Korg updates its Legacy Collection with a new Arp Odyssey emulation

[kbaccki]

What do you mean by "modern" screens/res? I've been working on 1920x1200 screens for 15 years or so and that's exactly what the new laptop I bought last October has, too.

MacBook Pros started with 2880 x 1800 retina displays starting in 2012. Industry is pushing 4K, and now 5K monitors (5120 × 2880!!!)... and techies are more than happy to shell out for those.

UIs that fit perfectly well at 1080p simply start to disappear on what is effectively standard contemporary resolutions. You can scale the display itself, but you lose the advantage of the technology, obviously. Folks buy 4K monitors for a reason.

The UIs need to be scaleable, simple as that.

[SciFiArtMan]

Thanks Ingo, EnGee, and others for clarification on how the Korg Odyssey interface works, with that giant keyboard, or not!

Yeah, it's becoming clear that resizable (or at least multiple-sized) GUIs need to become the standard for virtually all VST plugins - effects and synth type plugins. There are just too many different sizes and resolutions of monitors in use today, and this doesn't seem like it'll change anytime soon. Hell, there are people still using Vista and XP, and whatever the Mac equivalents are!

Sorry to hear the Korg Odyssey's GUI legibility isn't much better than the older Legacy Collection culprits. All the more need for the GUI updates!!! (fingers crossed!)

[BONES]

There are actually far fewer than there were 20 years ago, when CRTs came in sizes from 11" to 27" or larger and any of them could work at anything from 640x480 up to 2048x1536 and beyond. Yet, somehow, we all managed to use the same GUI and get our work done. Amazing, huh?

MacBook Pros started with 2880 x 1800 retina displays starting in 2012.

That's a completely meaningless figure because if you tried to run a 13" screen at that resolution it would be pretty much unusable. So what res do you actually use? I'm thinking you probably run it at 200%, which is effectively 1440x900, which is no different to a 10 year old MB Air. So why would you need a different GUI?

Industry is pushing 4K, and now 5K monitors (5120 × 2880!!!)...

Of course they are, they know people are stupid enough to give them money for it but, again, you don't run them at native resolution, so it means nothing. Ultimately, the size of things on your super-duper retina screen is little or no different to the size those things were on the computer you had 10 or 15 years ago. So again, why would you need a different GUI? It just doesn't make sense.

and techies are more than happy to shell out for those.

No, anyone with any actual technical understanding would know they are mostly just a con-job and would instead opt for an OLED screen if they want ultimate image quality or a lower density screen to maximise battery life. But, you know, I've only been working in film and TV post-production for 22 years so what would I know about it. (Hint: It's a lot.)

Folks buy 4K monitors for a reason.

Several reasons, actually -
- they don't know any better (either through ignorance or simple stupidity),
- they don't want to be seen to be behind their friends, family and colleagues, and
- they have more money than they know what to do with.

[V0RT3X]

Lower screen resolution requires less CPU/GPU resources so there are definitely benefits to using tiny GUIs when working with Audio.

That said, I do enjoy a decent GUI thats scaled to fit nicely on a 4K screen.

[SciFiArtMan]

There are actually far fewer than there were 20 years ago, when CRTs came in sizes from 11" to 27" or larger and any of them could work at anything from 640x480 up to 2048x1536 and beyond. Yet, somehow, we all managed to use the same GUI and get our work done. Amazing, huh?

You sure have an odd, condescending tone, IMO!

But no, there were NOT far more sizes of screens and resolutions 20 years ago! The sizes have moved upward in general scale, but with more and more powerful processors in a variety of systems able to produce music (and to a lessor extent, video), at least at a minimum level, there is a greater range of sizes and resolutions today, as pads, and laptops, and old and new monitors are all in some level of creative/production action today. Some people even use large production HD TVs as computer monitors today. But none of this measuring is the point!

The point is, for a variety of reasons, including more aged eyes who have endured from those earlier days and feel the need to run their fancy new monitors at reduced rez, many users prefer to use GUIs for their increasingly complicated and involved plugins that can be optimized for their systems - however unconventional those systems may be. And that's why the need for resizable/multiple-sized interfaces is becoming a louder and louder outcry from the users. But then some people enjoy basking the glory and relative ease of the "good old days". Not really all that amazing.

