b3plyr

Could be. I asked Nord why they removed the escapement (let off) and the answer was simply "we made a conscious decision to do so". Who knows what that means?

I don't know about a Nord killer. All boards have their advantages (and disadvantages). However, I have a Nord Grand sitting beside a Numa X 88. And honestly, I think I am going to sell the Nord. The Numa is that good and weights only 31 pounds. I actually like the Numa keybed response better.

I have a Nord Grand. It is a great sounding and playing keyboard. However, I am disappointed by one thing. There is no escapement (let off) with the keybed. I was sure the Kawai action would have it, but apparently Nord either removed it or had it removed by Kawai. As to noise, to my ears, it is no worse than other keyboards. However, I am coming from using TP40 series keypads.

You mean Nord Piano 5 73?

I would suggest you edit your post and remove the irrelevant gender specific description you gave of your last piano teacher. The same for the religious status of your teacher.

No, the opposite is not the case. The context needs to be considered. In some cases, a regular CPU is more appropriate, in others, dedicated DSP. I agree that all modern computers have more CPU power than any combination of DSP chips in hardware keyboard instruments deliver - in specific some cases. Yes, for the most cases the CPU (as you said the Kronos) can handle whatever you need. I never use anything but Mac hardware in my studio, and I run a large number of tracks and effects. But that doesn't mean there is more horsepower with the CPU. Granted, dedicated ALUs and GPUs have greatly enhanced the CPU for signal processing. But, there are applications where that is either not enough or the processing is not done at the same fidelity. Kurzweil, Studiologic, etc. use a lot of dedicated hardware and software for a reason. Kurzweil used to do standard custom chips, and now are doing their own Field Programable Gate Arrays (FPGS). Studio logic uses some dedicated hardware and DSP for the effects. Before I retired, I was involved in a number of signal processing projects, including audio. There were a number of cases where a straight CPU could not handle the load. In those cases we either used customs (and specific purpose) hardware and/or programmable DSP(s). I totally agree with you on the sample libraries. If you want the largest, and most layers, currently the CPU base processors are the way to go. And as you would expect, that is because, in large part, they are designed to handle large amounts of memory. I just posted a response from Studiologic on Numa Player and Piano X.

First, the Numa X and Numa Player do not sound the same. Here is how I tested. I downloaded Numa Player to my iPad Pro. I then connected it to my Numa X by USB Midi. This allows the midi commands to be sent to the iPad and the audio returned to the audio mixer on the Numa X. Then, I assigned one zone to a Numa X Piano and another to the Midi connected to the iPad and Numa Player. Pianos chosen were the same. I then was able to A/B test the two simply by alternating zones. The result - the Numa X sounded appreciably better. Of course this is my opinion, but it does make sense. Regarding some of your other questions,I sent Studiologic this question: "A number of people have asked if the samples in the Numa Player are the same as those in the Numa X Piano. They have also asked if the sound engine is identical to the Numa X except for being implemented in software? In other words, is Numa Player a Numa X in a computer or iOS device?" And here is the gist of the response I received from Gianni at Studiologic. He gave me permission to post as I see fit, so I cut and have pasted his response below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The sources used to make all sounds are the same as far as original proprietary recordings, opmized samples, tracks mixing, audio mastering etc. The two Technologies are different: the NXP is based on our hardware chips (with a lot of custom software DSP etc) while the Player is based on a pure software engine. On the Acoustic Piano sounds (I made for both) also the Strings Resonance and related effects are based on different technologies, but they share the same structure and processing. A substantiale different might be the EP physical models of the NXP, that in the Player are made with a different.simpler technolog, thus keeping similar controls for Sound and Tine, a specific Damper noises etc). The same concept applies on the other sounds (Strings, Keys etc) where I used the same sources and in some case exactly the same samples. Also the FX are not identical, since the NXP FX are based on a proprietary hardware and DSP design while the Player has different algorithms, but we kept (trust 🙂 our feeling. In other words, the ingredients might be different, but the the recipies are quite simiilar and we also try to make the best possible natural and playable sounds, also nice to be mixed in ''musical'' patches.P As a conclusion, the Player sounds might be somehow considered a software version of our NXP sounds in a quite simplified version (at least so far :-)." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hopefully Gianni's answer will clear up a lot of the questions about the Numa X and Numa Player.

