' because that's how these instruments really do sound. When you play an Integra sax in the upper registers, it's more 'noisy' because it's emulating the extra breath it takes for a player to reach that sound. Compare to that most sax sounds in other instruments, where there's no variation in breathiness. For me, having acoustical instruments sound more like acoustical instruments and less like 'smoothed out' synth versions of electronic instruments is one of the Integra's key strengths. Personally, I'd rather have instruments that sounds 'raw' and 'natural' and then use outboard or DAW effects to 'smooth it over' in the mix than to have 'smooth sounding' sounds to begin that you can't "mix" to be natural. But that's just my .02.

Fully agree with your post!

Hey Sharp,
I'm comin' in late on this but I just got my i7 3 weeks ago.
Gotta agree with Soundworld AD for the most part.
To me the horns on the Korg vers were much more prominent (in a good way). The i7 horns seemed to me to lack presence, but I'm a horn player.
Comparing the overall mix I would have to give thumbs up for the Korg vers.
But having done midi covers on tunes myself I would have to say that the tune was written for the Korg.
It's really quite noticeable how similar patches on different gear can come across. It's like you have to write for the patch or as Duke Ellington did, you write for the player. But then I also arrange.
I must say from 203 till the end was very exciting and I don't recall some of the lines being on the original recordings or any arrangements of Rocky that I've heard. But it is late and it's past my bedtime.
The drums from 225 out were fantastic and the last bit was very fully scored but to me the mix did it justice.
I haven't written yet for the i7 but am excited about all the colours that are available.
Kudos on a highly musical production.
fletcher.

hi guys,

I agree the integra version sounded more live, but had you played around with the motional surround?, as to my ear the solo instruments did'nt get picked out as clearly on the integra version.
I thought the sound quality on both versions was great, but think the integra just edged it for authenticity
of instruments, theres something about those supernatural drum sounds on the roland that have beaten everything i've heard from other manufacturers, "including software drum sounds i've tried" and their of such small memory size?.. maybe biggest is'nt always best. The cymbals sound are so crisp and the toms so lifelike, lightyears away from the 90's which i've seen people say the i7 is a tribute to.I expect a reaction from Yamaha as their "Super Articulation" sounds in my opinion, are'nt as good as the i7 supernatural sounds.

markoffski wrote:

hi guys,

I agree the integra version sounded more live, but had you played around with the motional surround?, as to my ear the solo instruments did'nt get picked out as clearly on the integra version.
I thought the sound quality on both versions was great, but think the integra just edged it for authenticity
of instruments, theres something about those supernatural drum sounds on the roland that have beaten everything i've heard from other manufacturers, "including software drum sounds i've tried" and their of such small memory size?.. maybe biggest is'nt always best. The cymbals sound are so crisp and the toms so lifelike, lightyears away from the 90's which i've seen people say the i7 is a tribute to.I expect a reaction from Yamaha as their "Super Articulation" sounds in my opinion, are'nt as good as the i7 supernatural sounds.

The original Roland Drums sound are great, but the Supernatural ones are even better, some of them taken from the TB Drum series.
The Integra's engine and settings are really very powerful in what respects tweaking

stealthgear wrote:

I think you could tweak out the integra-7 to make it sound better than the Korg in the long run. The Roland Integra, JP-80, 50 are FX beasts. The FX are incredible once you do some digging. You can cover up the voices with a well programmed reverb, and a compression master effect. Both sound a little cheesy.

For me, one of the Integra's few 'flaws' is that it doesn't offer separate reverb for each part--you have to use it (or not use it at all) as a master effect for the Studio Set and can't adjust it for each part. Sometimes, you want certain parts drenched in reverb, and other parts dry. And that you can't use reverb at all in Motional Sound in also a minus.