A similar question was asked earlier (âCan I do the same thing with Octatrack and sample chainsâ), and answered.
Youâd have to read Korgâs description of âWave Sequencing 2.0â. A lot is explained there.
And software vs. hardware⌠well, itâs personal preference isnât it.
For example for playing live gigs, I know lots of people are fine playing live with laptops and/or iPad for playing samples and stuff. I got an Octatrack as my live sampler and later added other sample players. Somehow we all get alongâŚ
Also, I believe earlier in the thread there were comments from experienced Wavestation and/or iWavestation users about what they felt were usability improvements in Wavestate over the now-older stuff, as well as Wave Sequencing 2.0.
When I look at photos of the Wavestation and compared to Wavestate, an obvious difference is knobs. Lots, of knobs. Wavestation has one âknobâ and everything else is buttons and a display w/ menus.
If you think of Wavestate only as a sample player, then youâre not going to get your moneyâs worth out of it, even at the relatively small price compared to the Udo and so on.
Do you ever play out? And if so, youâre talking about a laptop + a controller, right?
Have you ever thought to yourself that it may be handy to have one of your favorite soft synths loaded into a stand-alone hardware unit, with a dedicated knobby interface?
Yes! Exactly. Well said. And, I think, validation of the power of the original Wavestation. Sure, the EX only had 4 MB of samples and 32-note polyphony, but with four wavesequences per patch and eight patches per performance, you could program some amazing stuff! I canât wait to see how the Wavestate holds up to that. The patch architecture looks a lot simpler â which is not a knock, because it looks a lot easier to understand. And then add the sequencing lanes, MFX, arpeggiator, GBs of samples⌠canât wait!
Well, itâs not a straight-forward sample playback device. You could get the original Wavestation wave roms (and indeed the additional factory content for the Wavestate) but you wouldnât be able to replicate what the Wavestation does⌠you could approximate it, but not replicate. And the various additional features in the Wavestate would make even approximation even harder.
A (perhaps only slightly ridiculous) comparison would be to get a Behringer Model D and say it can do the same things as a Moog One.
It plays samples back. Has it got an internal synth engine? It can modulate and shape these waveforms but thats it. I cant get excited about this at all. But i do see why people go WOW when they hear the cinematic samples you can download. Save yourself a lot of money and get an OT and download those fantastic waveform samples. Much more you can do.
Yes. It has a synth engine. Iâm sorry that you seem unable to grasp the flexibility of the synth. But equally, if itâs not your bag then thatâs cool. I can assure you that an OT cannot replicate what the Wavestate can do, and equally the Wavestate canât replicate what the OT can do. I have an OT, Iâve had the software version of the Wavestation for about 10 years and Iâve had hardware Wavestations in the past so I like to pretend that I know a little of what Iâm blethering about here.
And, for laughs⌠youâre not going to save any money buying an OT as the Wavestate is going to be significantly cheaper than an OT. Unless you get a really good deal on a second hand OT mk I.
Not if you want to, you know, actually play the samples in question. Thereâs a pretty big disparity between what the Octatrack is versus what the Wavestate is. I really donât get where youâre coming from here.
