Hi all,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfFKYCSuOlg

Did a recording/video for myself to compare the sounds my Rhodes Mark 7, Fender Rhodes mark I and mark II and my nord stage.

It's a little bit shortened due to the limits of youtube(guess 10 minutes of rhodes is more than enough)

Like all comparison, it will never be all fair. The rhodes pianos have different settings the mark 7 in the typical chic corea voicing, mark2 and mark 1 more in the ideal setting. The nord stage mark 1 suitcase.

Everything di into my soundcard, the mark II via a summit audio 2Ba-221.

Please enjoy, judge for yourself what Rhodes sound you like, they are all very different.


/Fredrik

Great comparison. I still dig the Mark I sound the best. The Mark 7 is a bit too bright and bell-like in the upper register for my taste.

Do they have legs for the Mark 7? That X stand scares me!

BTW, nice dance when you go over to the Mark II.

Nice playing!
I too think that the Mark 7 is quite bellish, maybe a tad too much. Anyway, perhaps you could make a neat money letting out your Mk7 to Nord for sample recording

The Mk1 sounds sweet. A little bitey in the low end, I like that - only wish my Nord would do the same. I really love the sound of the Mk2 too - to me, the Nord Mk2 sample has become marginalized (I rarely use it!) due to its exaggerad nasal sound.

Now, just add the SV-1 in the pot, and you've got a REALLY interesting comparison!

Always now I should have become a dancer instead :))

They have a stand to the mark7 but I did't buy it, I always hated x-stands becaause I alway hit my "shin" is it?? anyway always hit my legs when looking for the pedals. I'll see which stand I would like to have.

You can actually dial out the bellish component with an eq, personally I think it's great to have some bell and bite to the tone so-cut's better in a mix IMO.


/Fredrik


/Fred

Yeah, it's your shin that you hit. Look at Z stands for you Rhodes. Great stands, very sturdy.

Fred, you should gaffer tape the seat to your bum.. will help you move around better

Btw.. the thing I felt from watching those vids was how similar all those rhodes actually sound... I don't think I could pick them out in a blindfold test... add some general EQing and it gets even more blurry...

Guess its all in the feel of the instrument right?

Nord Mk7 sample..??? i guess you meen Mk5?? I doubt Clavia has one of the mark 7 in the house...

The nasal sound I suppose is the typical Chic corea sound, thats the same as the setting my mk7 has - Nord suitcase mark I (piano 4) on the stage thats the nord piano I use + a little eq.

I will probably get the whole rhodes armada on me for saying this but I don't think there is so much difference in the sound between a mark I and a mark II, the preamp sounds different but when connecting directly to the harp there are more the subtle differences between different rhodes pianos that gets important.
The key action of the markII is also superior to the mark I, but the magic upgrade to the action does wonders. I just have to raise the harp on my mark 1 to get it to be more dynamic again,...

I will test the SV-1 at some point but I'm so into playing the real thing at the moment.



/Fred

That would probably improve the looks of my ass.....



Same nurd playing...Actually the mark 1 and mark II is set pretty similar. The mark 7 I think stands out with it's bell like component but as you say....eq.


[/quote]

Yeah the feel of the instrument is all, I am not directly connected to the sound of all these instruments.

/Fredrik

I will, I've tried a simple tornado table stand but that was crap.

/Fred

Is that a pre-1975 Mark I? Sounds to me like a post-1975, in which case there's more individual variation between instruments than any systematic difference between Mark I and Mark II. Depending on the specific years, the only difference between Mark I and Mark II is the plastic cover is flat on the Mark II.

Please tell us the order. Based on the video, and assuming you kept the Mark I cover on the Mark I, the order is

Mark 7
Mark I
Nord (obvious from the sound as well as the video)
Mark II
Mark 7

But I could have the Mark I and II mixed, since they both sound like post-1975 Mark I / Mark II designs to me.

