Kara-Moon Forum

If you want to have a good idea of what this litle beauty is capable of, here is a nice demo :
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=cXpHASXnBJo&mode=related&search=

Allso one of my favourite Jarre songs  8)

k

It's a nice board,especially for live performing,but I don't see any major advances on the M3 over my Triton.But then again,I want to venture away from Korg and try a different brand anyway.
From a asthetic point of view,I think the M3 is one of the ugliest boards I have every seen-it's looks like a piece of medical equipment! :P ;D

Does your Triton has the karma technology ?

k

Thanks for the link, that is a fantastic cover of a great song indeed. Funny how people like different looks - I think the M3 is a stunning piece of design. Great sounding, too...

Interesting (maybe) bit of info: those typical Industrial Revolution fx drums (the loop playing from the start) is just one of the default kits of the Roland D50.

Kara,

The only thing that I am aware as far as Karma goes,is that Korg made a Karma worksation several years ago,so I honestly don't know what the big buzz is over the Karma thing.
But like I had said,I want to try a different brand,because I have had nothing but Korg products and I want some features that other brands offer.

The M3 is a relative of the Oasys,but if I really wanted Oasys quality,I'd rather actually buy the Oasys.

Despite all that the Oasys is capable of,-what it all boils down to me personally is,is that both the preset programs of the Triton & the Oasys sound the same right out of the box.
That being said,I am still very happy with my Triton.

As far as I am concerned,the quality of the Kurzweil K-series is every bit as good as the Oasys and the only real difference between the two,is that the Oasys is a complete,self contained studio in one box,whereas the Kurzweil is not.

An all-in-one studio in a single keyboard is a beautful thing if you are starting from scratch,but for people who already have major investments in gear,the Oasys is just to damn expensive for most people.

At this point,I am really favoring Nord & Kurzweil over anything else(with the exception of the Access Virus),so that's where my main interests rest.

Thom

You are wrong about big buzz and karma, believe me. It's way more then just buzz...
but since :
"""I am really favoring Nord & Kurzweil over anything else(with the exception of the Access Virus),so that's where my main interests rest."""

I won't elaborate on this

k

Kara,

The phrase "big buzz" does not necessarily mean that it implies that something is false or hyped up-I am not saying that,so there is no need to get defensive.
When I use the term "big buzz",what I am actually saying is that the M3 has some good qualties that has stirred up & peaked the interest of people that are interested in what the M3 has to offer.

I guess I should have articulated my views better..my bad.

By my own admission,I don't really know anything about Karma technology,as I never looked into it.
Let me put it another way; I am not discrediting or degrading the M3-it just simply does not suit my particular wants in that price range.

I hope you understand.

Thom

I like the M3 a lot, and I'm sure if Elwoodsblue wouldn't have a triton, he would check out board very thouroughly...

If you're interested in what Karma can do, check out this link: http://www.karma-lab.com/vp/klvp2.html?playID=40 and go to the "MPL" video's. There's also a introduction video on the M3's karma features which equals the Oasys karma.

I definitely want to buy an Oasys, but guess what... I can't afford one  >:(
...so I will try to afford myself a 73-keyed M3 with the radias board inside of it. It won't have all the features of the Oasys, but good enough for me and my budget...

Moon

Interesting link: http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27044&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=9644db8608af911657db0d780369cd06

I'm not getting myself into this debate !  :-X

As a folow up, I've found this comparision between the M3 and the famous OASYS. This was put together by Stephen Kay himself.
For those that don't know Kay, he is the developper of the famous karma technology used in the M3 and the OASYS

HARDWARE DIFFERENCES

M3:
-- Custom sound chip based on HD-1 design
-- Radias chip (on EXB-Radias board)
-- 320x240 Color LCD Touchscreen (5 in. diagonal??) w/ XY mode
-- x amount of RAM to run OS and software
-- 256MB of compressed Sound ROM
-- 64MB of Sample RAM, expandable to 320MB
-- Control surface elements (keys, buttons, sliders -- no knobs)
-- audio inputs (2 analog [1/4"], S/PDIF)
-- audio outputs (6 analog [1/4"], S/PDIF, optional Firewire)
-- no internal hard drive
-- no internal CD burner

OASYS
-- generic (more powerful) PC processing chip
-- 10.4 in. diagonal Color LCD Touchscreen
-- 1GB (or 2GB) of RAM to run and hold everything
-- 628MB of uncompressed samples (effectively loaded as if ROM)
-- 200MB to 1.5GB Sample RAM (depending what Instruments are loaded)
-- Control surface elements (keys, buttons, sliders, knobs)
-- audio inputs (4 analog [2 XLR-1/4", 2 1/4"], S/PDIF) XLR Oasys audio inputs support 48V phantom power
-- audio outputs (10 analog [1/4"], S/PDIF, optional ADAT)
-- internal hard drive
-- internal CD burner

FEATURE DIFFERENCES
These hardware differences create some feature differences:
1. Instruments:
-- M3: 2
-- OASYS: 6
The M3 is fixed with the ESD sample synth and Radias synth engines. The OASYS is limited by only what Korg develops which currently includes the HD-1 Sample synth, AL-1 Analog Synth, CX-3 Modeled Organ, STR-1 Plucked String Model, LAC-1 Legacy MS-20 EX and Legacy PolySixEX.

2. Polyphony:
-- M3: 120 voices (fixed)
-- OASYS: 172 [HD-1][PolySixEX][CX-3], 96 [AL-1], 48 [STR-1][MS-20EX] (dynamically allocated)

3. User Interface:
Given its larger screen, for similar functionality, there are less numbers of screens to navigate in the OASYS when compared to the M3. Some of this is compensated for with the M3's PC/Mac editor (cool). The M3 does have the new XY mode (also cool), but the OASYS supports similar X-Y control via its Vector Joystick (though not as cool).

