Kurzweil PC4

[Fleer]

Great review indeed. But isn"t it in a higher price bracket than the Krome 88 and FA08? More like in a GrandStage"s league, though that"s not a workstation.

[AnotherScott]

Very broadly speaking, though the prices are not exactly equivalent, I'd say these are the market groupings in "workstation-type" boards:

 

Entry: Roland Juno DS, Yamaha MX, Korg Kross

Midrange: Roland FA, Yamaha MODX, Korg Krome, Kurzweil PC4

High end: Roland Fantom, Yamaha Montage, Korg Nautilus/Kronos, Kurzweil K2700/Forte

 

where the high end is not just pricier, but also heavier, with better actions.

[Mighty Motif Max]

If mechanical action noise bothers you then you need to play louder. ð

 

Thanks for the review. ð

 

It's not the noise that's odd - it's the physical vibration back through the key from that weight hitting that threw me off. Noisy keybeds don't really bother me that much - I play a Krome 61, after all.

 

You're welcome!

[Mighty Motif Max]

Very broadly speaking, though the prices are not exactly equivalent, I'd say these are the market groupings in "workstation-type" boards:

 

Entry: Roland Juno DS, Yamaha MX, Korg Kross

Midrange: Roland FA, Yamaha MODX, Korg Krome, Kurzweil PC4

High end: Roland Fantom, Yamaha Montage, Korg Nautilus/Kronos, Kurzweil K2700/Forte

 

where the high end is not just pricier, but also heavier, with better actions.

 

I'd agree with that grouping, though the Nautilus and K2700 are sitting in a different category price-wise (upper midrange?). Since the MX isn't really a "workstation" (nor is the DS), you might as well add the SP6 to that Entry level category as well.

 

The PC4's most direct competitor is the MODX8 - same price. Having played both a good bit now, the PC4 is a better board, with only three exceptions - Yamaha always wins the synth pad category for me. With the Montage/MODX newer samples, their brass sections are better too, and their electric basses are superior to anything on the market. Even their MX boards beat out anything else I've had or played for pads and bass.

[Al Coda]

... the PC4 is a better board, with only three exceptions - Yamaha always wins the synth pad category for me. With the Montage/MODX newer samples, their brass sections are better too, and their electric basses are superior to anything on the market. Even their MX boards beat out anything else I've had or played for pads and bass.

 

 

For me, it never made sense rating quality of machines by comparing their factory sample content and/or factory presets.

When learning VAST programming and NOT using the factory samples always, you´re able to program very good synth pads using the non-aliasing VA oscillators.

Mixing brass samples w/ VA synth brass patches/layers you better programmed yourself, gives great results too.

Everything factory patch I use on my PC361 is tweaked and I´m using only a few.

Most I´m using I programmed myself,- often by taking a factory or user preset I´ve found, started tweaking and in the end came up w/ a totally different result.

 

I really hope they used better quality sealed pots for pitch- and mod-wheel in PC4 and upcoming K2700.

Internal ribboncable connectors were also an issue in my PC3 and buttons lost their printing much too early.

All my old Yamaha, Roland and KORG gear was way more robust than my Kurzweil.

OTOH, Kurz´s MIDI implementation and overall flexibility makes it a unique piece of gear !

 

K2700 will be for me and I wonder if they´ll plan to come up w/ a 76-keys version,- synth action or the short Fater TP40L they use in Forte 7.

 

A.C.

[AnotherScott]

Very broadly speaking, though the prices are not exactly equivalent, I'd say these are the market groupings in "workstation-type" boards:

 

Entry: Roland Juno DS, Yamaha MX, Korg Kross

Midrange: Roland FA, Yamaha MODX, Korg Krome, Kurzweil PC4

High end: Roland Fantom, Yamaha Montage, Korg Nautilus/Kronos, Kurzweil K2700/Forte

 

where the high end is not just pricier, but also heavier, with better actions.

 

I'd agree with that grouping, though the Nautilus and K2700 are sitting in a different category price-wise (upper midrange?).

Yeah, priced lower, but still higher than the mid-level boards. But possibly more relevant, I think it Nautilus/K2700 may effectively replace the Kronos/Forte before too long, leave those indeed as their high end offerings. In fact, having Nautilus replace (rather than supplement) Kronos would actually parallel how Kronos replaced OASYS, where the replacement model is in many ways inferior, but less expensive.

