Meta

And one more thing: Aftertouch. Polyphonic option would be nice.

I agree! I play piano, it goes from A-C, 88 notes. I play B3 parts. B3 goes from C-C, 61 notes. Put them together, you can see the logic of having a low note of A and a high note of C. I'd go with 76 notes rather than 73 to make that happen. However, just as you said, I also rarely need the highest octave. 76 notes will suffice while offering easier portability both in terms of weight and length. In those rare cases where I need the top octave I'll program a foot switch to jump up temporarily so I don't have to take my hands off the keys (thus, my ideal keyboard needs suitable foot switch capability as well). I also play synth and sampled parts which are quite happy to live within a 76 note A-C range. So to me, there's no downside to that range, and plenty of upside. That's it, it's really not so hard to understand. A few controllers have been made with that range including a nifty foldable one, but AFAIK there's nothing on the market right now that fits my needs exactly. So I use 61 note C-C (with more octave shifting than I'd like) and 76 note E-G keyboards (with fewer octave shifts but still more than necessary since the bottom five keys are largely wasted) using a foot switch to make octave jumps as needed. In both cases, the octave jump is needed a lot more often than if I had 76 notes A-C, adding extra complexity to the performance that I would be happy to further minimize. To be clear, I don't want to lug around an 88 note keyboard - too long and heavy for my needs. That's not a solution for me. I am fine with footswitched transposing to reach the highest octave in order to save weight and length, but would rather not have to octave jump as often as I need to with my current keyboards which, to me, have more compromised range choices. To those who claim there's no market for a straight forward and imminently logical A-C keyboard as described by those of us who WANT ONE, that's just your personal opinion/preference which you are welcome to hold. You can already buy what you want - with keyboard ranges oddly compromised apparently by deference to bass players in certain band situations, as if those keyboards must only be used in that way. Be happy you can live with that, but know that some of us are waiting for keyboards that better serve our perhaps more varied (and I would argue, logical) needs. Thank you very much. AFAIK, pianos and organs represent a large percentage of keyboards that have been sold, so deriving a logical keyboard range from them doesn't seem like a marketing mistake. My other preference include foregoing attempts at replicating a hammer action. That also saves weight for transport. I understand that some people absolutely require carrying faux hammer actions around to replicate an habitual piano feel, but for what I do I can easily enjoy playing piano parts on my PC361 (for example) without hammers, and it's much, MUCH better for organs and synths and sampled instruments to not have to sling faux acoustic piano key weight around (especially when I'm doing a typical single keyboard gig). I understand that that's just my opinion, a mere opinion of someone in the market to buy keyboards. Just stating my personal preferences. While on the subject of the perfect (for me) keyboard: to keep the length down put the mod and pitch bend wheels above the keys (different people disagree about wheel placement but that's what I prefer, YMMV). And yes, wheels, not sticks. Lastly, lots of MIDI map-able controls, with 9 sliders on the left for B3 control. Last comment: even six octaves C-C is an improvement range-wise, and there have been a few keyboards around like that (Korg has had some) but I'd prefer to reach the low A as on piano.

I won't buy a new keyboard without aftertouch. For me certainly, aftertouch is an extremely useful way of adding musical expression from a keyboard. Let's face it, compared to a wind instrument or a bowed instrument, traditional piano keyboards have expressive limitations. It's great that synthesis opens the door to a wider harmonic universe, yet keyboardists are still limited by that clunky keyboard. What if there were a simple but useful way to add more expressive intent to those clunky keys? What if there were a way to accomplish what foot pedals and mod wheels do, but without the awkward foot pedal dance or needing to take your hands off of the keys? Aftertouch is a feature that doesn't have to be enabled for every patch. But if the feature is missing when I need it, then for me that's a huge negative. A total deal breaker for some of the recent keyboards that I won't be buying. It would be like buying a piano with no sustain pedal capability. With analog synth patches, aftertouch lets me open a filter expressively after the envelope is finished or add vibrato when my left hand is unavailable to reach the mod wheel (or both, hey dream big). For strings and horns it lets me add dynamic swells (subtle or dramatic) or bring in other harmonic elements. For B3 patches, being able to trigger Leslie speed changes when hands and feet are already busy is a helpful option. These sorts of techniques, along with others, help make the music BREATHE. In the heat of a performance it's like having an extra hand. Who couldn't use an extra hand now and then? It's expensive and currently probably impossible to surgically graft new limbs and hands to your body, and there's always the challenge of where to attach them. THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY! Aftertouch. For piano, I don't use generally use pitch bend or aftertouch on the piano itself (although as I write this I can think of interesting uses in special cases), but if I'm layering, say, a pad or strings under the piano patch, aftertouch is great for expressive swells or to control the filter on a synth layer without affecting the piano patch. All my keyboards have some form of aftertouch (mono, poly or capacitive), including relatively inexpensive controllers, the modular setup and workstation/romplers. With one exception, a classic analog synth, but it's about to be modified to at least respond to aftertouch over MIDI (both mono and poly aftertouch, plus velocity, woohoo!). YMMV but aftertouch is a key feature in a keyboard for me.

Fixed. Critique aside, I'm loving this discussion, including the chance to see where I might have some things wrong. Yep, agreed, good discussion. I'll fix that back for you: Renewables are now cheaper than coal. Renewables are outcompeting coal in the marketplace. Our utility put out an RFP for a small percentage of renewable power production and they got so many renewable bids that came in below the cost of coal and natural gas, _including battery backup_, that it likely helped influence their decision to accelerate their planned path to 100% renewable energy. You're right, that does sound like some special interest propaganda cherry picking, projection and spin. What are the sources? Fossil fuels are a net loss to the environment, let's start with that. But solar panels? Think about it. Even taking into account manufacturing it's hard to see how they could come close the the negative impacts of digging up, transporting, pumping and setting fire to fossil fuels - continuously digging, drilling and burning massive amounts every single day. Fire is fun and all, but it's probably a bit safer to have it burn out there on the sun and just harvest the photons remotely as free energy for the multiple decades of a solar panel's lifespan, without all the associated pollution that an equivalent fossil fuel-based generator would spew for that entire time. It's worth recognizing that government subsidies have been a staple in fossil fuel development whenever industry sources complain about the relatively small subsidies for renewables. There have been tax breaks for wind and solar development as well of course. It would be interesting to compare the amounts, and to rationally discuss at what point subsidies should terminate for various energy sources when we as a society help push beneficial technology development to enhance our security. It's also worth discussing how to handle changes when markets shift. Your area in West Virginia is known for coal mining, and we have a lot of mining out here as well. As coal becomes a less desirable energy choice we need to face the impacts on the mining economy. At the same time we ought to celebrate the growing renewable energy economy which is a leading job provider now in the energy field, with many more jobs than coal. Oil: Many other uses, nice not to have to burn it - good point. Hydro: We actually could build more dams. There are environmental costs to that, unintended consequences to consider. It takes a while to fire up a typical coal plant, they're generally designed to burn steadily and are referred to as "base load" plants. Natural gas has become popular for "peaker plants." Peaker plants are more useful when balancing renewable sources, as are battery-based systems which can take on peaking duties with much faster reaction times. Scientifically speaking (and this shouldn't be a political football) increasing greenhouse gases poses a demonstrated, measurable risk, and that risk spawns other security risks as recognized by the defense department and others. Prudent folks will act sooner than later to avert risks as they are identified. That's a survival trait. That's how folks used to think in the industry. Things have changed. The people running our utility and other utilities have determined that it's now practical to move toward 100% renewable production over a defined number of years. The grid is large, wind blows somewhere, sun shines somewhere, wind and solar production can be predicted, there are other renewable sources, and there are ways to back it up. Yes there are challenges, just like there were challenges with previous systems. That's why we train clever scientists and engineers who are innovating and making it possible to clean up our energy production using renewable sources in practical and affordable ways. Smart. There are certainly proponents of newer nuclear tech as the best near term way to create power without producing greenhouse gases. There are associated risks and costs of course, as well as risks and costs associated with continuing on a path of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If you look around you'll find a variety of proposed solutions. There's no single overall solution, the optimal strategy involves weighing and deploying multiple technologies. Fortunately there are serious thinkers and doers working to increase our options. Options are good. I also agree with Adan about riding bicycles. Not always, but sometimes a bike is the best transportation tool. It's extremely efficient. And fun.

