Numa 2 update

[humb]

wonder how numa 1 can use upgrade to numa 2 software hmmm

so stop lie

keyB is in numa 1/2

[tommybuoy]

as to this statement:

 

As for your statement, "DO YOU KNOW HOW EASY IT WOULD BE TO PLUG AN APP INTO THE USB AND LET US CHANGE THINGS LIKE MIDI CHANNELS AND SUSTAIN PEDAL POLARITIES?" -- everything always looks easy to the people who aren't doing it.

 

Just FYI - I've coded stuff like this on some very large machines. It's EXACTLY how you deal with a dumb machine that provides no customization externals. So your opinion on this subject is absolutely doo doo.

 

(I guarantee U the engineers already have the app to to what I suggest. No way to debug a machine like this without it. They just don't want people playing with their sacred hard-coded constants.)

[bill bosco]

is that from elvio ?

[AnotherScott]

wonder how numa 1 can use upgrade to numa 2 software hmmm

so stop lie

keyB is in numa 1/2

The upgrade to 2 would mean that they are changing the internal software. We don't know the extent to which the internal coding can be changed. It could be changed in such a way that it no longer sounds--or in some ways, even internally operates/behaves--just like the keyB. Not saying that's the case, just saying that we don't know for sure.

 

Just FYI - I've coded stuff like this on some very large machines. It's EXACTLY how you deal with a dumb machine that provides no customization externals. So your opinion on this subject is absolutely doo doo.

 

(I guarantee U the engineers already have the app to to what I suggest. No way to debug a machine like this without it.

You've changed the argument from "it would have been easy" to "it would have been do-able." Either way, though, you don't know. For external software to work, the internal design must accommodate it. But it is not true that this facility must be there. For example, the code for, say, responding to the footswitch could have ended up in non-rewritable ROM. So it is not necessarily do-able. But to get back to your original quote, even if it could be done, that doesn't mean it is easy for them to provide a user app. Software has not generally been a Studiologic strength. (For example, AFAIK, we're still waiting to see the software to upgrade a 1 to a 2; and the process for loading alternate organ models into the 1 was not user-friendly.)

 

And third, besides it not necessarily being do-able, and not necessarily being easy if it is, it just isn't really necessary anyway. Lots of keyboards don't let you use the "wrong" pedal... the solution has always been simply to buy the right pedal (or a pedal with a switch).

 

And switching MIDI channels? Really, it's no harder to set up an external system to respond on 1 and 2 than it would be to set up the external system to respond to 8 and 9 or whatever pair you like. Why is this essential? If you could change MIDI channels on the fly, or program MIDI presets into the keyboard itself, then the ability to handle different MIDI channels becomes very useful. But if you're going to need to hook up a computer and run a utility every time you want to change a MIDI channel, well really, how useful is that? You're certainly not going to do that in the middle of a gig. If you're talking about doing a one-time setup, you might as well do that one-time setup on your receiving end. (Or you can use an external accessory to re-map 1 and 2 to whatever channels you'd like.) So this, too, can be addressed. Of course, the ability to program a variety of different recallable MIDI setups into the organ (as you can on the Hammond) would have been nice, but that would be a whole other design decision (and nothing that anyone has ever implied you could do on the Numa).

 

At any rate, the "solution" for these issues for you (if you didn't want to buy another pedal and maybe a channelizing accessory) would have been to read the manual before purchase (especially since you couldn't actually try one first). The fact that you had to return yours because of these things isn't their fault. The manual tells you what kind of pedal is needed, and it tells you that the MIDI channels for upper and lower are fixed at 1 and 2. Regardless, the cost of the Numa Organ 2 with the correct pedal and even a channelizing accessory would still be perfectly reasonable if you had wanted to go that way (still cheaper than the Hammond). This assumes you'd want to actually solve these issues, though, rather than simply rant about them.

[Chris Towns]

Hi all,

I'm probably one of a small number of Numa 2 owners on these Forums. I'm not a pro-player and respect all those players that are. For me, the different organ models on the Numa 2 (C3, A100, B3, Vox Continental,Farfisa etc) all seem very similar to the set-up on the Key B dual manual organ. In the video demonstration that Gianni Giudici does for the the Numa 2.