 

Since the MX isn't really a "workstation" (nor is the DS), you might as well add the SP6 to that Entry level category as well.

Yeah, and I did use the in-quotes nebulous phrase "workstation-type" rather than calling them workstations... arguably the MODX isn't a workstation either. But you make a good point about SP6... its functionality isn't so different from the MX88. From a "workstation-ish" perspective, I think the only thing the MX (and other listed boards) can do that the SP6 can't is, with third-party editing software, you could create up to 16-way sound (voice) combinations vs. 4 (programs), but that's splitting hairs (and in fact, from its own front panel, the MX is only 2 while the SP6 is 4). So yeah, let's put SP6 there. Now, do we put Roland RD-88 there as well? ;-)

[Fleer]

True, the RD-88 may join in, with its 3000 Zenology tones. Not much tinkering though.

[Mighty Motif Max]

... the PC4 is a better board, with only three exceptions - Yamaha always wins the synth pad category for me. With the Montage/MODX newer samples, their brass sections are better too, and their electric basses are superior to anything on the market. Even their MX boards beat out anything else I've had or played for pads and bass.

 

 

For me, it never made sense rating quality of machines by comparing their factory sample content and/or factory presets.

When learning VAST programming and NOT using the factory samples always, you´re able to program very good synth pads using the non-aliasing VA oscillators.

Mixing brass samples w/ VA synth brass patches/layers you better programmed yourself, gives great results too.

Everything factory patch I use on my PC361 is tweaked and I´m using only a few.

Most I´m using I programmed myself,- often by taking a factory or user preset I´ve found, started tweaking and in the end came up w/ a totally different result.

I suppose I beg to differ a little - ideally, factory presets and sample content should show the best a manufacturer can offer musicians from their technology. I'm not averse to making my own presets (i.e. I've done a lot on my Motif as it is, even though that has really good presets), but I shouldn't have to go make multiple presets just to have some good baseline pads to use. To be fair, I'm coming at this from playing a lot of modern worship and pop music, where pads are a huge focus and mellow analog or digital pads with a little chorus don't cut it, and neither do pads with lots of glittery stuff (i.e. Wavestation-esque presets). It's a missed opportunity for brands I think, when Yamaha can have a huge variety of pads with 90% of them being usable while I have to make a custom pad on my Krome or (it seems) my PC4 to have one pad sound that will actually work well in this musical context. I don't get it. I mean, the pads Kurzweil has aren't bad for static background filler, but that's not something that's that useful in a lot of more modern music anymore. Modern stuff requires modulation and lots of filter programming. That's one of the reasons I find it annoying - programming the kinds of pads I need is difficult even on boards I'm more familiar with, which is why I really like that Yamaha has had 80-90% of modern pad needs covered in presets. There's a reason why Don Moen's keyboardist keeps a Motif XF7 just as a pad machine (and heck, his music doesn't even use pads that much).

 

This guy has some examples of some Motif XS/XF pad presets. I use a good number of these. This is the kind of thing I'd like on tap.

 

[video:youtube]

[video:youtube]

 

 

And really, the only reason I'm making a point about the bass sounds on the PC4 is that it's one of the last remaining sample areas (along with acoustic guitars) where Kurzweil hasn't updated it in 20 years (as in since before the takeover). The PC3 brought new strings and improved KB3, the Kore64 brought new brass, electric guitars, mandolin, synths, and drum sounds, and the Forte/PC4 brought new acoustic pianos, electric pianos, and some new synths (plus an FM engine). I'm not against legacy samples, but these are just particularly bad (part of it's the sample mapping/stretching). But I get that it's also a gradual process with small R&D. More importantly, unlike some other sound categories, there aren't any electric bass programs with new samples available anywhere. I'm looking into converting a soundfont over, but even that's questionable. The thing is that if I'm having to cover bass, I want it to sound like the real thing, or reasonably close (maybe, more accurately, to not be noticeably fake). That just isn't as easy with this sample set.

 

Fattening up sampled brass with analog brass is a nice trick I've used a few times, especially for getting a punchy brass section live on any board. In any event I have a Fantom XR that has better brass that I can pull out if need be.

 

I think Kurzweil makes fantastic gear and to be honest the PC4 is seriously impressive. This is just one area that future improvements could be done in.

