voxpops

Some years ago I used to own a PX-5S and found it a great gigging tool. However, I soon dispensed with the internal acoustic pianos in favor of Pianoteq. I would place a Surface tablet on the righthand side and gain the benefit of the PX's hi-res MIDI spec. It was a really good combination. But for the last five years I've been using the Kurzweil SP6 as my bottom board as I needed a full range of sounds from across the spectrum. The action is acceptable, but suffers a little from requiring significant downweight, although I find it quite fast and responsive. To be honest, I haven't come across anything significantly better in the lightweight category, particulary with its ability to access sounds from the PC3 series, PC4 and Forte. If drawbars are required they can be added externally as the SP6's KB3 mode will respond to CC values. If I could have the SP6 with my Kawai ES110's action, I'd be very content. I also acquired the Numa X Piano 73 recently. I think the 88 is still only around 30lbs. It doesn't have a VA synth or dedicated organ engine, but it is a competent piano and well worth considering.

The Line 6 L2T seems to be switchable for different functions or environments, but is a fairly expensive piece of kit. It may be one of the closest things to a multipurpose speaker at the moment. I have no experience of it, but if it allows for effective nearfield / midfield listening as well as stage performance then it might be worth considering secondhand. https://line6.com/data/6/0a06434d16dcc51080ca2e605f/application/pdf/Line6 L2t Specifications - English ( Rev A ).pdf

This sounds to me like the speakers are applying some form of auto-level compensation. I notice that the Edifier MR4 has a button to switch between "monitor" mode and "music" mode. My guess is that "music" mode makes adjustments, whereas "monitor" keeps things clean - but that really is just a guess. Have you tried a long press to switch modes? As for alternative amplification, it seems unlikely that you'd solve your issues by using a keyboard amp without introducing new ones. Currently you're running a small stereo setup, presumably for mixing/monitoring. The K900FX and KC200 are both designed for mono stage reproduction, unless coupled with a second unit. I owned the K900FX some years ago and now have the KXD15 as a backup for stage use, and although they're really quite good as far as keyboard amps go, they probably won't give you the fidelity you need at low, close quarters listening volumes - and they're large and fairly heavy. It really depends what you're trying to achieve and in what context. Speakers designed for near-field listening are tuned differently to those designed for stage, so it's not that easy to find multi-purpose tools. I have a pair of EV-ZXA1 PA speakers for amplifying my keys on stage when I don't need a heavy bottom end. They're pretty much perfect in that context, but are less good at low volumes in a small room - i.e. when they're not being driven at stage volumes. The last time I bought studio monitors was when I had a pair of Yamaha HS7s. They were great for accurate reproduction, if a little unforgiving, and you could probably pick up a pair of those secondhand and in good condition for somewhere near your budget. Otherwise, I wouldn't pretend to know what to recommend. However, I would check into the different modes on your Edifiers and maybe provide a little more info about how you intend to use these speakers.

Just gave that a try - certainly bright and punchy! It shows that the Vintage Piano is versatile and doesn't lose too much authenticity when tweaked. Thanks for posting your settings.

Congratulations on the purchase! I'm getting used to the Numa X now and I agree that the TP/110 is a very playable action. I'm also enjoying the EPs and some of the APs, particularly on headphones and recordings, and am working through EQ and other settings to optimize the piano for stage amplification. When I said that I found some of the non-piano sounds "somewhat uninspiring" I should have qualified that with "for particular types of music." Coming from keyboards with built-in VA synths and dedicated organ sections, I have found the Numa's rompler characteristics limiting - even when compared with the old Korg Triton LE. Anyone playing European folk music or augmenting theater productions with orchestral sounds will be very well served, but if you're looking for evolving sounds or portamento synths for prog and other rock or ambient genres you won't find them here. However, there are some nice pads and strings, and it is certainly useful to be able to layer as required. What I also agree with is that the clarity and depth of what is there is excellent, but as with many romplers it's a good idea to find the pitches at which the non-piano sounds work best. Having said that, I think if you accept it for what it is, it fills a niche, especially with the 73 (and the GT for different reasons), that is very sparsely populated. Without separate synth and organ sections I don't think it's realistically a Nord Stage competitor, and some of the recent enhancements to the Piano 5 mean that it might be a bit of a struggle there in a side-by-side comparison. As for the YC that also has a clonewheel engine and FM synthesis, there's a lot more on the table than with the Numa X. However, if you accept the X Piano as exactly that - a piano - I think it competes well with most other brands, even in a significantly higher price bracket. I certainly prefer the APs, EPs and action over the YC73. Add in the audio interface, controller capabilities, extended polyphony, downloadable sounds, build quality and price and you have a winner!