Sometime in 1977, the action changed on the Mark I to make it faster (something to do with the rail under the keys). My Mark I is post-1975, so uses the newer more robust tines; the pre-1975 tone is what I think of as the Chick Corea tone.

In any case, I like them all. I EQ to bring out the bell tone, so I'd probably love a Mark 7, which I've never seen in person.

I don't notice it in your video, but I find the lower registers on all the E2's Rhodes a bit muddy, and this is true for all their sample sets, so probably has more to do with their methodology and processing than the pianos they used. That or they just happened to get a crop of somewhat muddy pianos to sample. I like a crisp, firm, round bottom .. we are talking about Rhodes, right? anyway, my own Rhodes has lost a bit of that due to the hammer tips getting grooved with usage.

I agree they all sound very similar. I doubt I could tell the Mark I and Mark II. I can tell the Mark 7 in the upper registers, but you could probably EQ the others and fool me. The Electro is pretty obvious, though I like the punchy attack it has in the upper end; great for leads and easy enough to back off on for comping.

[edit]Silly me, I see you posted the order in the description. doh! Well, at least I got it right.

Is it just me, or does someone else hears some bad notes in Mark II part of the video? Not wrong notes, just notes that have tines too close to pickup, making that distinct noise tones like that do.

Great playing btw! Personally, I like how your Mark I sounds the best, altough it is quite similar to the Mark II (I own a Mark II too). BTw, how come you have 3 of them (what's the plural for a rhodes?) ?

You're partly right. The real problem is that the Mark I / Mark II distinction was purely marketing. The only difference between the last Mark I and the first Mark II was the flat lid. But there were changes at other times that had significant impacts on the tone.

The more important changes were:

Late 1969, early 1970, i believe, some tine assembly changes between "Fender Rhodes" and "Rhodes Mark I". Some early models even have square tonebars rather than the flat ones (tonebars being the big resonators, the other fork of what's essentially a pitchfork, Harold's basis for the design). These babies really sound cool, and I even got to play one once. I don't know the details of these early changes.

Some time in 1975, the Mark I tine was redesigned to one that was far, far less likely to break. The new ones sound different, and sound like all the pianos in this video. I associate the older tine with some classic early Chic Corea material, but I might be wrong about that. There may have been accompanying tonebar assembly changes as well.

Some time in 1977 or 1978 (IIRC), they improved the action, something to do with how the keys rest in the keybed. A friend tells me that older pianos can be retrofitted with an equivalent change, making the action lighter and faster. As we know, different action can make it seem to sound different simply because we're playing it differently.

Next came Mark II, which as I said was purely marketing and cosmetic.

Throughout the Mark II era there were a few minor changes in parts, both action and (IIRC) tonebar assembly, but they didn't significantly change the sound of the instrument. Some parts were changed from wood to plastic, as I recall.

The tone of all can be dramatically changed based on setup. There's a little about this in the Nord E2 manual, which is worth a quick read, showing the vertical and horizontal spacing / alignment between the end of the tine and that tine's coil. This is done individually per note.

There's another adjustment that can be made, called "voicing", which changes where the hammer strikes the tine. You don't do this individually per note, but by unscrewing the "harp" from the frame and sliding the two ends (high-note/low-note) closer to or further from the keybed, and testing. When you have it how you want it, you tap new holes and bolt the harp back down.

One wonders which of the two adjustments is best to do first. My guess would be 1, then 2, then 1 again.

BTW, Scarbee Rhodes were sampled direct from the harp, and so were my own Rhodes samples. IMHO, this should be nearly indistinguishable from through the EQ with both knobs turned fully clockwise.

Rhodeseses!

Rhödes!

Thanks LearJeff for updating us on the rhodes story-long time since I read the electro manual, you just reminded me of how great the info background pages were in this. The mark II update was really great flat top and excellent key action-thumbs up.