 

 

 

I really hope they used better quality sealed pots for pitch- and mod-wheel in PC4 and upcoming K2700.

Internal ribboncable connectors were also an issue in my PC3 and buttons lost their printing much too early.

All my old Yamaha, Roland and KORG gear was way more robust than my Kurzweil.

OTOH, Kurz´s MIDI implementation and overall flexibility makes it a unique piece of gear !

 

A.C.

 

You and me both. That's one concern that's lingering in the back of my head. Yes, their midi implementation proved to be quite impressive, even for controlling a big rack setup like I have (which is 80% of why I bought the PC4).

[AnotherScott]

For me, it never made sense rating quality of machines by comparing their factory sample content and/or factory presets.

When learning VAST programming...

Despite the old adage about lame factory patches, most people (particularly on these deep and largely sample-based boards) never get beyond the most minor tweaks to factory patches (if that). (There's also the story about how the majority of boards seen by service departments still have nothing but factory sounds in them.) I suspect the percentage of Kurz owners who know the first thing about VAST is a minority.

 

I admit, I'm among those who sticks to minor tweaks. I'm also lucky enough to have a wide variety of boards at my disposal, so I have choices (though they can't all come to gigs with me). But without dedicating an awful lot of effort--and usually not even then--I don't think you can really get one sample-based board to sound convincingly like another, because, well, the samples sound fundamentally different, even before you get to differences in the programming architectures, which can also be a big hurdle. You can't edit a Korg's's bass or piano or brass sounds and really make them sound like Yamaha's, or vice versa, or even the atmospherics. Maybe you get it a bit closer. But you never get there, and it's a rabbit hole that I think is rarely worth pursuing. For me, unless you're specifically into programming unique sounds, you have to be okay with the basic character of the sounds you most care about in the board you're going to use (i.e. what you can find in the presets). To make them sound entirely different (i.e. to "fix" them), the programming skills required can be substantial, and you still may not get what you're after. It makes more sense to go with the board that pretty much gives you what you're looking for (or something quite close to it) out of the box.

 

Though there is at least the possibility of adding an iPad to get access to a wider variety of sounds relatively easily, to possibly fill in an area where maybe your board of choice in most areas is not giving you quite what you're looking for somewhere else.

[jarrell]

Just curious what PC4 owners are using for a case/gig bag. I have a ProTec keyboard case I got for my PC3, but it the PC4 is a pretty tight fit. TBH I don't think I want the sliders and knobs to be squeezed, plus I have to really wedge it in there, and then it adds another 18 lbs, so looking for something else. In particular I would prefer a lighter gig bag over wheeled case, so I'm looking at the Gator Pro-Go Gig Bag (G-PG-88SLIM) but also the Gator Slim 88 Note Keyboard Gig Bag (GKB-88 SLIM).

[Mighty Motif Max]

I'm using an SKB SC88NKW narrow case - plywood shell but otherwise it's a soft case with wheels. It IS a little longer than the PC4 inside, but I already had it from my (failed) M-Audio Hammer 88 Pro and the Gator model that was similar was only two inches shorter in outside dimensions, so I didn't see a reason to change to that, particularly since it used a plastic of some kind as the method for firming up the case, and it was pretty much the same weight as well.

 

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SC88NKW--skb-1skb-sc88nkw-narrow-keyboard-soft-case#

[jarrell]

Thanks Max - Actually the SKB 1SKB-SC76KW version fits the PC4 and is 6 inches shorter external length than the one you have, but I understand repurposing a case you already own... That's one reason why I hoped to just use the ProTec case I already have - it does fit, but like I said, I gotta cram it in there, and I don't want additional pressure on the knobs and sliders. Plus the length is a tight fit, like putting on a shoe a size too small - you can do it, with some effort, but then it doesn't seem right.

 

But I'm thinking I can lose 10 lbs. (as many do, lol), as that is the difference between a wheeled case and a bag. I never would have gotten a bag, as I thought they'd not be enough protection, but I tried it with my Casio PX-5S (got the Casio bag) and it has worked surprisingly well. Don't need wheels anyway as I use a Rock'nRoller cart for all my gear in one shlep. Of course, I am the only one handling my gear, in my car, no flights, etc.

 

Then there's selling a used case on Reverb or whatever, ah, plain in the keister...