.He says that the Numa 2 takes the roots of the original Numa organ with many different improvements. I would be like to know from Dazzjazz who the good source is regarding the Key B engine? Perhaps they can enlighten Gianni (Official Italian Studiologic demonstrator) on the error of his comments.

I sympathize with Tommybuoy as he obviously bought on spec alone. It's just a little sad that he feels such anger towards the Numa2.

As for me, it fits the purpose, it sounds great to my ears, and gives me the real Hammond sound with a stunning leslie sim (in my opinion). It was also about the only Hammond clone that I could afford on my budget. I paid with delivery U.K. £760. (Hammond SK1 was £1,200 with delivery).

In all the years that I have been dabbling with Organs,Keyboards and Digital pianos I have come across instruments that I liked, I did not particularly like or simply could not afford. I never once felt the need to get on a Forum and slate an instrument in the way that some people obviously need to. Quite sad really !!! Just for the record, all the Hammond clones on the market sound superbly authentic and I doubt if there is a clear winner. Making comments like 'A' blows 'B' out of the water, or 'A' is rubbish compared to 'B' tells more about the Forum member than the product.

[LX88]

The Numa 2 in the Youtube clip mentioned above sounds relatively good using 888000000 and third harmonic percussion on chorale speed.

 

However, in order to get some idea of how it stacks up to the Key B I would have to hear some chorus vibrato.

 

It's true that most of today's clones sound good on chorale with a decent leslie sim or through a real leslie. I have no beef with any of them when used as such.

 

The deal breaker for me is usually the C/V. I could give a rip how something sounds on chorale. Some good overdrive would also be nice, and not having to buy or set up an outboard sim is also a huge plus.

 

Based on most Youtube clips it's hard to say what's going on with the Numa 2.I will have to play one to find out.

[bill bosco]

looking forward to your assessment of the numa 2 ( if it makes it to namm )so far there seems to be a lot of mixed reviews ,mixed info ( keyb- not keyb ), even mixed audio examples on you tube ( maybe that's due to how it's being amplified ? )anyway , I would expect an improvement , not the

opposite

[unitjazz]

I had noticed around the time Elvio got into it with DMI that the Numa organ (1) software/firmware files disappeared off of Studiologic's site. That had led me to speculate that something happened between Studiologic and Elvio, and when the Numa 2 was announced, I noticed it no longer had the "powered by KeyB" designation, so I believe (without any real facts at my disposal) that Studiologic is using a different sound engine in the Numa 2.

Why else would my Numa 1 (S/N 12xxx, below the cut off number for updating) not be compatible with the Numa 2 files ?

But then again, Studiologic did that when I had a Numa Piano, and the updated files for the Numa Stage were not compatible with my older Numa Piano, based on the S/N. Thanks to Studiologic for obsoleting my investment in their products.

(The artist formerly known as NumaDude).

 

[AnotherScott]

it no longer had the "powered by KeyB" designation, so I believe (without any real facts at my disposal) that Studiologic is using a different sound engine in the Numa 2.

It is true that they don't reference KeyB anymore. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not using the KeyB engine. For example, in order to negotiate a lower licensing fee for the technology on the new lower cost model, they may have traded off the permission to advertise that it includes the KeyB engine.

Why else would my Numa 1 (S/N 12xxx, below the cut off number for updating) not be compatible with the Numa 2 files ?

AFAIK, the Numa 1 sounds the same regardless of serial number. There could have been a hardware manufacturing change such that early models did not support the same kind of upgrading that the later ones did, without there being any change to the sound engine itself.

 

But this is all supposition. Hard info on Numa products is not easy to come by.

[LX88]

I got to get my hands on the Numa 2 at NAMM here are my impressions....

 

First - when you are demoing this, it would probably be best to start with organ model number 1 ( B preset) - which is the " B-3" model.