My goodness, that is amazing - in all respects! Well done, Cybergene!

Yes, the context does make a difference and I doubt that many people playing the X 73 on stage would be performing a classical music recital. However, with the GT and its superior action, the potential purchaser might be intending to play in a more exposed setting (I viewed a couple of solo GT performances on YT), and even with the TP/110 variants one might be playing in a jazz duo or trio where a subtle touch and sound could be required. I know that you can easily add software pianos as required - and maybe that's a recognition of the board's inherent limitations - but perhaps there's still room for improvement within the chosen sound reproduction methodology. The old GEM pianos exhibited very similar characteristics, sounding generally good, but lacking the dynamic variations, particularly in the pp range. They, too, would rely on single samples with filtering and/or basic modeling - and it's possible that the Kawai ES110 is similar in that regard (although we have no definitive information), managing to achieve a dynamic response that is surprisingly good, given the tiny ROM. Having the Kurzweil SP6, which is in a similar weight and price bracket, it's interesting to compare the approach of the two. The SP6 can access multiple AP samples across the dynamic range within a single AP patch, drawn from its 2GB memory. However, it is limited to two main grand pianos (one of which has some rather odd characteristics!) plus a selection of old triple-strike patches. When I bought my first SP6 I was distinctly underwhelmed by the pianos. If I remember correctly they were based on only three or four dynamic levels. Very soon after, Kurzweil updated the firmware to include something like seven levels for these main pianos. It made a huge difference and has been one of the main reasons I stuck with the board and bought a second as backup. It was clearly a simple thing for Kurzweil to do and required no major re-engineering. I doubt if it's anywhere near as simple a task for Studiologic to make a mf sample sound realistically like pp, let alone ppp. The Kurzweil's action is quick, but can be tiring, requiring significant pressure when the hammer is fully raised, and it also employs flexible plastic pivots, which has so far resulted in one breakage for me (fortunately, an easy fix). The Numa feels better balanced and more sophisticated generally. The SP6 and the Numa share a similar 4-part architecture with seamless switching between sounds and zones within a set, but not between different sets. I have come to really appreciate the SP's layout and ease of operation in a live context - I think it was very well thought-out. (Plus the bonus of the VARIATION button means you have access to what is, essentially, a fifth part.) It's too early for me know how straightforward the Numa will be to use live, but it seems logical and fairly intuitive in that regard. The construction of the Numa is more robust and I have experienced minor flexing of the SP6's chassis, but I'm a little more concerned about how well the rather tall zone knobs and seemingly flimsy pitch/mod sticks will hold up on the Numa compared to the soft-buttons and wheels of the SP. Where the Kurzweil scores heavily is in the range and quality of the non-piano sounds, being able to draw on both VAST technology and the old PC3/Forte libraries as well as newer PC4 tones. In addition, although KB3 may not be everyone's cup of tea, you do have what is essentially a full clonewheel on board. The Numa is limited to a somewhat uninspiring range of samples with very limited editing capability. So, to make up for this it needs to rely on the EP and AP offering. I think the EPs are already very good, giving my Vox Continental and SP6 a run for their money, and the APs have a lot of potential. But perhaps the one area where the Numa hits a home run is in offering a 73-note variant. No, it's not really able to compete against the YC73 or the Nord Piano 5 73, but there are plenty of people who just want a basic piano that's lightweight but robust and will give a convincing performance on stage, without spending a fortune.