[Mighty Motif Max]

Thanks Max - Actually the SKB 1SKB-SC76KW version fits the PC4 and is 6 inches shorter external length than the one you have, but I understand repurposing a case you already own.

 

For real? That one didn"t show up when I was looking for a case based on dimensions. Shoot! The SC88NKW was unused (because the Hammer 88 Pro was defective as was its replacement) and still within its return period so I could have gotten that and saved a lot of space (which is at a premium due to living in a dorm)! But it didn"t come up when I was looking on Sweetwater then.

 

[Mighty Motif Max]

I've been contemplating what a person who wanted to have a nice lightweight two-keyboard rig with a good variety of sounds and flexibility could do these days. Not something I'm planning on any time soon lol as I want to stick to one board for space reasons right now, but it occurred to me that a person could get a lot of usage out of a PC4 + Yamaha MX61 combination. That would give lots of good pianos and electric pianos, strong organs, strong orchestral sounds, FM synthesis, and then strong pads, secondary strings, synth basses, strong guitars and electric basses, and a different variety of synths and effects. Plus the PC4 could take care of program changes to the MX within setups. Set up a silent voice on the MX and you could use it as a synth action keybed for B3 parts and synths from the PC4 as well, just switching to that from the PC4 setups as needed. Total weight would be under 40 pounds plus a stand (figure a K&M or something). Not bad at all for that assortment of sounds and capabilities. And not a bad price total either.

 

We sure live in a nice era for sound quality/price ratio.

 

Anyways, just a random thought that occurred to me as I'm preparing for summer setlists.

 

EDIT: Other bonuses - usb audio interface via the MX, wheels at left for upper board.

[AnotherScott]

I've been contemplating what a person who wanted to have a nice lightweight two-keyboard rig with a good variety of sounds and flexibility could do these days.

Thinking about what to pair with a PC4 is different from most other boards, because most other boards have more in the way of obvious "gaps" you might want to fill in, but the PC4 covers so much territory that it's harder to find things you'd really like to add! At least assuming you're okay with using MIDI to "move" the sound you want to the board location you want when necessary.

 

Sticking with boards that are lighter than the PC4 itself, I think my top contenders would be:

 

* Roland AX-Edge, not a whole lot heavier or pricier than your MX61 idea, but compared to the MX, adds aftertouch, better MIDI capabilities, and of course, the ability to pick it up and wear it, if desired... though just 49 keys (which, if enough, also makes the MX49 a lighter/cheaper alternative to that MX61 as well)

 

* Hammond SK Pro, for superior organ, and dedicated control surface for organ and VA lead synth, and also better-than-MX MIDI capabilities (one could consider a Nord Stage 3 Compact here as well, if budget is not an issue, which would give you knobby synth for poly VA sounds as well, and some other niceties like aftertouch and hands-on effects, though the organ itself should be better on the Hammond)

 

Any of these would give you all the usual 2-board benefits, i.e. backup if a board goes down, hammer and non-hammer actions, more total key real estate to minimize having to deal with splits and/or mid-song button-pushing.

 

Whether any of these shore up the PC4 in areas where you feel it could be stronger (i.e. in the areas you listed as places where the MX61 could increase the total sonic firepower... "strong pads, secondary strings, synth basses, strong guitars and electric basses"), it's an interesting question. Without having the opportunity to personally compare these sounds (and allowing for some obvious subjectivity here anyway), my feeling is the answers would probably be...

 

AX-Edge? Decent chance, between its basic sound set plus compatibility with downloadable SRX expansions and Zen-Core tones.

 

SK Pro? I really don't have much clue about the strength/weakness of its various non-organ sound categories yet.

 

Nord Stage 3? Strings, guitars, and electric basses, at least, presumably not, due to simple single-velocity-layer samples.

 

Though to the extent that you care about sonically shoring up the PC4 in any particular area, I think that would be more of a "bonus" than a requirement in a second board, because the PC4 already provides some nice facilities for doing that, between providing 2 GB for custom samples, and such strong MIDI integration to (for example) grab sounds from an iPad/iPhone.

[stoken6]

I can't remember who posted that, in a two-board rig, it's useful to combine a "setup-in-advance" board with one that offers immediacy. The PC4 is clearly in the first category. Is there a VA or analogue board with decent 61-key action and good MIDI controller capabilities? (I don't follow that sector very closely).

