Talk:Korg M1

Non-sense

Why the comparison with D-50 or the DX-7? They had nothing to do with the M1! The DX-7 and the D-50 are digital synths with different engine sounds, the M1 is an early low tech workstation, with the ability to turn into a black brick after battery lose! Also, there's a lot of Korg propaganda style in this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Misc

does the M1 produce Microtones?

Subjectivity

Isn't there too much subjectivity on the last two paragraphs under 'Series', perhaps including some sales propaganda by Korg? I think these paragraphs are obviously the voice of wishful thinking manufacturers and sales men. Not encyclopedic objective material.

Sales propaganda by Korg? (see below)

'...WHICH MEANS IT SHIPS WITH LARGE palette of sounds. ADDITIONALLY, THIS SOFTWARE CAN import System Exclusive files (.SYX) exported from the original HARDWARE-BASED M1. This opens the door to 3rd party ROMs being available for the SOFTWARE VERSION. AND in response to user feedback, Korg has ADDED a RESONANT FILTER to the SOFTWARE VERSION, which means that it has ADDED FLEXIBILITY with sound design that the ORIGINAL MODEL DID NOT.'

Subjectivity? (see below)

'...when the public had its fill of 'do-it-all-yourself' machines, and the 'virtual analog' age began. While some top-notch music workstations are still produced, the computer and software synthesizer market has slowly eroded the market, and most people today prefer simpler synth designs and good sequencing software packages, which integrate audio and MIDI sequencing seamlessly.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.56.182 (talk) 16:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

This article does need much clean up. Please feel free to edit it, which is, bizarrely, kinda the point of Wikipedia. But I do agree that a lot of statements could be written better and the whole article needs reorganization. What is also needed is good citations. If a third-party article can verify a statement, then it's probably worth including. I happen to own two Korg M1s. The M1 and the Wavestation are my two favorite synths of all time. The M1 did have a huge palette of sounds at the time of its release, and the sounds ranged from respectable to pretty damn awesome. Great synth. One of the best ever, in my opinion. Of course, my opinion doesn't count here on Wikipedia... JordanSealy 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Best selling synth of all time?

I think the line that states the M1 is the top selling synth of all time should be removed/changed. Earlier today I came across this website: http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/05/22/the-korg-microkorg-the-most-popular-synthesizer-of-all-time/ I did a bit of online digging and every page that I could find that made the statement that the M1 is the top selling synth either links back to this page or the source for this page. Personally, I think using just a single, eleven year old review as the only source is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps just a small rewrite from "the M1 became the best-selling digital synthesizer of all time, which it remains today." to "The M1 is one of the top selling digital synths of all time."

Other thoughts anyone? Looneybunny (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Looneybunny

The article suggests that serial 100000 was indeed number 100000 built. If this numbering continued, there have been sold over 300000, as there are serials known beyond 300000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.93.42.97 (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Rewrite Needed

This article is a complete mess. From claims with no sources, opinions, sections that contradict others, and plain incorrect information, I am honestly surprised that no one has nominated this page for deletion. There is so much extra information that has nothing at all to do with the M1, (regarding later Korg AI based synths like the 01W), that as I read, I was no longer sure I was even still on the same page. A full review/rewrite is desperately needed. Looneybunny (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Looneybunny

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korg M1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020122243/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Feb02/articles/korgm1retro.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb02/articles/korgm1retro.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sound-on-Sound opinion article is not a verifiable source for M1 sales figures

As stated in the Sound-on-Sound opinion article,

"...one that reportedly sold 250,000..."

"...Korg won't verify the quarter of a million figure I've just mentioned..."

the sales figures for the M1 are not verified, instead being nothing more than the opinion and speculation of the writer.

Meanwhile, a different source was already offered with the conflicting claim that the Korg Microkorg, (a synth in production for over twenty years), has long surpassed the M1 in sales.

Unless there is a verified source showing the sales number for the M1, one which is not dependent on speculation or opinion, the "best-selling of all time' claim should and must be removed.

http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/05/22/the-korg-microkorg-the-most-popular-synthesizer-of-all-time/

Looneybunny (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia consensus has found Sound on Sound to be a reliable source (see WP:RSINSTRUMENT) and Synthopia isn't. It's totally possible the Sound on Sound source is wrong, of course — but to resolve this definitively, we'll need to find some reliable secondary sources suitable for Wikipedia that can be used to counter it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, we could definitely adjust the wording to better reflect the Sound on Sound article caveat ("Korg won't verify it") — I'll do this later. Popcornfud (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

And to make matters even worse for this subject, (and murkier), were we to follow directly Wikipedia's own definition/description of what a "synthesizer" is, then the M1 was long ago overtaken as the "top-selling synth of all time", by multiple computer-hosted "soft-synth" applications, (Kontakt would be the best example probably).

I would again suggest reverting to my original rewrite from awhile back, that the M1 was the top-selling synth, "for its time", since without confirmation from Korg that is probably the most accurate statement possible

Looneybunny (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article to more closely reflect what Sound on Sound reports, including the year of the report and the caveat that Korg had not verified the figure. None of your other arguments (like how many units soft synths sold, etc) can be used until you produce reliable sources we can use. Popcornfud (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)