4. Sampling:
-- M3: 320 MB
-- OASYS: 1GB (all instruments loaded) to 1.5 GB (no EXs instruments)

5. Audio Track Recording:
-- M3: none
-- OASYS: 16 audio tracks

6. Simultaneous Effects Processing:
-- M3: 5 insert, 2 Master, 1 Total
-- OASYS: 12 insert, 2 Master, 2 Total

7. Audio Routing :
The OASYS has better audio routing capabilities

8. Karma:
Identical (with the exceptions due to the OASYS greater number of effects slots and more complex audio routing)

New M3 Features:
Having said all of the above, there are some new features on the M3 that are better than the current OASYS implementation:
-- Midi Sequencer: better resolution on the M3 and Cue List (OASYS owners are expecting similar enhancements to the OASYS sequencer)
-- PC/Mac Editor: Similar to the X-50/micro-X, this is definitely cool since the editor runs as a VST/AU/RTAS plugin


Bottom Line, I think the new M3 is a great replacement for the Triton Series since it leverages many things from the OASYS. Assuming the prices are somewhat similar to Triton prices, I can see a lot of people buying this (i.e. people who want a workstation).

Except for the drum track, and perhaps a few other small details, the M3's Program structure is a subset of the OASYS HD-1, and it inherits many aspects of the HD-1's cool features and great sound quality.

The HD-1 still has a number of advantages, however, as befits the higher cost of the OASYS system. These include higher polyphony (172 vs. 120), faster envelopes and LFOs, larger ROM (more than twice the size of the M3, with EXs1), linear as opposed to compressed PCM, slightly better anti-aliasing, Wave Sequencing, per-voice Vector Envelope, etc.

The OASYS has 185 effects: 12 insert effects, 2 master effects, and 2 total effects;
The M3 has 170 effects: 5 insert effects, 2 master effects, and 1 total effect.

The OASYS signal path is 32-bit floating point, for extended dynamic range and less worrying about gain structure and clipping; the M3 uses a traditional 24-bit signal path.

The OASYS has a more robust control surface, with 8 knobs, 9 sliders and 16 buttons, and LED indicators for the sliders and knobs. The M3 has the touch-screen controller, but the OASYS has a physical joystick.

The OASYS has 4 analog inputs (including two XLR mic inputs) and 10 analog outputs, compared to 2 ins and 6 outs on the M3. The M3 has the EXB-FW for 6 digital outputs via firewire; the OASYS has the EXB-DI for 8 digital outputs via ADAT.

The OASYS has the 172-voice CX-3 and PolysixEX, 96-voice AL-1, 48-voice STR-1 and MS-20EX, and any other EXi that come in the future; the M3 has the 24-voice RADIAS-EXB.

This is a  good overview. If people are considering which one to buy (considering you can afford an Oasys): both the M3 and Oasys are extreme good workstation, but I've found that other synths have a better synth engine (I'm reffering to Access, Nord,...). In my particular case, I've choosen the M3 and will combine the M3 with other synths. This result in a more diverse sound pallet... combining the Karma feature with other synth must result in some inspring effects!

OK... the fact that I couldn't afford the Oasys also played a roled  :-\

But one thing is for sure: I do love my M3  :-*

And if you're looking for a workstation, I can only recommend one of these devices...

Moon

It looks like I'm not the only one with this feeling about the M3: http://www1.mipa-award.de/2008/winner.htm

The Korg M3 was choosen as the better workstation before Roland's new Fantom G and Yamaha's XS !

Be assure: the M3 is a fantastic workstation ! (OK, I admit I'm nit competely objective  ;) )

Moon

Just for giggles...

I like the Magmavander and Folderol approach. Unless you're performing live, and portability is an issue...
A fast PC, the peripherals of your choice, and an unlimited selection of softsynths. O0
Powerful, upgradeable, and infinitely customizable... you decide what features are included and how they're arranged.

And if you want it rock-solid and reliable...run it all on Linux. 8)

Explain how you are interpreting the winners;
there is a list in order
there is a name in red that matches the model pictured..

Is the first name the winner...or the the name in red?
I would assume the name at the top of the list won, and the name in red is the one pictured.

Either way- it's a bad design for a webpage listing such a contest; it should be simple.  Why list the Yamaha, then the M3, then the Roland if the M3 won?

I think the M3 finished second behind Yamaha, but ahead of Roland, and the reason it's in red is because it's the one pictured.  The model pictured is always in red in the list, but sometimes it's at the top (first), sometimes second, sometimes third...
confusing. dumb. webpage design.

Oh, and I thought it was just me... :D

The three names were the 3 nominated models. The red one is the winner. They didn't displayed the M3 because it was the best looking keyboard  :o

Still... there's no such thing 'as best'... it just got the award...

I'm sure that a Bentley is a better car than als those which were nominated and awarded as best car of 200x  ;D Okay, now I'm loosing the comparison...

Moon

For such a nice page it wan't very intuitive.  Clicking on the winner should have done something...having the winner at the top of the list (and listing in order) waould have made more sense... etc.

The best today no longer is best tomorrow (or in a different contest even).  I caught your meaning with the Bentley comparison.

Yes, when I saw that the Stratocaster won, I lost interest in their other recommendations.
The Strat is a competent tool, and when their quality control is working right, very reliable. But it's like saying the Shure SM58 is the best vocal mic for 2008... :o ::) :D

I think we all agree: there's no such thing as 'the best'  ;)

Moon

Yes there is ... it's whatever I am currently using ;D

...and whatever it is I am longing for at the moment...

Hmmmm.... stop longing rharv... your the best !!!  ;D

Realy .... it's not at all about the tools, it's the artist that makes the music  ;D

k