I work a lot with the eq on my nord stage to get the sound I like and fits a tune, there is a resemblance between the pianos of the electro and stage but I must say the nord stage brought a major improvement. On the electro I did emphasize around 1.5 kHz with the presence button which gave the rhodes a better bite. It cut's. I agree about the muddiness but I think its all over the nord cpd to the real thing. Having said that-I really like the Nord Rhodes sound.

The mark I is a 76 model, got it 10 years ago, one owner bla, bla used it at a lot of gigs in the beginning but always broke tines..........Freddan adlers fixed the voicing and intalled the magic touch in it. Plastic hammers with keyfelt glued to the hammers.

The Mark II I got this summer quite cheap, this piano has been standing in a church in northern sweden for quite a number of years, almost like new. Voiced it quickly myself since the voicing was all over the place, there is still some work necessery on this piano aligning the tines towards the pickups and some tuning stuff.

Pale, I don't know exctly what you mean with pickup tine distance??

Mark 7, got a great offer and bought it.....

So three kids and three rhodes pianos, one each :))

/Fred

Sometimes, when the tine is too close to the pickup and you play something fortissimo, you get a clunking tone (tine hitting the pickup). I think I heard that sound once or twice during your video, on the Mark II part of the video. Maybe I am wrong, I'll give it another listen later on.

Now I know what you mean, no I don't think I have that on the mark II but I will go through it to see if there are any clunk sounds. I revoiced the mark 7 yesterday in order to see which voicing I wanted on it - it can be quite tedious getting rid of that sound..


6:15 yes clunk damn gif

/Fred

Rhodi

Thought I could give you the mk7 with some different eq settings as well turning them on and off in given order-nothing exact but it will give you an understanidn for what could be achieved by equing out hte bell character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RK776aOV_A

/Fred

I think the Nord holds its own quite well against three examples of the real deal. The only better fake Rhodes out there is the Scarbee set.

You know, I had a hard time comparing the sounds, because I just got lost in bit in enjoying your playing. You play very well indeed, Fred!

Damn, makes me jones for a Mark VII again. I gotta quit watching this stuff...

--Dave

Thanks Dave, far to kind

It's quite fun to post these comparons and I learn quite a bit from it, with the mark 7 the rhodes piano is born again hope it will take off saleswhise.

/Fred

Word!

Great soloing man... Your awesome... I wish i could play like you

From the direct signal, my ears liked the Mark 7 the least. Of course, as you said, it's voiced a bit differently from the rest, so it's kinda tough to make an A-B comparison. It did sound worlds better in the second video with some EQ though.

I'm definitely more than a little jealous that you have all 4 of those bad boys at your disposal.

Thanks greg

Bridog, unfortunately I oftenmost don't have them all up at the same time yet because it's overcrowding my library-home studio-but that will be sorted in due time. I work quite a lot with eq all the time, especially with the stage so perhaps i should have gotten the active version. Anyhow it would be great to have a good analog eq with variable q and sweep.

/Fred

Yeah, I agree. The Mk 7 sounds more like a modeled Rhodes to my ears, much less natural I guess.

Fred, you're playing is terrific.

The one thing I noticed about the mark VII (and I haven't watched your second video yet) is that the bell-like character in the upper registers doesn't seem to ring like the others. Where the others seem to still have some tone after note off, the VII seems to dampen it immediately. It sounds pretty good when you're playing a note, but the VII does seem to lack a certain singing quality that the others have.

sorry but this is garbage... I've played Freds actual rhodes twice on 2 separate occassions, once in Gothenburg, once in Stockholm... even my buddies who are way more advanced than me and anyone on this forum (and I know Carlo/Marino would agree with me on this) agree that the new rhodes is great... its not much different to an old rhodes but its all new parts... a great thing to have in these times.

to say it sounds like a computerised model is just insane.... you have NO idea what you are talking about.. sorry Kanker but I think your credibiltiy is low at this point...

I've heard Kevin (Kanker) play. His musicianship is unassailable. You may disagree with his opinions, but you can't fault his credibility.

I don't agree with his judgement in this case, but it's a pretty subjective thing and he's merely offering an opinion.

Of course, he'd be the first to admit that he's crazy.

Yeah, really OF. That was rather harsh. Kevin is opinionated, no doubt, but that comes close to a personal attack.

I think if what Kevin was talking about is the same as the point I was making, that could sound like a poor model to some ears.

Another P.S. - I think the VII is a really good sounding instrument based on these demos. I don't have a great feel for Rhodes sounds nor the differences available, but as someone once said, I know what I hate, and I don't hate that.

Cool it guys,

I must say I've tried most of the rhodes vsti's lounge lizzard, the logic one, some new french vsti and the native instruments ones. Even though it were some time ago I must say they don't even come close to the real thing-I really hate playing all of them....The scarbee one is good. All of the sounded synthetic.

None of these play in the same league as the mark 7.

Perhaps I should have made this a blindfold test to get peoples real opinion.

The mark 7 is a new player on the arena, it's preamp got a more open character than the old marks, personally I like the bite and attack on this piano. You also loose some of the mid-range warmth with this very voicing and that is perhaps what some people react to. Also the hammertips change towards the top of the piano to harder ones which is pretty obvious, I will have a look at his with Swedens rhodes technician no 1 mr Peacefreak himself later this week.

/Fred

The Rhodes Mk7 that Fred is playing sounds very like my early 72 suitcase 73. And that Rhodes for me is the best sounding ever. Now the Mk7 is VERY close to this sound..I want one badly for gigging. The more highs and attack you have in the tone the better imo. Why you ask? Well it can all be eq'd out if you like but you certainly cant add whats not there in the sound to begin with if you catch my drift..

Heh, exactly. I have two MK1:s, a 73 from March 1977 and an 88 from 1971, can't remember which month. The 1971 model sounds amazing. The '77 is no slouch either, but I could absolutely see myself trading the '77 (+ cash!) for a MK7 if the GAS grabs me. I'm not too fond of mr. Branstetters corporate policies, but the MK7 sure spunds nice in these clips. If it feels and plays as good as it sounds it may very well be worth it.

Sorry, but in this instance, it sounds more like a modeled Rhodes. I didn't say exactly. There's a lack of character in the sound of the Mk 7 in this particular example that reminds me of the sound of a modeled Rhodes. Being a Rhodes owner and player for the last quarter of a century, I think I'll trust my impressions on this, thank you. That won't stop me from hearing another example of the Mk 7 and thinking it sounds great. It's called objectivity, something you appear to lack in this discussion.

Me? Crazy? Never...

Err,

Isn't the fact that you can totally change the sound of a rhodes by the positioning of the tines being ignored here?

You can make ANY rhodes have that scooped midrange and prominent bell, just as you can make any rhodes have a warmer more solid midrange at the expense of the ping.

Yes, there are differences in preamps and hammer and tine materials over the years, but it's mostly setup, people.

Now if one could only make certain Rhodes play worth a crap...

No, I don't think so. The voicing of the instrument has been discussed in earlier posts.

The attack is great for live gigging in a dense mix.Anyhow you can see exactly what happens when eq is applied in the clip I posted above-not very scientific but it gives you a hunch.

You can make a lot with the positioning of the tine and as I said in a previous post, the setting this piano has gives a little less warm mid range-and as i also said I tried the ideal setting but for some reason I wen't back to the setting I had since I liked it better. Still you retain a lot of bell like character and bite regardless the setting.

/Fred

You can make a lot with the positioning of the tine and as I said in a previous post, the setting this piano has gives a little less warm mid range-and as i also said I tried the ideal setting but for some reason I wen't back to the setting I had since I liked it better. Still you retain a lot of bell like character and bite regardless the setting.

/Fred

Analog addict, just buy a third rhodes piano you can't get to many of them rhodies.