 

I actually started with one of the "other" models ( which I did not care for) so until I got to B-3, I actually did not care for what I was hearing.

 

At NAMM Carlo Maffaei ( who did the programming and modeling for the Numa 2) guided me through the features.

 

First, the keybed feel on the Numa 2 I played was outstanding. They seemed to have lightened the action and the key dip to the point where the keys feel really really good. There is no need to wish for a vintage Hammond keybed at this point as far as I can tell. Studiologic really nailed it this time as far as I am concerned.

 

Next - there are several important changes that Carlo made that differ from the Key B modeling ( no, the Numa 2 does not have the key B engine).

 

The Numa 2 chorus vibrato was developed in conjunction with Brian Auger. It is a little less deep that some of the Key B C/V I have heard.I have always thought that Brian had perhaps the best straight Hammond tone I have experienced live from his '68 mylar cap B-3, so now the Numa 2 takes you a little closer to that type of thing. Thumbs way up on this.

 

Next, the percussion has changed. I have heard personally from Elvio Previati that he was less than satisfied with the percussion on some of his Key B models. I didn't have a problem with the slow decay percussion on the Numa 1, but I did have a bit of an issue with the fast percussion when used with C/V. But since I rarely use that function, it wasn't a big issue for me.

 

From what I heard, the percussion has been improved on the Numa 2 , particularly because you can now adjust percussion volume and percussion decay ( not available on a stock Numa 1).

 

The Numa 2 fast percussion tapers off nicely in the upper midrange, but will give you a nice " thunk" in the lower mids where it belongs. I really like the fact that the percussion volume is infinitely variable ( that is, not assigned to a number system) so that you can really dial it in to your taste. This is adjustable by assigning the upper two drawbars to decay and volume.

 

The leslie sim is also still very nice, and I didn't have any issues with the overdrive, leakage etc. etc. I would have to hear the OD through speakers to get a real sense of what it can do in that regard, but through phones it seemed OK.

 

The Numa 2 does have a lot in common with the 1. I still like having the Key B engine in the Numa 1 and it is still just fine with me. I did not hear very much if anything not to like in the Numa 2.

 

 

[AnotherScott]

I wonder, if you have an original Numa ("KeyB") organ, and upgrade to the new version 2 software, and then decide you liked it better the way it was, whether you can do some kind of "downgrade" or restore to original factory software. (Though I also think it might be hard to even decide which you like better if you can't hear them side by side.)

[bill bosco]

I kind of suspected the numa 2 had moved away from the keyb engine , the bottom few drawbars sound improved but the upper ones didn't sound quite as rich as the keyb , but that could be the organ model or the nature of the recordings . still , if it's not a step backwards it's quite an achievement , the keyb

models are some of the best out there IMO . I've always liked

the sound of brian auger's Hammond , it suits his energetic

syle . I wonder if the improved keybed feel will make its way into their vmk 61 note controller ?

 

 

[LX88]

Carlo at Studiologic told me that there is no difference between the old Numa keybed and the new one, but I sensed something totally different. Stephen Fortner noticed it too in his review.

 

The B -3 model in the Numa 2 does not seem that radically different than the Numa 1 . I would have to live with both of them to tell what differences there are, but that would probably drive me nuts.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mitch Towne]

I agree that the action of the Numa 2 is fantastic (and different from the Numa 1). It is probably the best feeling clone keyboard. When I first played it at NAMM, I was pretty excited about it. However, when I played it the second time, the bloom had come off the rose, so to speak. It seemed really shrill in the top octave and it was responding funny. Almost like it was a plug in and had latency. So, I probably won't be investigating further. Too bad, because I would really like a single manual clone for rehearsals and smaller gigs.

[AnotherScott]

IHowever, when I played it the second time, the bloom had come off the rose, so to speak. It seemed really shrill in the top octave and it was responding funny.

About the sound being different... since there are 3 different "Hammond" models in it, is it possible it was set to a different model the second time? Or did you confirm it was the same as the first time (or try them all to try to see if you could find one that sounded "right" based on your earlier experience)?

