Korg Prologue Gets Turbo Add-On

Sinevibes has introduced Turbo – a variable waveshaping oscillator plugin for the multi engine of the Korg Prologue.

The Prologue uses a structure of 2VCO + Multi Engine, VCF, 2 EG, 1 VCA, and 1 LFO. The Prologue lets you load custom software, like Turbo, to expand the keyboard’s sonic capabilities.

Turbo uses a pair of sine oscillators, coupled with special sine-based waveshapers, to create unique, spectrally rich sounds with very distinct character.

Here’s an introduction to the Korg Multi Engine and the Developer Kit from Superbooth 2018:

Turbo Audio Demos:

Pricing and Availability

Turbo is available now for US $29.

20 thoughts on “Korg Prologue Gets Turbo Add-On

  1. That is pretty great, but the update has failed to fix my vco tuning problems. Hopefully they just do a straight swap
    I’ve been waiting for a few months for the OS update to no avail, can’t wait to get a working one and try all this new stuff!!!

    1. I played a prologue in a ship recently and the keyboard scaling was horrendously off. it sounded good otherwise, but you’d think a problem as widespread as this would have been sorted out by now.

      1. Not to mention that the digital oscillator aliases horribly at the high end (that’s inexcusably bad software from KORG). Plus, as the digital oscillator is of course perfectly in tune, it beats against the analogue oscillators where they’re massively out of tune…

  2. I’m looking forward to get a Prologue 16 as soon as tuning issues are fixed. I expect them to come up with a solution, they did officially acknowledge this as a known issue.

    1. They released a firmware update a month ago that was supposed to fix the tuning issue and I’ve heard reports that it worked for several people. Are there some Prologues that it didn’t work on?

      1. It didn’t work for me but mine went out of tune immediately prior to the update. Now it takes a minute to become unusuable for anyone other than the severely tone deaf, rather than 3 seconds. An improvement I guess!

      1. Spot on, wave-folding a sine wave is nearly identical to FM – the differences are subtle: the wave-folder is linear (rather than a sine wave) and their wave folder seems to not change the sign of the signal (FM or a normal wave-folder would go through 0 and reflect back up on the other side).

      2. Hey! Just wanted to make clear that while FM and variable sine-based waveshaping can lead to very similar results in certain cases, they are implemented very differently and with certain settings waveshaping will produce sounds which are much more difficult to get with FM. Also, detuning oscillators with Turbo leads to pleasant spectrum wobble instead of metallic dissonance as with FM. You would spend much more time with 3 or 4 operator FM setup if you wanted to achieve what Turbo allows you to achieve much faster.

    1. Polysynths shouldn’t have the same voice architecture as monosynths.

      When you’re playing chords, you need different features than when you’re playing leads and basses.

      1. Not really. Synthesis is synthesis. A bass sound lifted a couple of octaves can be a “typical” chord sound. Think about what a piano does or a Calvinet etc, they cover a lot of the elements/voices of sound. A piano covers bass chords and lead. Also look at a Prophet Pro-One and a Prophet 5. Very simiar, taking into consideration the price restraints. Think Roland SH-09 and Juno. Dont restrict yourself to thinking a synth is a bass or chord only instrument, they aren’t and you end up putting limitations on yourself if you do. Try the old trick of making a track just using one synth, this will get you digging into corners you hadn’t before!

        1. “Synthesis is synthesis.”

          No arguments there.

          But for decades, both players and manufacturers have realized that it’s foolish to design a polysynth with monosynth architecture and controls.

          Monosynths – and synths designed for multi-timbral polyphonic performance like the Analog Keys – are generally made to maximize the synthesis options available to you, and to let you create complex sounds that cut through a mix. Ideally, you should have hands-on control for everything, to make it quick and easy to create new sounds or to changes sounds as you play. See synths like the Pro-One, the Minimoog and the ARP Odyssey.

          Polysynths are designed more for playing homophonically – playing chords that should blend together well. This best-loved polysynths constrain your synthesis options somewhat, so that most patch options will be musically useful when played homophonically. The options and controls can logically be very different than on a monosynth, too.

          These differences are why a synth like the Roland Alpha Juno can be a beloved poly synth. Even with really limited synthesis options and paltry performance controls, it’s a great synth for what it was designed for.

          1. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

            Pro-one= Prophet 5
            Minimoog= Memorymoog
            Odyssey= ran out of money, Avatar?

            The Alpha Juno was cost cutting. The original Junos were thought of as “junior” polls when they came out and there are two sides to how their reputation changed (probably more). Cheap so they were used by a lot of bands as the cheapest way to get polyphonic, because of this they became the “sound” of polysynths as not everyone wanted to play “Jump”.

            The control for everything design paradigm was there because the technology wasn’t available for parameter access. Would people rather have a Jupiter 8 or 6 over an Alpha Juno? The decades have also realised a panel full of controls costs. Luckily today (a true golden age) we can have both. Think of the new DSIs and Moog. Pop over to Germany and we get the big Waldorf about out with knobs, the Virus with them in some if its guises. Look at the low run mega synths or the Andromeda. The limited interface was a cost decision.

            I will stop now but thanks for your thoughts

    2. It’s not actually a turbo boost you know. I think this kind of flexible oscillator engine is exactly the kind of feature you’d want from a polysynth. Look forward to seeing what else comes to the Multi Engine and I hope it gets continued support.

  3. I wonder, will my reply everytime removed when im questioning a manufacturer about some kind of imperfection…without being insulting or abusive? ….

    I’m not a pro or con manufacturer x…

    1. “I wonder, will my reply everytime removed when im questioning a manufacturer about some kind of imperfection…without being insulting or abusive? ….”

      No. We encourage active, constructive discussion of topics related to synthesis, including critical discussion of THINGS related to synthesis. But if we see comments that are clearly personal attacks, on individuals or groups of people, we will delete them.

    1. Ok I was misguided by the video preview. I clicked on the turbo link and it clearly states that it’s a software download. Sorry for my confusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *