Nathanael_I

Very cool! Thanks for sharing this.

Very cool. I have always thought of it as a great digital synth, and this keeps all the digital goodness. Interested - and I don't need another 61 note keybed, although the Quantum does have my favorite Fatar synth action in it.

I think you know that on a grand piano, the longer the piano, the longer the keys are inside the case. The optimal strike point for the hammers to activate the strings is a function of their length. This has the follow on consequence that a concert grand is able to play softer and with more control than a baby grand. As a player, the result is significant in terms of feel. Added to this, most digital pianos are not furnished with three pedals, let alone dedicated una-corda pedal samples. Digital pianos all have very short pivot lengths, and so, never have the feel of a quality concert grand. I completely understand why someone like Keith Jarrett or Ethan Iverson play acoustic instruments - they aren't the same instrument despite the superficial similarity. The closest I have come is the Nord Grand in something portable. It feels pretty close to my RX-7 grand. You can caress the keys due to the triple sensor. It is possible to play MIDI 10's if you want, which is very unusual for slab keyboards. It's the closest I've come when paired with the Synchron Steinway sample from VSL. With respect to sampling, I think you are very right as respects things like a Kronos. There are no p or pp samples - they just turn down the volume, but it isn't the same. The Kronos and Nord samples offer an mf sample at quietest and a very close mic'd one at that, it just gets bright and harsh in a way that a real concert Steinway does not. This is true of the Nord piano library as well. The lower layers of a real grand are just not in the sample and this kills the realism and nuance. Also, there are no una-corda samples. So even having a third pedal does not produce the right tone - that is another thing for those softer layers, that trained pianists on fine instruments use at will. But if you are running a laptop rig, you can get instruments with true pp and even ppp samples, and it transforms the experience. With the Syncron Steinway, they not only sample 50-70 velocities per note, including una-corda samples, but also lots of different release samples - that are triggered by how fast you release the key. I believe this to be the finest piano sample ever made from a technical perspective. Whether you like Steinways or this particular one, this sample is a new high water mark for what is possible. That subtle variation and nuance that a real piano offers is there in terms of the notes. Using the una-corda pedal and playing softly sounds right. It still plays "cleaner" than a real grand because the damper modeling only gets so close, but the tone is wonderful. With the studio speakers turned up to match acoustic piano volume, it is easy to get lost in it using the Nord Grand as the controller. This sample is of a much better piano than my RX-7, and you feel that rich warm mid-bass that all great concert instruments have and the effortless sound production.

Especially on voices. Reverb always pushes things back in the mix. A spot of delay, followed by a tiny bit of a short reverb can make a very present, clear vocal that doesn't recede under a big hall/chamber reverb. A lot of people reach for reverb on VOX when they would be better served with the right subtle delay.

I have Genelec 8351a's in the studio and the Fulcrum Acoustics FA22ac for my PA "tops". This is an interesting comparison because both are active speakers, with built in amps and DSP. Both are coaxial designs that honor the "point source" principle of speaker design. Both are designed by some of the finest speaker designers in the world. They are both "state of the art". They are both marketed with a complete set of performance metrics, including off-axis response, that let you know what the speaker is actually capable of. I own them because they both met the same technical criteria. I had both speakers set up in my studio for some time, side by side. Interestingly, the Genelecs play lower and are solid to about 30Hz in room. The FA22ac's are definitely rolling off at 40hz, but that is normal for PA - one uses subs for this. (My PA has BassBoss subs that are flat to 27Hz - they are also sold with full measurements). The imaging of the Genelecs is exceptional. The tweeter in the Genelec is smoother than the horn in the FA22ac's (no surprise). But I'd have no issues mixing on the FA22ac's. To me, the FA22ac's "feel better" to listen to. The music just feels great and effortless and free. The FA22ac's transient response is shockingly good. They are essentially a very loud reference monitor. And they do go full PA loud, and still sound great. As my drummer said after hearing the full Fulcrum/BassBoss system at 75ft, "That's the best "loud" sound I've ever heard". A mix engineer friend was putting up his mix reference tracks and hearing all the same details as in his control room. They are truly excellent. You can easily judge reverb and compression settings at 75 feet. Choice of piano sample is easily distinguished at 100 feet. It's mind-blowingly good "loud" sound. In the end, the Genelecs are best at being studio monitors. They'd never be loud enough for a gig with a rock drummer or any dispersed audience (like outdoors) - they are in the limiters at 110dB SPL, which sounds like a lot, but not once you are throwing distances and the inverse square law comes into play. The Fulcrum are much better at being used for PA purposes, with great subs, crossed over at 80Hz. Run that way, they deliver better sound than I've heard out of much more expensive PA's (and definitely better than most "studio" monitors". Neither are low cost, but they are also not expensive for the performance they deliver. There are many other products at the same price that do not deliver the same objective and subjective results. If you want the quality of Genelec's best monitors in the form of a PA system? The Fulcrum Acoustics tops with BassBoss underneath will deliver auditory excellence with solid, full volume, no roll-off bass below 30Hz. (Yes, I am willing to deal with industry standard dual 18" subs, not stuff that fits in your trunk...)

Yes. It works fine. I don't know about streaming, but it definitely records into the video..

At this point, sample rate conversion is higher quality than any AD converters. It is a solved problem and something we will never hear.

How many channels will you run across it. When I had an RME UCX, I found that while using the channels on the unit, I never had an issue with any cable. When I maxed out the ADAT expander and was using pretty much every port on the thing, it was happiest with a 6' cable. No 15' cable would work. Some 9' cables worked. Anecdotal experience only, but it's what I experienced. Now with a Dante setup, I don't have to care for 300' (which is about 280' more than I care about!)

I started with a Peavey keyboard amp. It sounded horrible. I never missed it. For a while I didn't play out and just used studio monitors. Then I used IEMs. Now I have IEMs and PA (Fulcrum Acoustic). I wouldn't buy a keyboard amp. Keyboard amps and PA speakers have the same basic design goal: full range, flat response. (Motion sound has some thing that are different, obviously). But for Full range/Flat response, there is an ocean of difference between the choices and engineering that goes into a modern PA speaker and a traditional "keyboard amp" (especially the ones with built-in DSP). The volumes sold also play into this. Also, a PA also gives two speakers. Every keyboard I've owned (except the Minimoog!) puts out a stereo signal and sounds better doing so. My PA can be used for FOH or for me. I've used it both ways. I prefer my IEMs and PA as FOH, but options are good! "Keyboard Amp" just says, low quality speaker to me. Even for PA speakers, I have a list of what I want, and no keyboard amp meets the spec. I don't play Hammond, so rotary isn't part of what I use.

Slate works for me. I use the stock plugins in Nuendo for everything that is just surgical/clean/corrective. I decided that if I wanted color, Slate would do. I'm not trying to get any particular "vintage flavor" - so I kind of don't care how accurate it is or isn't. It's just if it sounds good/works for the track or not. So, I've learned to use it, and there's a few things that I use all the time. I don't look at plugins, I don't collect them. If I didn't do this, I'm sure I'd spend $150/year on something, and this just makes it easy.

48Khz here. Orchestral sample libraries are all at 48Khz, so this is one rate for the whole studio. I sometimes record solo piano at 96Khz, but it's just because "I can". NARAS recommends 96Khz for acoustic recording. People can't hear it (our ears literally don't have structures of the right size to resonate above 20Khz), but they argue that it is the best choice for master recordings since processing and other things will be done to the signals before release. Its a "safety margin" argument, and an archival one. It does allow for shallow filters to be used in the future if desired. At this point computers are so powerful that it hardly matters, and storage is cheap. But when working with my samples, everything is 48Khz and I don't think about it at all. All digital release platforms accept 48Khz & 96Khz, I don't produce CD's, so 44.1 is never used here.

I can definitely confirm that the podcast crowd (and the voice-over crowd) find value in good mics, and a clean recording chain. Their scene is all about moving up to quality mics, preamps, etc. Neumann and other high end studio brands are aspirational in the same way a Kronos or something might be to a keyboard player. I know a voice over artist and she was over the moon when she won a Neumann in a contest. For her, it was going to a whole new level of professionalism. It "separated" her from lesser studios in her mind, and that is powerful stuff - whether customers care or not, she did and it raised her confidence and supported her drive to make it.

Seperately, that AEA mic is probably ideal on a noisy stage. It has super tight pattern control and DEEP nulls. It probably has superior rejection of other sounds. Toss on the natural reproduction qualities of a good ribbon, and no sizzly high end, and it is likely sublime. Never used it. But I can see where it would shine. it has the right technical characteristics to be an exceptional choice. All the handheld live condenser mics also have super-cardiod patterns. But ribbon mics do this superbly, without any kind of resonant chambers or such.

Dave gets my point. MIke, yes, I know what people are using from laying eyes on it at live events. I've taken my daughter to these shows since she was a young teenager. We are "metal buddies". Every show I go to, I check out the whole technical infrastructure, what people are playing, etc. Its pretty easy if you know the gear. There are two ideas going on here. The one is not interesting as a discussion topic. I get it. I'm not sure why they are conflated, but I will try to separate them. 1) The utility/soundman side of things. I understand this. I've been that sound guy. I get the utility, the time, the cost, all that. This perspective is rational. I completely get that if the sound guy get to drive, they will do whatever they want. But they are also businesses. If customers (musicians and promoters) demanded more, they would happily comply. The sound guys I know are as passionate about good musical sound as the good musicians I know. Things are at the lowest common denominator precisely because no one demands more. And that is my actual question. 2) the musician side of things. The question is simple, "Why don't more vocalists care/demand more/invest in their sound?" Everyone else on the bandstand (even someone bringing a cheap guitar & modeling amp) is bringing way more than the cost of a personal 58. Festivals don't share guitars. But they share mics that could easily be swapped in as much time as a guitar cable. Guitar players are fussy about amps - its their tone. I get it. Why don't most non-professional vocalists care about their tone like the rest of the band cares about theirs? Why not even enough to bring one's own 58? That isn't "beer soaked"? I would first believe it is because there is no perceived inadequacy. People change what they perceive to be inadequate. Why then is a 58 adequate from a musician's point of view? I have suggested that it may be that the voice is so expressive already as an instrument, that it swamps differences in reproduction. It may be that our brains are so used to decoding the human voice that we instantly adapt to anything. It may be that because literally everyone can sing at some level, that only a very few people actually think about their voice as an instrument to train/optimize/enhance. I've certainly met a lot of amateur vocalists that really don't know much about music (and nothing about audio) unless they also play an instrument. It is something that can be done intuitively in the way that playing the piano can't without a whole ton of practice. So maybe it is ignorance - "all mics are the same, I just use what's there?" I rather suspect it is some of all of this. To Kuru, point, yes, I am ridiculously idealistic about sound, music and audio quality. I've fully put my $$ where my beliefs are. Others aren't this way. It' s OK. I'm not on a mission to change them. But I'm also going to keep pursuing what I'm chasing in audio excellence.

I use the Slate trimmer plugin to look at the levels between plugins - also as a meter. Even if I don't adjust any of the gain. I get why you would use the FG-X that way!

I notice all the professional lady vocalists in the symphonic metal bands sing through one of the nice the stage condensers. So does Celine Dion. Yes, they are professionals. Even elite professionals. But how many local keyboard players play the same keyboards as their more famous counterparts? How many of us play flagships when something less would do just because it is nice to play on? Don't vocalists think, "Wow, I sound a lot better on this?" or, "I like controlling how my voice translates to the audience"? There is no arguing the ubiquity of the SM-58 and its universal acceptance as lowest common denominator. And it is exactly what I would put out for a vocalist if they didn't bring anything. Why would I risk better gear on someone who doesn't care enough to spend $100 of their own dollars? I've hung out on the live sound forums - that's exactly what the PA company owners think. It also makes a good impression on them when a vocalist shows up and cares about their sound and brings their own mic. I'm just observing that what is acceptable cost and effort for most other band members is seen as strange and unusual by vocalists. In the studio, I get it - they are renting a facility. Studios often provide high end amps, guitars, pianos, organs etc that are impeccably maintained. That's part of what earns the fee. I would just think that vocalists would want more of that live, or as much as they could get. I once put up a nice mic for a singer with an above average voice at a live event I was mixing. They were so used to the sound of a 58, that they were uncomfortable with the monitor mix, even though it far better represented their voice. I took it down immediately and put the 58 back up without even being asked. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the practical perspective, just that I wouldn't roll that way. I guess the voice is so expressive and so universally understood that even with reduced reproduction quality it still completely holds our attention. The bar for adequacy is just lower, apparently.

I have never understood this. Where SM-57's have a definitely useful sound, regardless of what else you have in the mic locker, SM-58s are mediocre compared to what is available today. Everyone "knows them" and how they sound on one, but they are still mediocre. Once you have used something like Neumann's live condenser mics or the comparable offerings from DPA, Earthworks, etc, I don't know how you could go back. And they are all CHEAP compared to a guitar, synth, drums, etc. Heck, I have a ride cymbal that is almost as expensive as the Neumann KMS! Voice is the most expressive instrument ever. Why would someone not want to capture it well? But if that line of reasoning is not useful, I REALLY don't understand the idea of sharing a vocal mic with others. Pop vocals are done "on top of the mic" live. Using a shared mic is about as enticing an idea as licking handrails in the mall. Pro vocalists often have their own mic. I don't understand why vocalists don't show up with their own mic and a high-end channel strip with EQ and compression set exactly in the way that works best for their voice. Why not feed a finished signal to FoH? Everyone else in the band is trying to do that....