I just want to see that Korg keeps working toward their promised goal of "new and updated" (and hopefully resizable) GUIs for the Korg Collection, which evidently includes the Odyssey.

[Caine123]

I didnt check the odyssey out yet but how is it compared to oddity 2?

[Jace-BeOS]

Folks buy 4K monitors for a reason.

Several reasons, actually -
- they don't know any better (either through ignorance or simple stupidity),
- they don't want to be seen to be behind their friends, family and colleagues, and
- they have more money than they know what to do with.

Jesus christicles, here we go again...

[db3]

MacBook Pros started with 2880 x 1800 retina displays starting in 2012.

That's a completely meaningless figure because if you tried to run a 13" screen at that resolution it would be pretty much unusable. So what res do you actually use? I'm thinking you probably run it at 200%, which is effectively 1440x900, which is no different to a 10 year old MB Air. So why would you need a different GUI?

Industry is pushing 4K, and now 5K monitors (5120 × 2880!!!)...

Of course they are, they know people are stupid enough to give them money for it but, again, you don't run them at native resolution, so it means nothing. Ultimately, the size of things on your super-duper retina screen is little or no different to the size those things were on the computer you had 10 or 15 years ago. So again, why would you need a different GUI? It just doesn't make sense..

You're completely missing the point. Mac retina screens run at native resolution primarily so you can't see any pixels (like a modern smartphone). The result of this is amazingly crisp text and images which look as good as print. Once you get used to retina level dot pitch anything less looks like sh*t.

Of course this means applications are resized larger so they are readable. The only PITA is that a few (only certain audio plugins on my mac) don't yet natively support retina resolutions, so when they are resized they are done so by the OS which results in blurred graphics. e.g. Waves.

[BONES]

I do enjoy a decent GUI thats scaled to fit nicely on a 4K screen.

But you don't run it at 4k, do you? You probably run it at half that, which is only slightly more screen space than HD. On the MacPros at work with 4k screens, if you run them at 4k the mouse pointer is so small you literally can't see it.

But no, there were NOT far more sizes of screens and resolutions 20 years ago! The sizes have moved upward in general scale, but with more and more powerful processors in a variety of systems able to produce music (and to a lessor extent, video), at least at a minimum level, there is a greater range of sizes and resolutions today, as pads, and laptops, and old and new monitors are all in some level of creative/production action today.

You fail to understand the most basic aspect of this - a CRT can run at any resolution so the same monitor can run perfectly well at 640x480, 2048x1536 or anything in between, whether it is 10" or 27". The one and only limit was the ability of the GPU to drive it. OTOH, a flat-panel screen has embedded pixels that restrict the resolution to a maximum fixed size. So while a CRT could run at literally dozens of different resolutions, a modern LCD/OLED panel has a native resolution and a few scaling options. It is a lot more restricted than it used to be, hence the lack of variation compared to late last century.

Some people even use large production HD TVs as computer monitors today.

I am, in fact, one of those people. My 32" Bravia is infinitely preferable for running at full HD resolution than the 10.5" screen on my Surface Pro 2.

The point is, for a variety of reasons, including more aged eyes who have endured from those earlier days and feel the need to run their fancy new monitors at reduced rez

Again, that would include me if it was accurate. I turn 60 this year but I can still cope with full HD on the Surface when I need to. It's actually easier on my eyes than the scaled display on my smartphone.

many users prefer to use GUIs for their increasingly complicated and involved plugins that can be optimized for their systems

Why not optimise your system? That way you can fix everything at once, instead of having to rely on a dozen different vendors doing it the same way so it all works together.

however unconventional those systems may be. And that's why the need for resizable/multiple-sized interfaces is becoming a louder and louder outcry from the users.

No, this is nothing but people losing the ability to adapt to situations because they are so completely used to everyone else falling over backwards to accommodate them. If you can't make something work for you, throw it away and find something else that does. It's not like we aren't spoiled for choice and are forced to use things we don't want to.