I don't fit the profile. I'm considerably older and having more fun than ever!

Actually the only real reference in a true modeled piano is the real piano you compare it to. Physical modeling is just that - a mathematical representation of a physical process (flute, piano, etc.) that is executed in hardware or software. Studiologic has told me the acoustic pianos are samples with modeling for some of the parameters you mentioned. They do use multisamples. I asked if the keyboard had enough horsepower to physically model the acoustic piano. The answer was yes, but they feel samples with the modeled parameter are the best bet. Only the EPs are physically modeled. I understand your disappointment with Numa player. I'm pretty sure they don't use the same samples as the Piano X. And the horsepower is likely not enough on some computers to do the same processing's the Numa X Piano

Yes, you are correct. I meant to refer strictly to the soundbanks. And no, the GT does not have better quality of samples. The difference is likely to take the physical differences of the 73/88 and GT keybeds into account. The soundbanks can carry more information than just samples, if necessary.

All good points.

The latest firmware release greatly improves the keybed response, so there may be a tie in. One thing you could try is to do a factory reset and then reinstall the 2.0 firmware upgrade. Although it is a long shot, there is always a change that the firmware was corrupted. Just a thought. I do not have the issue on my Numa 88.

No, the firmware will be slightly different as the keybeds have different physical responses. You can see this when you download the newest sound banks - there are two versions, one for the 73 and 88, another for the GT. However, for the most part, they should be identical.

I have had the opposite experience with Studiologic. I have had several of their keybeds in Kurzweil products, as well as Nord. They all worked well.

Have you tried different pianos? That would rule out a sampling issue. BTW, I have an 88 and have not noticed this problem. Good luck, it is a great board!

Thanks all of you. I'm sold! Just ordered one.

Do you have any pictures of your mods? Would be very interesting to see.

Thanks much. I have to remember to search before posting! Dave - the pictures really helped!

Anyone have this stand? Would like to know your experience with it.

Good suggestion - believe it should be Gater 76 slim. Dave - I took your suggestion for the Numa X.

Tim, I feel your pain. I was keyboardist/music director in a VA band for a long time before moving to Asheville, NC. While I considered playing in a wedding band, I'm glad I didn't. I'm tired of "copying" covers so I've gone the duo route - just myself on keys and a great vocalist. I haven't looked back since. While we do covers, they really are not covers. They are our take on the song. And being the sole instrumentalist keeps me challenged, which is what I really like. So go with your feelings. My manta is "have fun doing what you want to do". It has worked well for me.

Update on my Piano X. As I mentioned before, the power switch has given me trouble. It is a momentary contact switch vs the typical latch switches you see on most keyboards. Normally you would expect the advantage to be that it would last longer, although it does take some additional electronic circuitry. Anyway, my switch has been totally inconsistent. I have to push multiple times, holding for different times, to get it to startup. I'm not upset, as Studiologic (Gianni)provided great support and I'm ruling this as a fluke. So I will return the keyboard, and get a replacement. On the very good side, I agree with all of HammonDave's review. The sounds are really good, the TP110 is a big difference from the TP100, and the end result is a much more responsive keybed. In fact, I have a Nord Grand here and the Studiologic seems to have better dynamics - have to do more testing. Of course this is preliminary information, as I haven't spent much time with the board. The interface is really cool, too. BTW, I don't mind the external power supply - the 31 pound weight of the Piano X is great!

Or bedroom. Excellent point!

Kinda my approach. I have the Piano X GT 88 for gigs, and will likely get the GT for my studio. Can transfer patches, etc. Glad you like your 73. You are right - it is a funky board, in a good way.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately mine currently is inconsistent regardless of how long I hold the press.