/Fredrik

Thanks Fredrik for the video. IMHO, all the real Rhodes sound excellent in their own way. I do hear compression on the attack of the Mark 7 which gives it a funkier tone. I suspect that there is compression happening (maybe inadvertently) somewhere along the signal chain. If it's happening in the Mark 7 electronics I'd be a little concerned. It's a neat sound but I'd want to be able to add that at will, not have it built into the sound.

As far as EQ, below is what I commonly apply to a real Rhodes or a very good sampled Rhodes to give it more bark and clarity. Bumping at 1.2K is key as is losing some of the bass. It's still a very balanced sound. There is really nothing coming out of a Rhodes besides noise above 6 - 7KHz so just filter that out. And yes, a GREAT technician can do a lot to customize the tone and action to your liking.



The Nord sound is that one that's basically tone and splat. It's not bark but splat where the tine is fantastically overdriven. On the Nord there's nothing leading up to it so you have this binary switch between tone and splat. It can sound a little better than it plays, but not by much. I wouldn't EQ the Nord much more than the default setting. It's already hyped and thin.

Busch.

Nothing coming out of a rhodes above 6-7? You sure about that!! Theres loadsa info up there man!!

Yes I'm pretty confident about it. The pickups on the Rhodes (or any of these old electro-mechanicals) are not high-end devices and I seriously doubt they could pickup 10KHz+ if it was available. The highest plinky note on an 88 key Rhodes is ~4.1K with a second harmonic of 8.2K. Applying a sharp filter as I recommended above still lets all of the tone come through--try it. Yes you could apply a 10K shelf with a lot of boost and yes the piano will get brighter but you're also needlessly boosting a bunch of noise while pulling up lower frequencies. You're much better off using a parametric to dial in the frequencies you need and killing what's unnecessary. If you want to boost bark, increase at ~1.2KHz. If you want to increase bell that's 5K - 7K.

I will revise my comment to read nothing musical coming out above 8KHz.

The reason your Moogs sound so much brighter than a Rhodes, Wurly, Hammond, Clav is that it actually does produce musical content above 10KHz.

Busch.

I agree with Kanker. The Mark 7 does sound 'modelled' but it is still a fine sounding instrument.

Many of us dig the Rhodes sound in its various incarnations. No need to get overly sensitive about it.

Fred, thanks for taking the time to provide a nice demo of (4) Rhodes sound sources.

Hi burnin

Theres no compressor connected to the rhodes or any in my soundcard that is activated, the only compression is datacompression youtubes/imovies prior to upload. I don't know if there is a limiter or anything in imovie.

It's great to tryout different eq settings, i usually experiment with energy around 1.2-1.5kHz as you do but I'm trying out different settings which fit a certain tunes.
The mark 7 has a quite clean preamp with loads of highs which the mark 1 lacks. I haven't checked how to set the high filter since I haven't mixed the mark7 in any tune yet - I can report back when I do. The preamp is much more silent than a mark 1.



I eq the nord stage buckloads live to fit the stage we're playing. It ususally helps a lot.


/Fred

No way, here? On KB Corner?? Nah, that could NEVER happen, could it?

I still love my 1979 Rhodes Mark I Suitcase piano. Some of you fine folks made a nice assessment of this rendition of the Rhodes, the lower octaves have a fair amount of bite, are a bit more aggressive than the earlier Felt Tip Hammer Rhodes pianos, which did not cut through anything, not even a jazz group, much less a rock band. Good luck with being heard by anyone, including yourself!

I bought my Mark I just before the Mark II came out, and when I saw the flat top on that Piano, I ordered a flat top to replace the original curve top on my Mark 1. The nice thing about the Mark 1 Suitcase piano is the front panel slider EQ and tremolo control, as well as stereo outs on the amp section. Back in the old days, i use to plug it into my PA system and EQ the mid range mud out of the sound and it sounded incredible! After all these years, that instrument still sounds great!

Mike T.

P.S. for all you folks that heard the above before, my apologies.

Always happy to hear someone happy with an instrument they had for so long, wonder if any motif or any other rompler would reach that kind of status :))

/Fred