I use it regularly. Both Sibelius and Dorico. Dorico is for sure the future, but my composition instructor uses Sibelius, so that's what my homework is done in. Music notation is my preferred vehicle. I deal with piano roll, but I prefer to write with notation, and then export the MIDI to DAW, or play it in from the score, depending.

The noise reduction works very well. It is possible to do light reduction almost completely transparently.

I have the N8 stereo kit. I've mostly used them on drums (overheads) and on my piano. On drums, the HF rolloff is useful when a slightly darker sound is wanted. I've also found this useful for taming too much cymbals when a drummer counts time on them too much. I would probably reach for them if asked to record brass or if I wanted a natural, but not bright string sound. On my Kawai RX-7, one of my favorite uses is to put up a Blumelein pair right in front of my face when I am seated at the bench, with the bottom of the array maybe 2-2.5 feet above the keys. When micing this way, the array is very sensitive to moving closer or further from the piano. Inches matter. My favorite way to use them is directly into a Sonosax SX-R4+ recorder, which offers some of the cleanest preamps and finest AD conversion on the planet. I can dial in a wonderfully natural capture that sounds pretty much exactly like what I hear when playing. I process the array in M/S, and rather than have a huge piano that sounds "left to right", I prefer the standard "notes don't move" presentation. But with control over how much of the side signal is used, I can control the spaciousness. The N8's do have a higher noise floor than excellent SDC's like my Josephson 671SET omni's, but it is not a big deal. I use a small amounts of noise reduction in RX-7, and I can have "black, noiseless backgrounds". This is a fully professional, high-quality sound that stands up to anything I've heard. As an aside, the current audiophile piano recording standard seems to be to eliminate any audible noise floor at normal listening volumes. There is a very slight reduction in transient micro-detail as a "price" for the noise reduction, but I use a lighter touch than I've heard on many modern classical piano recordings. I definitely have less NR and processing than the exceptionally well recorded VSL Syncron Steinway. My piano isn't as good as that instrument, but my recordings have less processing. I can say that listening to raw mic feeds from high quality microphones through very high end preamps is revealing. The piano has a lot of small "micro-contrast" and fine detail that goes away quickly through medium-heavy noise reduction or compression. The piano is a very demanding instrument and quickly sorts out microphones and recording equipment. No listener would notice, but if you work with the raw feeds and know what changes, you can hear it. I tried putting an N8 in the ISO cab I have for recording guitars, but that was not a good use. They don't take the SPL like a 57 or Royers. I was getting distortion from the mic, so I quickly pulled it out. In fairness, this wasn't designed for close micing. So it isn't like this was a disappointment. I appreciate what AEA did in making "active ribbons". There is no reason to push the impedance conversion and massive gain needed outside the mic body. The Royer SF-24 appeals for the same reason. When I bought the mics, I thought that I would like the flexibility of having two mics and a stereo bar vs. one fixed array. I have realized that I essentially always set the mics up as a Blumelein pair, and my next ribbons will be set up that way. If you are going to work at AEA, you may find the following feedback interesting. The next ribbon mic that I'd like to get is the Samar VL373A. It is an active ribbon, but unlike the AEA ribbons, it isn't tied to the old RCA-44 design with significant HF roll-off. The Samar is essentially flat like a fine SDC, but like all ribbons, doesn't have any of the SDC or LDC capsule resonance issues. I would not sell my N8's to get it, but I would love to have a stereo ribbon mic with a full high end. The classical recordist speak very highly of this microphone. The Royer SF-24 is also used because it has more high end than the AEA microphones. I don't know if that is something AEA would produce, but I think highly of their products. I also have two of their excellent stereo bars (the long 1m one and the shorter one). These are outstanding for setting up all manner of stereo mic configurations. The 1m bar is often inside the rim of my piano for close-micing setups with the Josephson omni's. You need quality mic stands like the Starbird or Latchlake stands to support this bar hanging over the rim.