Funnily enough, around 9 years ago when I used a PX-5S on stage, I used to attach a Surface tablet running Pianoteq because I didn't connect very well with the Casio's internal pianos. That combination was perhaps the best live piano experience I've had, mainly due, I think, to the PX's advanced MIDI spec, which meant the action interfaced with Pianoteq in an amazingly fluid way. That same tablet - running the original WIndows 8.0 - is still going strong! I occasionally dip into Pianoteq and Ravenscroft on it, but despite the advances with PT8 I much prefer to leave tablets at home and gig with hardware now. One thing I have noticed is that PT seems to sound considerably better on Windows than on iPad. Going back to the Numa, I made a mistake in a post above. I thought that DELAY was a global effect, but now see that each part can be independently set to bypass the master effects, if desired. The more time I spend with the Numa's APs, I feel there are two areas where improvements would make a significant difference. The first is the initial attack (which often seems to decay just a hair too rapidly, making the sound ever so slightly "plinky") and the pp rendering (which seems almost non-existent, losing out on that velvety smoothness when grand piano keys are played very quietly). I've seen a number of similar comments from other people, so it would seem that there's consensus on what would really lift the APs into contention with the best on the market. However. I realize that it's one thing to describe a problem and quite another to fix it. As with all these subtleties there are frequently trade-offs involved: you fix one thing, but it adversely affects something else. So it may not be a simple task to achieve the desired outcomes within the constraints of the overall system. But given the great start that the design team has made with this instrument, I am going to hope for (but not expect) continued evolution. Oh, and a global pedal noise control would be very welcome!

Spending more time with it, I'm getting more of a handle on the board generally and the APs in particular. Surprisingly, I'm finding uses for the multiple AP variants, as I haven't yet come across one that I feel is truly multi-purpose - with perhaps the JpnGrand being the closest. The VintGrand comes close, too, but the lower register can sometimes sound a little too idiosyncratic. But I appreciate the "robustness" of the APs - I don't think they can be described as thin - which isn't always the case with lower-priced boards (or even some more expensive ones). One thing that would be nice to have is a delay available within the insert effects for use with splits, when a master delay isn't appropriate for all parts. Another little OS anomaly I've found is that there is no HybridFM7 available from the front panel. When attempting to select HybridFM7, the board always defaults to HybridFM8!

That's some great playing! I really enjoyed the performance. I can hear what you mean about the Numa EPs getting a little lost in the mix, but I wondered if it might be partially due to the guitar and EP occupying a similar tonal spectrum. But I've noticed that, with the EP modeling creating quite a thick tone, chords may become less distinct, particularly with effects applied. The AP sounded pretty good (was it the Vintage?), but you can still just detect that rather "honky" quality that seems to affect all the pianos to some degree. I have to admit that I felt a little deflated after reading about your YC vs Numa experience. I spent months agonizing between those two (with the Nord Piano 5 73 also trying to tempt me into the red corner and penury), but I eventually opted for a factory refurbished YC. Delivery got delayed by a few days due to a storm, and when it arrived it exhibited very strange behavior - cutting out and then sustaining every D and G# unprompted - so I sent it back. For the short time I had it, I could tell that it's a very accomplished and refined board, covering all bases reasonably well, although I found the interface a tad confusing and the action was so-so. After briefly flirting with the notion of spending a bit more to get a new YC, I rejected that as, following my experience, I wasn't sure I was going to be able to trust it, and opted for a new Numa, with a substantial saving on what I had been expecting to spend. It may have been a false economy as, in the few days I've had it, I've been struggling a bit with the APs and was a little perturbed by the pedal anomaly. However, I'm going to stick with it, not least because, when playing the EPs, I felt almost like I'd rediscovered my old SV1's long-lost brother! Although I hope that an update will very swiftly resolve the pedal issue, I really don't expect too much improvement of the APs as the issues seem to be part of the way the sound has been processed - and that may be inherent in the architecture. So I think it's probably a question of finding the best compromise that suits amplification, style of music and other instruments. For a lightweight board the action is good: not as quick as Kawai's RHC, but definitely very playable. (As an aside, I setup a Kawai ES110 alongside the Numa and got unsurprising results: the Kawai's AP sounds great without any real need for tweaking, but the Numa smokes it in everything else except for action.) The Numa's AC adapter (sigh) needs a much better cable. The interface is straightforward, even if the menu system can feel a little convoluted, but the lack of a secondary numeric system for sound access troubles me a little. But in the end it's difficult to grumble about a board that is soildly built, yet weighs under 26lbs and is only around 41" wide. For tight spaces it'll fit better than my Kurzweil SP6, and if I do have to go with a second tier I have a Vox Continental or VR-09 that can be plumbed directly into the Numa, thus saving on gear and setup time. There's a lot to like here.

Yes, my problems with random tones has disappeared since swapping the pedal input. One of the main reasons I decided to take a chance on the Numa X was the much-talked-about engagement of the designers. So often you're left on your own with flawed products that the manufacturer decides is no longer worth their time. I've also had previous Studiologic instruments (the originals of both the Numa Organ and Numa Piano) and they each had really good aspects, if slightly compromised by quirky firmware, so I knew what to expect. So far, I find the APs a little frustrating in that they come close, but don't quite get there! Maybe it's partly down to attempting to compress so much information into such small packages. I agree with someone's suggestion that it might be better to have just one or two really standout pianos in place of so many compromised ones. However, the Vintage is undoubtedly worth spending time on. I'm struggling a bit with some of the other sounds so far. I realize that coming from VA and analogue machines, sampled synths are not going to fare too well, but simply adding portamento - as Yamaha has done with the CK series - would go a long way to making those sounds more usable. However, with all that aside, there is massive potential with this board and the form factor of the 73, in particular, makes it so versatile. I really hope that Gianni and the rest of the team can maintain their focus on making this board the best it can be.

Thanks so much! It's great to have the option of reverting to a previous version in case of issues that can't be worked around - or simply to compare before and after.

Quick update. It's early days, but it seems that swapping the supplied pedal to input 3 has put a stop to the random noises (which it appears, in my case, were notes being randomly triggered/repeated). I also did a quick test of Fausto Ferreira's settings for the Vintage Piano and can confirm that there is a lot of potential there. The next issue I have is to work on the best way to amplify it, as it would seem that, beyond headphones (which sit well with it), it needs some tweaking to get the best out of it.

What you said with regard to the pedal "sticking" may be the cause of my random noises, as it sounded a bit like notes either being repeated or sounding on their own when the pedal was depressed. I will give input 3 a go, and I have a DP-10 that I can try as well. Thanks for the tip re the taperec piano.

Thanks for that! I'd seen the video previously but hadn't picked up on the settings in the description. I'll definitely give those a go as I did like the Vintage Grand more than most of the others. I've loaded all the additional pianos, but have only played a few notes with each so far.

I just received my new Numa X Piano 73 today. I immediately updated the firmware to 2.2.0. Within a couple of minutes I noticed the random noises. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed as it should have been picked up pretty easily during testing. I haven't studied the setup menu yet so haven't seen the pedal anomaly. As for the Mk 1 softest layer, I only have an earlier video to compare mine to, but did notice that the quiet "thunk" of tine harmonics wasn't apparent in my version. I would assume that these issues will be addressed soon as the problem of random noises makes the piano unusable for performances. Having only had a short time to play around with it my conclusions about the piano are very tentative. However (firmware issues aside), I concur with those who have praised the overall tone and response of the Rhodes iterations. They have a fullness and richness to them and are very enjoyable to play. The "Wurly" variations are not quite to the same standard in my opinion, and also the random noises were very apparent when playing the Wurly, but otherwise they are quite usable. As for the APs, I haven't really found one that wows me yet. Someone described them as all having a kind of "tang." I know what he means, and also noticed the rather swift initial decay to most of them. I haven't tried to tweak them yet, so maybe they'll grow on me. The other sounds seem like a mixed bag; effects seem to be of good quality. I found the keys a bit slippery, but maybe they're just very new. For a lightweight action it responds quite well. All told it seems like it could be a useful board - and is very easy to manhandle. The YC73 I had for a few days (it was faulty, so I returned it) was much more difficult to grasp due to rounded edges. The jury's out at the moment, but it will be interesting to get better acquainted with it. *Does anyone know if there's a way to download FW 2.1 as it doesn't seem to be available on the Studiologic site? (I assume the firmware can be downgraded from 2.2. to 2.1 via the Numa Manager.)*

One other thing, although it's difficult to be certain, is that the acoustic pianos seem to be sample-based but use modeling for string resonances, duplex scale, release note, key off and damper noise. The EPs are fully modeled, I believe. It may be similar to the old GEM acoustic pianos which were also sample-based and I think used some sort of look-up table. Again, the GEM EPs were modeled. I had a PRP800 for a while, which I really enjoyed playing, but which was totally unreliable!

So glad you found the solution. I must admit I was surprised to find that overrides can be overridden! The potential is huge with these Kurzweil boards, but the complexity can be daunting. Good luck with the show!

Just seen this in the K2700 manual - seems to confirm what I experienced regarding expression pedal behavior: "Important Note: Values of “None” For factory programs, standard parameters like Expression (program volume), Sustain, and Sostenuto are always set to None by default. If you change one of these values, either on the PARAMS page in the Program Editor, or with a physical controller from Program Mode (or the Program Editor,) the same value will be used for any other program you select, if you select another program that uses a value of None for the same parameter. These values remain set even if you don’t save the program. This can be useful, for example, when using an expression pedal to control program volume. By default, all factory programs have their Expression parameter set to a value of None, and Expression (program volume) by default can be controlled by an expression pedal plugged into the CC 1 Pedal jack. With an expression pedal plugged into the CC 1 Pedal jack, you can control the volume of any factory program, but when you select another factory program, it will have the same volume that you set with the expression pedal in the last program. This way, the volume of your programs will stay consistent, and can always be changed by the expression pedal. If you want a program to have a default volume, you must set a Value other than None for the Expression parameter. For all parameters with a Value of None, any values set with a physical control will not be saved when saving the program. You must set the Value column for that parameter to something other than None in order to set and save a value. These values will remain set until changed with a controller, or until a program is loaded on the current MIDI channel that does not have a value of None for these parameters." However, it was also suggested earlier that entry/exit parameters might assist here as well. Having just read the following, I'd be inclined to be cautious about adjusting those for internal sounds as there may be undesirable consequences: "ENTRY EXIT Soft Button Press the ENTRY EXIT soft button to toggle between showing Pan/Volume and ExitPan/ ExitVol on the Overview page. ExitPan and ExitVol are MIDI Pan (CC 10) and MIDI Volume (CC 7) messages that can be sent to each Zone’s MIDI channel when exiting the current multi by selecting another Multi or Program. ExitPan and ExitVol should typically be set to a value of “None”, which sends no message. To select a value of None, scroll below 0 or type -1 followed by the ENTER button. Setting ExitPan or ExitVol to 0-127 can be useful for advanced MIDI configurations and when controlling external MIDI instruments or software. For example, an Exit Volume message of 0 could silence an external MIDI instrument when exiting a Multi. For Zones which are playing local programs, Exit Volume should typically be set to None to avoid unwanted volume changes when selecting Multis." Regarding overrides, the following passage was helpful to me to indicate potentially why SW2b wasn't working for patch change. If it's already set to "OFF" in multis, it won't be overridden: "In Multi Edit Mode, setting a Pedal Mode to “Off” will disable the override for that Pedal in the selected Zone. It can be useful in Multi Mode to disable the Pedal Override for some Zones. For example, you may want to use a Pedal Override to control Sustain in all Zones of a Multi, but disable Sustain for one Zone. When a Pedal Switch Override is used, the pedal will behave in Multi Mode as if the OnValue and OffValue are set to 127 and 0 respectively (this will not be shown in Multi Edit Mode). When a Pedal Switch Override is set to Sustain, Sostenuto or Soft, the pedal will behave in Multi Mode as if Pedal Type is set to Momentary (this will not be shown in Multi Edit Mode). When set to Data Inc, Data Dec, Quick Acc Inc or Quick Acc Dec the pedal will behave in Multi Mode as if Pedal Type is set to Toggle (this will not be shown in Multi Edit Mode)." Hope this helps with your menu diving @BKZ3!

When I ran my test previously I'd been switching multis using the panel buttons, not a footswitch. I've just run the test again with a pedal and come up with one or two anomalies. Whether these translate to the K2700, I don't know. I plugged a sustain pedal into the SP6's #2 pedal socket. Using the overrides in the Global menu (Data Inc), initially the switch pedal started sustaining everything! I restarted the piano and made sure the plug was fully seated in the socket. This time I found that while #2a worked perfectly, advancing patches one at a time, #2b would not shift programs/multis forward, despite being set to Data Inc. I have no idea whether I needed to change another setting somewhere else. The only things I can think of to try would be to test out different soft switches for the Data Inc/Dec override, make sure the footswitch plug is fully inserted and the pedal is not depressed at startup, and try another pedal.

I find this to be the case with my SP6 too, although stereo reproduction helps live (I use EV ZX1As and they're probably about as good as I can expect). It's the versatility and ease of control that keeps me with Kurzweil - and at least the pianos aren't thin. On the subject of patch changing, I find that I use multis almost exclusively - including for single sounds - as it makes stepping through during performances so much easier than going back and forth with programs. As a result I have to work around the dropout glitch where possible when changing multis. On some patches I've been able to significantly reduce, and in one or two cases eliminate, the glitch via careful tailoring of FX in adjacent multis. Trouble is, I don't really know how I managed to solve the problem on certain multis, but not on others. That led to me use zone switching within multis that have free parts available, for seamless and instantaneous changes.

I don't have the K2700 but do have the SP6. The first issue you mentioned about the delay in patch switching can be partially worked around by setting up a multi with a sequence of programs that you then switch between using the zone buttons underneath the faders. I assume you can assign up to 9 zones/programs on the K2700. I do this frequently on the SP6 to avoid FX glitches when switching between programs. It works seamlessly as all the FX are already assigned and loaded per multi. The only limitation is that I sometimes run out of FX resources if I have more than two or three effect-hungry programs (such as KB3 plus piano) in a multi, but I assume the K2700 has more horsepower in that area. Regarding your note-sticking problem, it sounds potentially like the patch change note-off MIDI command is being overridden by the held note, but is then not triggered when you release that key. I just tried a few patch changes with held notes in both program and multi modes on the SP6, but experienced no stuck notes. In Global mode I also changed between "Immediate" and "AllKeysUp" for multi mode patch changes to see if that made any difference - which it didn't. Could it be a small firmware issue in the K2700 that could be easily resolved by Kurzweil? It might be worth contacting them about that. In terms of the expression pedal problem, my VR-09 always seems to default to a full-on start position per patch - no matter where the expression pedal is set - whereas the SP6 normally reads the current position of the pedal, although it does seem to vary sometimes depending on whether that multi has been previously accessed in the session (perhaps remembering the pedal state???). I don't actually use expression pedal very much with my SP6, but I did just experiment with setting the value to 127 on one multi vs "NONE" on another and then the board reset the pedal every time I reverted to the one with value 127 (but not on the other). I think the default position is "NONE" so it's worth giving some of your multis a 127 value to see if that solves the issue.

One thing to be aware of with the small Behringers is that the control room volume is also affected by the main mix volume control.

I also use one of these on top of my SP6. Although the two main output pairs have only one master control, the phones output is independent of the master level and can be used to send a secondary signal. I find the quality and versatility good. It's sufficient to use with my two main boards plus an occasional monosynth.

Sorry this is nearly two years behind, but I thought it worthwhile sharing my experience with the Medeli keys (in the SP6, but relevant to PC4 users). In early 2018 I bought one of the first SP6 units to arrive in the UK and have used it regularly ever since, mainly as a rehearsal board. Last year, when I resumed gigging, I became concerned that if something went awry with the SP6 I'd be in trouble as I'd programmed entire sets into the board, and so I bought another - secondhand, but one that had seen very little use. Fast forward a few months and I was glad that I had the backup. In February this year I was practicing on my original SP6 and the F# above middle-C broke. I'm not in the least bit technically proficient, but because I had another to fall back on I turned the damaged unit over and proceeded to remove what felt like a hundred screws, all the while concerned that I was going to brick the entire board. Once I had it opened up - a surprisingly straightforward, if tedious, process - I could immediately see the problem. The black key had snapped off at the thin and vulnerable plastic joint where the actual key connects to a kind of small flat plate and "H-shaped" pivot piece. The black keys were grouped in clusters of five, held by four screws that also secured the accompanying white keys. I had found a video on YT that showed a similar Medeli action being repaired: With a bit of waggling I was able to remove the damaged section and inspect the damage. I found a small piece of plastic to use as reinforcement, applied some hard-plastic glue and later reassembled the piano. Everything looked and worked fine, but I was concerned that it wouldn't hold for long, particularly as the joint is so flimsy, so I hunted around for replacement keys. The UK distributor agreed to send me a set of black keys for free, which was a nice gesture, although when they arrived I discovered the set had been damaged so that the C# and D# didn't align properly, but the F# and above were fine. What I did then displays my complete DIY incompetence. I took an old hairdryer and attempted to soften the plastic and bend the keys back into alignment. I succeeded beyond all expectations and melted the plastic pivot into a distorted mess! Although I had actually improved the alignment by a margin, I was worried that I had weakened the structure. By now I was running out of options! As a last-ditch attempt I took out a dremel, cut both the old and new key sections between the D# and F#, and with two screws on each side, refitted the good portions of each cluster. Just to be sure, and because the key groups are interchgangeable across the keyboard, instead of replacing the repaired unit in the middle of the board I swapped it for one near the bottom. It has held fine since then. One other little anomaly with the action occured yesterday with the newer of my two SP6 units. I had taken it to a rehearsal and suddenly noticed that the B below middle-C had stiffened and was quite difficult to press down. I gave it a good minute or two of hammering and it eased, but it left me a little worried as to what caused it and whether it would return. The only things I could think of were lack of lubricant, one of the plastic sheaths that sit between key and hammer mechanism had shifted (possibly in transport) or a foreign body had become trapped. The latter is unlikely as there was no indication of anything rattling within the casing after the key had been eased. I also think it unlikely that a lack of grease would cause sudden stiffness and equally sudden release, so I'm left thinking that it's probably a loose plastic sheath. When I dismantled the older board, key removal sometimes dislodged a sheath which I had to reposition. It's possible that transport could cause such a problem. I'm reluctant to open up this board as it's a PITA, but will do so if it occurs again. Despite the issues, I still think this is a great board - but maybe Kurzweil could consider the TP110 for lightweight boards in the future. Pics show the key problems after I'd split the two key clusters (which I placed together for the first photo to show roughly what the cluster looks like when it hasn't been hacked in two!). The F# illustrates my repair of the old unit with glue and reinforcement. The C# details what happened after I tried heat-treatment to bend the replacement unit back into alignment. I didn't think to take photos while I had the SP6 opened up, but the images in the linked video are very similar to what confronted me during the replacement.