 

Cheers, Mike.

[bfields]

I'm currently Deepmind 12 over PC4. The deepmind's got lotsa knobs. Deepmind MIDI is OK but minimal. The PC4 mostly makes up for that. E.g. if I want to split both keyboards, I can do that with the PC4's help, with some limitations. Dunno that the action's anything special; it works for my purposes.

[Ken Beaumont]

I have an SP6 and the DeepMind 12 I have some multi setups on the SP6 that use both.

[AnotherScott]

Is there a VA or analogue board with decent 61-key action and good MIDI controller capabilities? (I don't follow that sector very closely).

I don't know off-hand... the Hammond SK Pro I mentioned covers that, but also clonewheel etc. But you bring up an interesting topic... What MIDI controller capabilities would one want in a PC4 companion board, especially in light of what a strong controller the PC4 is?

 

Maybe someone can confrim, as this is not something I've tried... but I assume that while you're playing the PC4, and have something assigned to some channel that is not related to anything you're playing on the PC4 itself (let's say a brass sound on channel 15), a MIDI'd companion board--set, in this case, to transmit on channel 15--will not only play that brass sound, but if it sends programmable Program Change, could also send a Program Change to switch that brass sound to a strings sound, while having no impact whatsoever one what you're continuing to play on the PC4 itself, right? And this should work regardless of whether the PC4 is in Program or Multi mode, yes? Assuming that's the case, that's the MIDI controller function I'd want to have in a companion board, so I could independently pick the Kurz sounds the second board is triggering, without having to change Programs/Multis on the PC4 or having to navigate to change the Channel 15 sound. Essentially, I'd want to be able to define buttons on the 2nd board that would immediately invoke the Kurz sound I wanted it to trigger, regardless of what I was playing on the PC4 itself.

 

Can anyone confirm that that will work? Any caveats to be aware of?

[Mighty Motif Max]

[EDITED SPACING]

 

Maybe someone can confrim, as this is not something I've tried... but I assume that while you're playing the PC4, and have something assigned to some channel that is not related to anything you're playing on the PC4 itself (let's say a brass sound on channel 15), a MIDI'd companion board--set, in this case, to transmit on channel 15--will not only play that brass sound, but if it sends programmable Program Change, could also send a Program Change to switch that brass sound to a strings sound, while having no impact whatsoever one what you're continuing to play on the PC4 itself, right?

 

And this should work regardless of whether the PC4 is in Program or Multi mode, yes?

 

Assuming that's the case, that's the MIDI controller function I'd want to have in a companion board, so I could independently pick the Kurz sounds the second board is triggering, without having to change Programs/Multis on the PC4 or having to navigate to change the Channel 15 sound. Essentially, I'd want to be able to define buttons on the 2nd board that would immediately invoke the Kurz sound I wanted it to trigger, regardless of what I was playing on the PC4 itself.

 

Can anyone confirm that that will work? Any caveats to be aware of?

 

Let me make sure I understand this right. You would want to have an external midi controller send program changes to the PC4 to change individual sounds on that midi channel, without changing any multis or programs from the PC4 itself, while using the PC4 to play its own sounds on other midi channels?

[AnotherScott]

Let me make sure I understand this right. You would want to have an external midi controller send program changes to the PC4 to change individual sounds on that midi channel, without changing any multis or programs from the PC4 itself, while using the PC4 to play its own sounds on other midi channels?

Right.

[Mighty Motif Max]

Let me make sure I understand this right. You would want to have an external midi controller send program changes to the PC4 to change individual sounds on that midi channel, without changing any multis or programs from the PC4 itself, while using the PC4 to play its own sounds on other midi channels?

Right.

 

Okay. I can confirm that works, both in Program and Multi modes. The controller I tested it with is kind of difficult to get along with so I only tested program changes (no bank changes), but that worked just fine without causing glitches or anything.

 

I will say this - in Multi mode I didn't create a zone for that track. The PC4 still receives midi on channels not used by zones. I wasn't sure how to set up anything else.

[bfields]

Maybe someone can confrim, as this is not something I've tried... but I assume that while you're playing the PC4, and have something assigned to some channel that is not related to anything you're playing on the PC4 itself (let's say a brass sound on channel 15), a MIDI'd companion board--set, in this case, to transmit on channel 15--will not only play that brass sound, but if it sends programmable Program Change, could also send a Program Change to switch that brass sound to a strings sound, while having no impact whatsoever one what you're continuing to play on the PC4 itself, right?

 

Yes.

 

And this should work regardless of whether the PC4 is in Program or Multi mode, yes?

 

I believe when I tested this I found that in multi mode, a program on a channel used by a zone of the multi would be ignored, but it would still be effective on other channels.

 

You'd want to check that, though, it's not something I use. I mostly only send program changes from a tablet app.

[AnotherScott]

Thanks! Good to see the theory confirmed in practice. So then your second board (assuming its own user patches can send user-definable MIDI Program Change) can be easily used to play any of its own sounds, or sounds that are in the PC4, all selectable from that board's own patch selection buttons/screen/whatever, so the same board brings to the table whatever sounds/functions it has, plus giving you more keys to play PC4 sounds from.

[Mighty Motif Max]

Thanks! Good to see the theory confirmed in practice. So then your second board (assuming its own user patches can send user-definable MIDI Program Change) can be easily used to play any of its own sounds, or sounds that are in the PC4, all selectable from that board's own patch selection buttons/screen/whatever, so the same board brings to the table whatever sounds/functions it has, plus giving you more keys to play PC4 sounds from.

 

It seems so, yes. My question to you would be, what is the advantage of setting things up that way vs doing the following?

 

1. Use a multi per song

2. Program an empty/silent patch on the upper board to change to when controlling PC4 sounds

3. Within the PC4 multi, send a program change to the upper board that would either have it choose one of its own sounds or that silent patch if you were using it as a PC4 sound controller

4. Do zoning on the PC4 for that external midi channel

 

If needed,

5. In that multi, have a zone that would send to the upper board on the upper board's own midi channel and control a sound from there. Or if using a more advanced upper board (it actually looks like the MX could do this anyways), have that PC4 zone transmit on a different midi channel than the MX is transmitting on, and then have your silent program on the MX to control PC4 sounds while using a sound from the MX via a PC4 zone.

[AnotherScott]

My question to you would be, what is the advantage of setting things up that way vs doing the following?

 

1. Use a multi per song

You lost me at step 1! ;-) Copying from an old post in another thread that describes how I usually work:

 

My wedding band has a repertoire of literally hundreds of songs. I have no desire to program patches for all of them. 90% of them are dfferent combinations of the same 20 or so sounds. As long as I can grab those sounds when and where I want them, I'm all set, without any prep time. And I can do it on any of at least a half dozen boards (or board-pairs) I own, without having to re-program hundreds of songs if I have some reason to change boards. And as long as a board can do these things, I can change to a new board if I want, without having to reprogram hundreds of songs again.

[Mighty Motif Max]

My question to you would be, what is the advantage of setting things up that way vs doing the following?

 

1. Use a multi per song

You lost me at step 1! ;-) Copying from an old post in another thread that describes how I usually work:

 

My wedding band has a repertoire of literally hundreds of songs. I have no desire to program patches for all of them. 90% of them are dfferent combinations of the same 20 or so sounds. As long as I can grab those sounds when and where I want them, I'm all set, without any prep time. And I can do it on any of at least a half dozen boards (or board-pairs) I own, without having to re-program hundreds of songs if I have some reason to change boards. And as long as a board can do these things, I can change to a new board if I want, without having to reprogram hundreds of songs again.

 

Okay, that makes sense with that workflow! That's a very different way of doing things...I tried doing that for a short period of time and I didn't like it. But I tend to need splits and layers in different spots for different songs so it was a chaotic mess. Do you also make a lot of use of splits and layers that change per song, or is it generally just entire layers or static split points you use?

 

That said I will typically have a piano, a pad, and some strings on standby with the press of a button in some situations where I'm not doing much.

[Al Coda]

[EDITED SPACING]

 

Maybe someone can confrim, as this is not something I've tried... but I assume that while you're playing the PC4, and have something assigned to some channel that is not related to anything you're playing on the PC4 itself (let's say a brass sound on channel 15), a MIDI'd companion board--set, in this case, to transmit on channel 15--will not only play that brass sound, but if it sends programmable Program Change, could also send a Program Change to switch that brass sound to a strings sound, while having no impact whatsoever one what you're continuing to play on the PC4 itself, right?