This is why I sold the Roli Seaboard Grand. It's very clever. It is more expressive on slow lines than any keyboard I've had (big hopes for the Osmose in that department). But I couldn't deal with the semitone limitation their first generation keyboards had. To the polarizing comment, I ultimately found it to be similar enough to a keyboard to be frustrating, but not rewarding enough to warrant serious practice. The Continuum seems to be the winner for "acoustic instrument subtlety and control", but then it is a whole different thing. So, I'm waiting for the Osmose. I fully agree with Samuel L on Equator - it is great software.

were they profitable for the manufacturer they would still be being made. This. It is pretty difficult to compete with plug-ins. . This. A laptop is lighter than a rack unit, 10-100x more powerful, sounds better, and lets you have exactly what you want. I do have a DSI OB-6 desktop, but it has knobs. A rack mount box can't have knobs useful for performance. And then the laptop crushes it for utility if it isn't going to be "touched". Way easier to map controls, etc. All the splits and layers are easy to do... If it doesn't have useful performance knobs, then it is better of as software in my opinion. But then, I never rocked a giant rack in the 80s.... I was in jr high and high school and couldn't afford any synths. So there is no nostalgia factor for me...

You can definitely make a difference on any piano. I will tell you what a good rebuilder will tell you. Unless it is a Bosendorfer or a Steinway, the piano will not be worth what you put into it. That is about economics though and not about music. If you have a piano you like, you can probably find more to like with the help of a great tech. Pianos are bad investments anyway, unless you are a pianist, and then they are one of the best things you can own!

Hmmm. How long is a piece of string? It is a hard question to answer. A solid regulation of the action will be $600-800. Generally, top techs are hard to come by. Some are brand specialists. Some primarily tune for a university or concert hall but will take side work. Some hold down repair gigs at high-end dealers. They are a delight. You would not be surprised to learn that they will feel you out as a customer over several tunings - how much do you know about how pianos work? Do you notice and appreciate the finer points of their craft? If they change the stretch in the upper octaves, do you notice? Can you communicate what you want in terms that translate to something they can adjust? Are you going to fall over if they quote you $1,500? Do you understand and appreciate the amount of time it takes to do the work and value it? You can spend several thousand dollars going to the final levels. Let's just list some things you can do: 1. Tuning - doesn't do much for the mechanism, but a great tuning is a lot better than an average one. 2. Regulation - this is all the adjustments to the action. Much can be accomplished here with how it feels to play and how even it is. Do you need screws to be turned, or do you need to replace worn felts, leather back-checks, etc? 3. Voicing the hammers. This involves needling them to soften the felt, since the hammers harden from use and age (making the instrument brighter). 4. Replacing the hammers. This is expensive. It can make a big difference. You can simply replace to get back what was true when new, or you can make a change and hopefully get something you like better. This can definitely take your piano places it has never been. Will you like it? There are special hammers than can get rid of that bright thin quality that Yamaha pianos sometimes have. I would love that - but many Yamaha players would find their instrument eviscerated of the special tone they love. 5. Re-stringing and possible re-scaling. There are great piano wires available now that simply didn't exist 30 years ago. It isn't so much that most piano strings go "bad" as that the tone might be improved with a proper re-scaling using better wire. Will you like it? Like hammers, you will pay either way, and if you don't like it, you will have to pay to change it. The materials can't be re-used. 6. Full action rebuild or replacement. A beautiful new Renner action awaits, with fine Abel hammers (or others). It will play like new - why? It IS new! Probably $4500-$6000. 7. Bellywork - what they call replacing the soundboard. Small cracks don't matter, but soundboards are under a ton of pressure (literally), and over time lose the magic. Again, this is thousands of dollars - not cheap since you will likely get a new pin block too which has to be hand fit to the soundboard. Lots of specialized labor. You get a "new piano" - but it won't sound like the old one. I've had two pianos completely rebuilt. One a Hamilton (Baldwin stencil brand) that I inherited from my grandfather. The other a Steinway A (85 note) from 1887 that was a basket case when I bought it - it went straight to the rebuilder and only came to me when it was done. It turned out magnificently. Full rebuild, refinishing, soundboard, action, the works. My rebuilds were done in NJ by a man who was a true artist. (But not a great businessman - he closed shop years ago).

Three different paths exist in my room for synths. 1) Direct to my interface (Focusrite Rednet2). 2) Direct to SQ-5 digital mixer. 3) The DI's in my Rupert Neve preamps, which then go to interface. The Neve DI's are magnificent. Noticably better than the Radial DI's with Jensen transformers. I find that the Minimoog, and some others sound better going through the DI path. The input transformers and the isolation kill noise. I did the experiment of recording my Solaris using digital IO and analog and couldn't tell the difference. I decided not to care, and analog is easier to deal with than those flimsy ADAT/SPDIF optical cables. (I also no longer have a digital interface that takes SPDIF - its all AES/EBU on XLR). Theoretically, it should be better as direct digital, but in a project? Pretty unimportant to musical meaning. In my latest studio re-org and rewire, my plan is to just use the Neve DI path into my DAW. It's easy, sounds great, and it is convenient physically.