Korg releases Korg Triton VST

[c_voltage]

because we have M1 and Wavestation which don't emulate DACs and sound pretty boring and definitely not as good as the original hardware

In other forum (where i often able to be) we already did comparison exactly between klc Wavestation and hardware Wavestation. We had been compare the same presets at the same midi clips resp.

As result, i really can say that the difference here lay in quite non-valuable things, like additional little noise, slightly different frequency color (like eq works), and some little differences in effects section works.

I do not want to underestimate the small differences though - but when they are important (add some important detail/character to the sound). As it was when i did see some popular comparison u-he Diva with some resp hardware synth (forgot model). There i actually heard micro - but important advantages in a pair moments at hardware side (like micro-chorus (not a FX), which was lack in software side, but this little detail brought something important).

While all things that hardware WS could add - with a high degree of certainty (or imo) is not valuable, primarily because it can easily be reproduced thru using miriad of lo-fi'zers from plugin world + eq. Probably this is the work mentioned DAC, i guess.
But I did not find any advantages, not in dynamics, nor in the body of the waves.

Or in other words can say - it just sounded a little different, no better and no worse.

EDIT And i guess with M1 would be absolutely the same situation

[PAK]

As someone who owned both a fully loaded Trinity and a MicroX, which contained the full Triton ROM

The MicroX was the 32MB base rom, with another 32MB from various sources, and a heavily cut-down FX engine. The plugin is another 201MB on top of the base rom, with the full FX engine (5 insert and 2 master Vs the 1 insert 2 master of the MicroX) and 256 note poly, where the MicroX was "upto" 64 (which reduced with more complex sounds.)

but if you think people want to recreate the crappy old DACs of the 90s, I think

People do, regardless of what you think. Though by the 90's , certainly the late 90's, converters were clean enough that they weren't the factor they were in the 80's.

For every person with a "waste of time" attitude about "crappy DAC's", there's another who takes a different view. That it's not just about specs or features - it's about having a musical "character" they (not you) might find useful. EG I'd personally like to see Ensoniq covered better (C'mon with that SQ-80 Arturia! ), and part of that is the slightly lo-fi element to the sound, at least by todays standards. Fortunely, if that's of no interest, there's a plethora of other options available to all..

[mtelesha]

You can’t just take a GUI from another platform and expect it to work - there’s a hell of a lot needs to happen under the hood when you update an interface.

I don’t think Korg is dead, but it would be great if they could be a little more communicative on some of their plans.

Yes you can and its called a framework. Cross platform is fairly easy it is just that people don't start as cross platform and went with an equally time taking task and are now painted in a corner. People need to start with the idea of it being cross platform.

[Forgotten]

You can’t just take a GUI from another platform and expect it to work - there’s a hell of a lot needs to happen under the hood when you update an interface.

I don’t think Korg is dead, but it would be great if they could be a little more communicative on some of their plans.

Yes you can and its called a framework. Cross platform is fairly easy it is just that people don't start as cross platform and went with an equally time taking task and are now painted in a corner. People need to start with the idea of it being cross platform.

I think you’re missing the context in which my post was made

[BONES]

What if you weren't producing music in 1998 and like the sound of the era? C:

Then there are a thousand existing ways to do that. There is no special magic here. It's not like the Triton defined the sound of its era or anything, it was jsut one of many popular workstation synths.

I want character in my synths and in my music and music back then was filled with it.

That's because people concentrated on making good music back then, rather than being obsessed with the processes involved and not worrying about the end result. It had bugger-all to do with the gear they had.

... the Triton occupies a pretty sparsely populated area of the current plugin landscape.

What, an emulation of an old synth everyone lost interest in a few decades ago? Yeah, nobody else is doing that.

The MicroX was the 32MB base rom, with another 32MB from various sources, and a heavily cut-down FX engine. The plugin is another 201MB on top of the base rom, with the full FX engine (5 insert and 2 master Vs the 1 insert 2 master of the MicroX) and 256 note poly, where the MicroX was "upto" 64 (which reduced with more complex sounds.)

Right, because how would we manage if the instrument didn't have all the effects we might need? And where would we get samples from if Korg didn't provide them for us? In an age when 40Gb sample libraries are common and every DAW ships with dozens of effects, none of those things seem even remotely enticing, even for someone like me who has been a Korg fan for 40 years.

[trackbout]

... the Triton occupies a pretty sparsely populated area of the current plugin landscape.

What, an emulation of an old synth everyone lost interest in a few decades ago? Yeah, nobody else is doing that.

Nope. An emulation of a historically significant sample based workstation. Name one other that's not part of a cloud based subscription service.

[AnX]

M1
Wavestation

[PAK]

Right, because how would we manage if the instrument didn't have all the effects we might need? And where would we get samples from if Korg didn't provide them for us? In an age when 40Gb sample libraries are common and every DAW ships with dozens of effects, none of those things seem even remotely enticing

If your comparison, to be enticed, is against 40GB sample libraries, methinks you're missing much of the point to many. When you get libraries that large then, to maintain usability, even with SSD's you have to start thinking about pre-load templates. Otherwise we'd see how long it'd take you to take that library and create an equivalent 8 layer sound, with keyboard splits and routed through multi-FX, whilst using something like Kontakt

The goal is not always absolute realism, or the finest fidelity possible. And, if you're looking for ideas to quickly proceed, then factors like preset switching speed become important to audition many things quickly. Things, like multi-GB libraries, may not work so well in such scenarios, huh? Why, just maybe, something self-contained, with a variety of sounds sourced from a smaller curated sample pool, might work better for workflow then?

[trackbout]

M1
Wavestation

Haha, right, so pretty slim pickings. And aren't those plugins like 10 years old and not resizable?

[Aloysius]

They are true emulations. The hardware M1 and Wavestation are not resizable either.

[AnX]

no idea, but i cant think of a single reason anyone would want a workstation vst these days, given the quality of instruments available

[trackbout]

that's ok though, you don't have to! different strokes my friend.

[tristan-]

They are true emulations. The hardware M1 and Wavestation are not resizable either.

here's a resized version

[MFXxx]

OK demoed and whilst it's appealing. I really can't justify the price. But I'm sure others may.
However I get the distinct feeling this is priced with a marketing angled tmif a rental scheme like Roland etc just around the corner.
Maybe I'm being cynical but I really cannot justify the exhubrient priced tag here.

[Aloysius]

They are true emulations. The hardware M1 and Wavestation are not resizable either.

here's a resized version