 

Responding funny... I would have tried turning it off and turning it on again. Not that you'd really want a board that was prone to a problem needing that fix, but it could have been some kind of rare glitch...

[bill bosco]

was that odd behavior over phones or their monitor system ?

[LX88]

I didn't have the experience of the Numa sounding shrill in the top octave. I spent a lot of time playing in that range and was impressed by a lack of shrillness actually.... particularly with the percussion volume backed off a bit.

 

By the way , the first model I heard definitely sounded weird. You have to be sure that you are on the B-3 model, because the other two can affect things dramatically.

 

It would be interesting to find out if the original Key B engine could be loaded into the Numa 2, for those who like that sound.

 

But yes, that keybed really did feel great.

[blyons]

Hi,

 

I've just traded to a numa 2 from the original. Overall, I'd say I'm very satisfied.

 

One thing I noticed that's kinda weird though is if I turn the split on. When I turn percussion on on the upper manual and play single and multiple notes above the split everything works normally: i.e. the first note or notes struck together sound with percussion. Notes struck while another note is already held down sound without percussion (just like on a B3).

 

But, if I turn the split on, if I hold a note on the keyboard below the split (i.e. in the channel 2 range) the percussion will not sound on the upper keyboard channel 1 notes above the split. I don't think this is correct.

 

If I plug in an external controller and set it to channel 2 and turn the split off, the percussion seems to work normally. (i.e. notes sounded on channel 2 do not interfere with the percussion state on channel 1)

[bill bosco]

hello blyons ,

that can't be correct , must be some kind of glitch , maybe you could try changing the split point ? see if it behaves differently . other than that , what do you think of the overall

sound ? how does it compare to the original ?

[Mitch Towne]

I tried the Numa 2 for a week and a half and returned it. I purchased it after demoing it at NAMM in hopes that it would be a useful single manual rehearsal board. Here are my overall thoughts:

 

Keybed Feel: This was the main selling point for the Numa 2, as far as I was concerned. I knew that it didn't sound as good as my Mojo, Nord or Hammond SK2, but the feel of the keybed was the most realistic of the bunch. I figured that, if I didn't love the sound, I could use it as a controller for something with a more realistic sound set, like the HX3 module. However, I discovered a big problem with that plan. The Numa 2 only sends MIDI information from the lower trigger point, not the high trigger point that the internal sound uses. As far as using the Numa 2 as an organ controller, that's a deal-breaker.

 

Sound: I tried the original Numa twice. I really wanted to like it but ended up returning it both times because I just couldn't get a ballsy tone out of it. The Numa 2 is no different. The sound doesn't cut in group situation. I don't mean a high shrill sound, I mean a sound that has enough body to be present in the context of a band. I took the Numa 2 to a jazz trio rehearsal, using the internal sim and a QSC and the Numa was totally lost in the mix. 16 bars into the first tune, I was missing the Mojo. The Nord Electro 3 cuts better than the Numa as well. The Numa just doesn't have a powerful, round sound.

 

Also, I thought I detected an odd behavior with the percussion retriggering, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I wish I had read Blyon's post before I returned mine. I would love to know if that was the issue. What an odd fault if that's the case.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that I was disappointed with the Numa 2 and was glad to be able to return it.

 

 

[blyons]

Hi Mitch,

 

I'll have to test out that trigger point behavior. I suspect that you're right because the numa doubles as a MIDI controller. I'm in the the Support Queue right now with someone over in Italy. Overall, I'd have to say I like the sound of the numa and numa 2. The 2 sounds a bit different than the 1, but it does offer a couple of other Hammond Models, Farfisa, Vox and a few cool Analog synth patches that remind me alot of Joe Zawinul Weather Report Korg sounds. (Sawtooth, Square Wave - pretty good and fat). They have some demos up on Studiologic's site that are worth listening to as well.

I do like the numa's panel layout and have been able to rework it using a MIDI Solutions MIDI Mapper to control patches and settings on my Motif XF8. I haven't yet done it, but am certain that I could drive GSI Soundware VB3 easily if I wanted to. Almost every control on the top of the panel sends out an easily captured and mapped MIDI message.