But then some people enjoy basking the glory and relative ease of the "good old days".

What ease would that be? Would that be the ease of spending 90 minutes setting up for a half-hour set? Or the ease of photocopying the front panel diagram from a user manual 50 times so you could mark down settings with a pen because synths didn't have patch memories? Or even later, when things were much, much more sophisticated, the ease of replacing your wold workstation synth with a newer, better one, which required replacing every sound in every song and then reprogramming it all from scratch or via MIDI, instead of just saving it to a hard-drive?

You clearly haven't the slightest understanding of how easy you have it, you want to complain about the most unimportant things as though they were real issues. I don't know whether I am more amused or disgusted.

Jesus christicles, here we go again...

Just give me a cogent argument in favour that is more convincing than my arguments against. It's not rocket science.

[chk071]

The UIs need to be scaleable, simple as that.

I agree. It'll be a long time though until full HD will be superseded by 4K as the standard resolution.

[yul]

Wow a lot of comments but I don't think Korg will ever be reading any of this!

[chk071]

Me neither. That's not the point though. Most just love to discuss, anything.

[Cinebient]

Wow a lot of comments but I don't think Korg will ever be reading any of this!

How could they.....their screens are so damn small....

[EnGee]

Ok, I did my tests with Ryzen 5 1600x and iTwo Asio 256/44.1 setup with Live 9, Cubase 9, Reaper 5.77, Reason 10 and FL Studio 12. I was surprised for some results!

The test preset of ARP Odyssey is '030: Feeling Bass' with just one note. Now into the results:

Live 9: 12 instances playing great but with the 13th crackle like crazy!

Reaper 5.77: 2 instances only!! with the 3rd crackle and CPU is going out of the roof! Shocking but very disappointing!

Cubase 9: 12 instances playing great with the 13th crackles (just like Live 9)

Reason 10: 7 instances play very well and clean, but with the 8th I begin to hear some crackles.

FL Studio 12: 12 instances play very well and clean, but with the 13th crackles like Cubase and Live.

I suspect that the maximum of 12 instances in this case because of the Ryzen 5 1600x 6 cores and 12 threads.

Anyway, I must say I'm happy with this result as a CPU but not so about Reaper and ARP Odyssey itself regarding the CPU management and optimising.

Just to update the Reaper test. I had an answer from Justin in the threadI started in Reaper's forum:
"Cool, have you tried enabling "live FX multiprocessing" in preferences/buffering? That should help you a lot (since those tracks are record armed)."

This has solved the problem with Reaper. I could play 12 instances with no problem

[Cinebient]

Ok, I did my tests with Ryzen 5 1600x and iTwo Asio 256/44.1 setup with Live 9, Cubase 9, Reaper 5.77, Reason 10 and FL Studio 12. I was surprised for some results!

The test preset of ARP Odyssey is '030: Feeling Bass' with just one note. Now into the results:

Live 9: 12 instances playing great but with the 13th crackle like crazy!

Reaper 5.77: 2 instances only!! with the 3rd crackle and CPU is going out of the roof! Shocking but very disappointing!

Cubase 9: 12 instances playing great with the 13th crackles (just like Live 9)

Reason 10: 7 instances play very well and clean, but with the 8th I begin to hear some crackles.

FL Studio 12: 12 instances play very well and clean, but with the 13th crackles like Cubase and Live.

I suspect that the maximum of 12 instances in this case because of the Ryzen 5 1600x 6 cores and 12 threads.

Anyway, I must say I'm happy with this result as a CPU but not so about Reaper and ARP Odyssey itself regarding the CPU management and optimising.

Just to update the Reaper test. I had an answer from Justin in the threadI started in Reaper's forum:
"Cool, have you tried enabling "live FX multiprocessing" in preferences/buffering? That should help you a lot (since those tracks are record armed)."

This has solved the problem with Reaper. I could play 12 instances with no problem

Interesting, thank‘s!
Still i expected more compared to their mobile range.