 

And this should work regardless of whether the PC4 is in Program or Multi mode, yes?

 

Assuming that's the case, that's the MIDI controller function I'd want to have in a companion board, so I could independently pick the Kurz sounds the second board is triggering, without having to change Programs/Multis on the PC4 or having to navigate to change the Channel 15 sound. Essentially, I'd want to be able to define buttons on the 2nd board that would immediately invoke the Kurz sound I wanted it to trigger, regardless of what I was playing on the PC4 itself.

 

Can anyone confirm that that will work? Any caveats to be aware of?

 

Let me make sure I understand this right. You would want to have an external midi controller send program changes to the PC4 to change individual sounds on that midi channel, without changing any multis or programs from the PC4 itself, while using the PC4 to play its own sounds on other midi channels?

 

When talking about changing "sounds" via MIDI program changes,- "Programs" will be changed on given MIDI channels !

 

In "Program Mode", Kurzweil keyboards listen to all 16 MIDI channels simultaneously.

Different "Programs" can be selected for each MIDI channel and all channels can be triggered simultaneously via ext. MIDI ,- w/ the disadvantage (quote from manual):

"The Aux FX Chains of the Program on the currently selected MIDI channel are used for Programs on all Channels."

 

In "Multi-" (formerly "Setup-") mode, ALL can be done,- depending on the "MIDI´d companion board" MIDI features.

Means:

When the "companion board" transmits MIDI data on only one (1) MIDI channel at a time,- it can change (and play) "Programs" on the PC4´s corresponding MIDI channel OR a "Multi".

For all the other read PC4 manual chapter 9-25 "Local Keyboard Channel" !

Have in mind, "Local Keyboard Channel" is a Global Mode MIDI parameter !

 

When you want to control multiple zones individually and on different MIDI channels in a given PC4 "MULTI", Local keyboard Channel" (in Global Mode > MIDI) should be set to NONE and ext. MIDI controller should ideally be able to transmit MIDI on multiple MIDI channels simultaneously and w/ it´s own (advanced) MIDI split- and layer abilities in addition.

 

You can also merge several keyboard controllers, each transmitting on a different MIDI channel, into the PC4´s MIDI-IN (and USB-MIDI) using a MIDI merge box or matrix switcher/processor when using multiple ext. keyboards.

Remember you can set a single zone listening to "USB and/or MIDI", but assign to one MIDI channel only !

Finally you assign "Programs" to "Zones" and set these zones up listening to desired MIDI channels/ controllers/ program changes and according to the "MIDI´d companion board-set",- like Another Scott called it above.

 

I´d use "Multi" only because there´s the AUX-FX override parameter !!!

 

 

A.C.

[AnotherScott]

Do you also make a lot of use of splits and layers that change per song, or is it generally just entire layers or static split points you use?

Usually one sound on top and one sound on bottom at any given time, except when I'm doing LH bass in which case the top board is split just for that,

 

I do occasionally do more elaborate splits, but most of the time, I don't need to.

 

 

Thanks, bfields and Al Coda for your additional input.

[bfields]

1. Use a multi per song

2. Program an empty/silent patch on the upper board to change to when controlling PC4 sounds

3. Within the PC4 multi, send a program change to the upper board that would either have it choose one of its own sounds or that silent patch if you were using it as a PC4 sound controller

4. Do zoning on the PC4 for that external midi channel

 

This is what I'm doing. Seems to work fine.

 

The second keyboard doesn't need zoning support, it can just transmit on a single MIDI channel. On the PC4 you add a zone to your multi, set the "input channel" to the channel the second keyboard transmits on, choose a program and key range and so on as normal, and repeat for as many zones as you'd like, and, voila, you get whatever arbitrary splits & layers you'd like on both keyboards.

 

5. In that multi, have a zone that would send to the upper board on the upper board's own midi channel and control a sound from there. Or if using a more advanced upper board (it actually looks like the MX could do this anyways), have that PC4 zone transmit on a different midi channel than the MX is transmitting on, and then have your silent program on the MX to control PC4 sounds while using a sound from the MX via a PC4 zone.

 

My second keyboard is monotimbral, so a disadvantage of the "silent patch" trick is that it rules this out.

 

The Deepmind manual does give a way to switch local control on and off over MIDI so I should probably figure that out some time instead.... But I haven't seen the need yet.