Sonically, I think the board is plenty fat on B3 sounds and have not noticed any lack of balls. (But I'm not playing in a Prog Rock band all night ;-)). I'm doing funk, jazz and gospel with the occasional rock tune thrown in.

 

I really wish that I could spend more time on a real Hammond/Leslie setup so that I could compare some of the subtleties that other folks are pointing out: High Register C3 lack of realism etc. To my ear, the Nords always sounded a bit thin and the SK-1 didn't sound realistic to me. The Crumar MOJO sounds great on recordings, but I've never played one (pretty sure it's using the VB3 engine internally). These are my opinions only, I'm sure that if I showed up to the gig, I could make any of the modern clones work to my liking.

 

[BigJPatton]

I tried the Numa 2 for a week and a half and returned it. I purchased it after demoing it at NAMM in hopes that it would be a useful single manual rehearsal board. Here are my overall thoughts:

 

Keybed Feel: This was the main selling point for the Numa 2, as far as I was concerned. I knew that it didn't sound as good as my Mojo, Nord or Hammond SK2, but the feel of the keybed was the most realistic of the bunch. I figured that, if I didn't love the sound, I could use it as a controller for something with a more realistic sound set, like the HX3 module. However, I discovered a big problem with that plan. The Numa 2 only sends MIDI information from the lower trigger point, not the high trigger point that the internal sound uses. As far as using the Numa 2 as an organ controller, that's a deal-breaker.

 

Sound: I tried the original Numa twice. I really wanted to like it but ended up returning it both times because I just couldn't get a ballsy tone out of it. The Numa 2 is no different. The sound doesn't cut in group situation. I don't mean a high shrill sound, I mean a sound that has enough body to be present in the context of a band. I took the Numa 2 to a jazz trio rehearsal, using the internal sim and a QSC and the Numa was totally lost in the mix. 16 bars into the first tune, I was missing the Mojo. The Nord Electro 3 cuts better than the Numa as well. The Numa just doesn't have a powerful, round sound.

 

Also, I thought I detected an odd behavior with the percussion retriggering, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I wish I had read Blyon's post before I returned mine. I would love to know if that was the issue. What an odd fault if that's the case.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that I was disappointed with the Numa 2 and was glad to be able to return it.

 

 

I pretty much disagree with everything in this post, well, except for the MIDI stuff, but I don't MIDI.

[M_G]

 

Keybed Feel: This was the main selling point for the Numa 2, as far as I was concerned. I knew that it didn't sound as good as my Mojo, Nord or Hammond SK2, but the feel of the keybed was the most realistic of the bunch. I figured that, if I didn't love the sound, I could use it as a controller for something with a more realistic sound set, like the HX3 module. However, I discovered a big problem with that plan. The Numa 2 only sends MIDI information from the lower trigger point, not the high trigger point that the internal sound uses. As far as using the Numa 2 as an organ controller, that's a deal-breaker.

 

Sound: I tried the original Numa twice. I really wanted to like it but ended up returning it both times because I just couldn't get a ballsy tone out of it. The Numa 2 is no different. The sound doesn't cut in group situation. I don't mean a high shrill sound, I mean a sound that has enough body to be present in the context of a band. I took the Numa 2 to a jazz trio rehearsal, using the internal sim and a QSC and the Numa was totally lost in the mix. 16 bars into the first tune, I was missing the Mojo. The Nord Electro 3 cuts better than the Numa as well. The Numa just doesn't have a powerful, round sound.

 

 

 

Mitch, you nailed it.

 

Same experience with the Numa 1 plus it was not reliable....

 

Glad I switched back to Hammond SK and got a HX3....

 

[Mitch Towne]

M G,

 

Does the SK trigger the HX3 at the high trigger point?

