Korg Prologue

[aMUSEd]

Seriously no aftertouch?

[EvilDragon]

Seriously. And seriously great sound regardless of that...

[masterhiggins]

What?!? Only one headphone output? Only 61 keys?!? What kind of backwards shit is that?!?

[BONES]

What the "test" more accurately shows is that the methodology is completely unscientific and conceptually flawed.

None of which should matter if you read the ridiculous things people say about analogue hardware. But the simple fact is that for 99% of the sounds people actually use in their compositions, it really doesn't matter. For the tiny fraction of sounds where you can tell one from the other, it's mostly not very musical and, therefore, of zero consequence into the bargain.

Yes, it's possible to make a bunch of sounds where it's very difficult to distinguish between them, but what ultimately is the point? To win a childish and pointless argument on a forum?

How about simply to counter ridiculous misconceptions and thereby help people to understand their craft just a little better? If that's someone's agenda, then surely we should all be in favour of it and lend it our support?

Seriously no aftertouch?

I've only owned one hardware synth in my life with aftertouch and I don't really find it all that useful most of the time. Sure, it makes me feel like I'm a champ when I use it but I doubt anyone in the audience notices.

[AnX]

Seriously no aftertouch?

Yep, one of many limitations for a big price, along with a very average sound.

[aMUSEd]

Well hopefully they will bring out a module version, the cheapo keyboard is a waste of money and space for me.

[david.beholder]

What the "test" more accurately shows is that the methodology is completely unscientific and conceptually flawed.
...
Anyone that attempts to use demos or ABX tests as anything other than a jumping off point does so at their own risk. Too much influence lies in the hands of people posting the test/demo.

I disagree - from what I saw test was good sociology study performed on profiled group of people.
Methodology of blind test was totally there - there were two close unnamed samples and and results were split even which means that average ear can't simple distinguish a/b. Lot of people from "analog is divine", "vco is panacea", "software is not there" has failed results.

I guessed right on both of tests because I know distinction of Diva sound over my Juno 106 and it worked exactly the same on both tests. So how exactly this test was conceptually falwed, do you mind to share?

Yep, one of many limitations for a big price, along with a very average sound.

I've seen 4 demos in a row and all of them have digital oscillator on it. I guess because of lack of modulation they simple fail they have to add DO in order to have interesting sound and get outside of Minilogue territory.

[transmetropolitan]

What the "test" more accurately shows is that the methodology is completely unscientific and conceptually flawed.

None of which should matter if you read the ridiculous things people say about analogue hardware. But the simple fact is that for 99% of the sounds people actually use in their compositions, it really doesn't matter. For the tiny fraction of sounds where you can tell one from the other, it's mostly not very musical and, therefore, of zero consequence into the bargain.

This is not my experience. It's not the experience of plenty of people. I don't have a problem with your opinion beyond your tendency to state it repeatedly as if it's a fact. It isn't.

Yes, it's possible to make a bunch of sounds where it's very difficult to distinguish between them, but what ultimately is the point? To win a childish and pointless argument on a forum?

How about simply to counter ridiculous misconceptions and thereby help people to understand their craft just a little better? If that's someone's agenda, then surely we should all be in favour of it and lend it our support?

I'll always support a thread if it is genuinely educational in its intent. In the context of ABX tests that is almost never.

ABX tests are hotbeds of pseudoscientific syllogism. They are wide open to abuse as a tool to force the author's predetermined point of view on an audience - and there are many, many examples of this happening.

It's often presented as a scientific process, yet typically the methodology used is highly subjective and opaque, the experiment cannot be effectively repeated/recreated, there is no independent validation or peer review etc etc etc.

It's fine if people are using this as a jumping off point and actively encouraging people to go and try things for themselves (in the context of audio this is normally the only really valid way to judge). But this is, at least in my experience, almost never the agenda that these threads have.

[EvilDragon]

Well hopefully they will bring out a module version, the cheapo keyboard is a waste of money and space for me.

Just because it has no AT doesn't mean it's a cheapo keyboard. Has the same synth action as Kronos, which is a top tier synth-weighted keybed.

along with a very average sound.

...yeah, absolutely not.

[transmetropolitan]

What the "test" more accurately shows is that the methodology is completely unscientific and conceptually flawed.
...
Anyone that attempts to use demos or ABX tests as anything other than a jumping off point does so at their own risk. Too much influence lies in the hands of people posting the test/demo.

I disagree - from what I saw test was good sociology study performed on profiled group of people.
Methodology of blind test was totally there - there were two close unnamed samples and and results were split even which means that average ear can't simple distinguish a/b. Lot of people from "analog is divine", "vco is panacea", "software is not there" has failed results.

I guessed right on both of tests because I know distinction of Diva sound over my Juno 106 and it worked exactly the same on both tests. So how exactly this test was conceptually falwed, do you mind to share?

Why were the sounds in question chosen?

How was it determined that these sounds, out of thousands of possibilities, were chosen to be an effective and representative sample of the character of the respective synths?

Who made that decision?

How long did the respective sounds take to produce? How did the matching process work?

Think about it, if you’re posting such a test then you have an imperative to choose sounds that can be reproduced fairly closely on both synths. Even if you start out with the best of intentions that skews the test. And importantly, it skews it away from what is most useful/ I am most interested in, which is how the synths are different.

Moreover, the test tells me nothing about what the synths are like to use in practice to make music, which at least as far as I’m concerned is the ballgame.

So as an approach overall it doesn’t tell you anything really meaningful nor does it prove or disprove what the ‘average ear’ is able to discern.

If you want to see a comparative approach that I think is worthwhile, I would recommend Starsky Carr’s videos on Youtube, which are I think honest, transparent and full of useful information.

[v1o]

Well hopefully they will bring out a module version, the cheapo keyboard is a waste of money and space for me.

By all accounts it’s a great Key bed. Same as the Kronos.

[aMUSEd]

Surely Kronos has aftertouch though? It just seems like penny pinching to omit this.

[BONES]

This is not my experience. It's not the experience of plenty of people. I don't have a problem with your opinion beyond your tendency to state it repeatedly as if it's a fact. It isn't.

Prove it. Simple, really, and I won't take much convincing. I can certainly prove my point easily enough. I've devised the perfect test - a multi-track mix with a combination of softsynths and hardware, so that little tell-tales like line noise can't give the game away. Three or four instruments, all playing separate parts in a mix and all you need to do is correctly identify which are hardware and which are software. To make it fair, there will be multiple versions so that each instrument gets to play each part. If you wanted to show off, you could even have a go at naming individual instruments. Would you be game enough to put your money where your mouth is and take the test? More importantly, would you change your mind if the results proved that people couldn't consistently tell the difference? I'm thinking not.

ABX tests are hotbeds of pseudoscientific syllogism. They are wide open to abuse as a tool to force the author's predetermined point of view on an audience - and there are many, many examples of this happening.

How? It's the easiest thing in the world to make it fair and even and it should be completely obvious when it's not being done fairly. e.g. If one sound is louder than another to make it seem better (louder is always better).

It's often presented as a scientific process, yet typically the methodology used is highly subjective and opaque, the experiment cannot be effectively repeated/recreated, there is no independent validation or peer review etc etc etc.

I'll happily make my projects available for any level of scrutiny you care to apply. My only agenda is to reveal the objective truth. I may even use this as an excuse to go and buy some more hardware.

[EvilDragon]

Surely Kronos has aftertouch though? It just seems like penny pinching to omit this.

Of course it's penny pinching. (Also Kronos 61 has aftertouch, but Kronos LS doesn't).

[2+2=5]

looks nice, BUT I think the monologue and the minilogue are cooler