 

[M_G]

 

Yes (SK and XK3c)

 

[Dglavko]

Funny that I sold my SK1 to get a Numa1, and it's been more reliable than more my early model Mojo (although I've yet to take up Crumar's offer to upgrade/fix the original Mojo board - so kudos to them for support)... Now am having second thoughts on having sold the SK1 - Nah, they all sound great - just need to practice more...

[LX88]

I hate to come off always trying to defend the Numa ( I do not have the Numa 2, and only heard it at NAMM for perhaps 20 minutes) but I do have one thing in common with the above review from Mitch.

 

When I tried the Numa 1 with a single QSC 12'' 2 way speaker, I was also not able to get a very good sound out of it.

 

For me to get the Numa to sound good I have tended to use speakers without too much high end presence.

 

The same thing is true for me when using Hammonds and leslies. I have heard plenty of leslies that were hard to keep from sounding shrill, particularly when the back is facing forward.

 

I have talked of this before on Clonewheel groups. There is a real art to matching digital organs to amplification systems that help them sound more "organic" ( almost a pun).

 

I have the same issues when I try to amplify digital pianos. Crank up the volume and the warmth often goes away.

 

Because I have collected various speakers and amps I have found some stuff that works with the Numa. It's mostly older EV' and Yamaha speakers, and one lightweight Behringer that I have. Sometimes I use speakers with no high frequency driver whatsoever ( 12'' EV Force and JBL D 130), which really help eliminate unwanted shrillness.

 

 

 

 

[JohnDoe]

+1!

I have the same experience re. what ampsystem to use with a clonewheel. With my Numa 1 I use a poweramp in stereo, left channel to a 15" Fane bass/mid speaker in a vented cab, right channel to a Celestion 12" speaker in an openback cab, no HF drivers. Organ sound is powerfull and no shrills, same goes for my Korg SV-1!

I hate to come off always trying to defend the Numa ( I do not have the Numa 2, and only heard it at NAMM for perhaps 20 minutes) but I do have one thing in common with the above review from Mitch.

 

When I tried the Numa 1 with a single QSC 12'' 2 way speaker, I was also not able to get a very good sound out of it.

 

For me to get the Numa to sound good I have tended to use speakers without too much high end presence.

 

The same thing is true for me when using Hammonds and leslies. I have heard plenty of leslies that were hard to keep from sounding shrill, particularly when the back is facing forward.

 

I have talked of this before on Clonewheel groups. There is a real art to matching digital organs to amplification systems that help them sound more "organic" ( almost a pun).

 

I have the same issues when I try to amplify digital pianos. Crank up the volume and the warmth often goes away.

 

Because I have collected various speakers and amps I have found some stuff that works with the Numa. It's mostly older EV' and Yamaha speakers, and one lightweight Behringer that I have. Sometimes I use speakers with no high frequency driver whatsoever ( 12'' EV Force and JBL D 130), which really help eliminate unwanted shrillness.

 

 

 

[LX88]

I have had good luck with using mis matched cabinets also. Hauling around 2 15'' cabinets seems like too much work.

 

I also run the Numa in stereo if I am using the leslie sim. The Mojo may have an advantage of sounding good in mono with the sim on. The Numa does not sound good in mono with the sim on - ( my opinion only).

 

I get plenty of high frequencies when using either a 12'' EV Force or a 12'' JBL D 130. I will use one of these in conjunction with a cab with a 15'' in it that is not too shrill.

 

I like to have a 15'' woofer in there, because it behaves very similarly to a leslie cab. The 12'' full range behaves similarly to a Hammond tone cabinet which is my favorite pure Hammond sound.

 

The Crumar Mojo has plenty of tweakability whereas the Numa does not. So the tweaking has to happen with matching the speakers and the amp.

 

Because I have collected a fair amount of stuff over the years it wasn't too hard for me to dial in the Numa 1. I would bet that I could do practically the same thing with the Numa 2. But I doubt I could just plug it into very many high tech powered speakers in mono and be happy with the results.

[AnotherScott]

The Crumar Mojo has plenty of tweakability whereas the Numa does not. So the tweaking has to happen with matching the speakers and the amp.

Or a Vent. Which would probably also address your mono/stereo issue.