Agreed. Not always easy for humans to do, by our very nature. Preconceived notions are often entrenched, thus we seek out that which justifies our positions. Often, opposing evidence has an opposite effect, as it stimulates a defense mechanism for our existing bias. Rough translation? I am careful when discussing things with my retired psychotherapist wife. Heh. Yep, we are interesting creatures. You're probably lucky to be married to someone with deep insights into our human behavior patterns...

Hi from the USA! So as you likely know, coal has many disadvantages. One of which is the inability for coal plants to ramp up and down significantly as demand fluctuates. Over here we are dropping coal use relatively rapidly. Natural gas plants can ramp up and down quickly and are better partners for renewables. Beyond that, the big news in utility-scale solar is the use of utility-scale battery systems. Tesla is one company operating in that market. Also, you have plenty of wind over there as we do here, and wind can be balanced with solar as well. We also have hydro, and there are clever systems to harness wave energy in the oceans. Solar thermal plants store energy by heating salts. There are many approaches that combine for a more sustainable future. Our utility is now planning to be 100% renewable in electricity production by 2050 and we are ahead of schedule on our previously set plans. Heh. Good luck getting everyone to switch to electric cars in an instant. More typical is an adoption curve. The expected adoption curve for electric cars is a standard S curve. We're still near the start of that now. As we've seen with other major home electrical loads, desirable new-fangled inventions are adopted over time and the grid has time to accommodate the changes. I can't speak for the UK but over here our utilities like to sell electricity, they're up for it. OTOH, keep in mind the low hanging fruit of energy efficiency that pulls demand down. Incandescent light bulbs put out mostly heat vs. light and are being rapidly phased out. LED lighting is much more efficient. Old tube TVs sucked energy, newer LED flat screens suck less (not the programming though, which may still suck in many cases...). There are heat pump hot water heaters, induction cooking, heat pump/mini-split HVAC, and many other appliances with improved efficiency that are cutting the need for power. Not least is improved insulation and sealing of buildings, which can go along way toward saving energy used to heat and cool our indoor environments. The claim that lithium is "too polluting" is vague. Compared to what? Our fossil fuel systems are hugely polluting from extraction to transporting to burning it up where we live. As useful as it's been to exploit fossil fuels to do work, at the same time fossil fuels cause many problems. Keep in mind that lithium is available from multiple sources: salt flats, seawater, mining. The lithium content of a battery is a minor percentage of the battery's mass, BTW. Also, keep in mind that lithium can be reused. New batteries can be manufactured using lithium recycled from old batteries. Batteries also can have a second life after use in cars, for example as battery backup for solar systems, from single home systems to utility scale battery systems. There is no single way, no magic wand to 100% renewable energy. It takes a combination of approaches to get there. Hydrogen storage of power may make sense in some applications. It won't make sense in every application. If you have more electricity than you can use (as the article you reference claims about the Orkney Islands), hydrogen via electrolysis offers one way to store energy. There are other ways to store energy as well including directly into the batteries of electric cars - which is more efficient. Fuel cells for ships might be a viable niche, though. FYI there are also ferry ships coming online that use batteries, which again, is more efficient. Since there are markets for excess electricity, if you can access one or more markets it's also more efficient to sell the electricity than to use it for electrolysis. If you don't have more electricity than you can use, then inefficient options (like electrolysis to generate hydrogen) are less attractive. Hydrogen also has other drawbacks as mentioned earlier. Using it to store and retrieve energy may make sense in some instances, it won't make sense in every instance. I have no desire to carry tanks of hydrogen in my car. Love my electric car. Batteries work fine.

V8 - probably healthy if we're talking about the vegetable juice. :^) Electric cars are cleaner than gas cars now, and gaining as the grid gets cleaner. Including sourcing batteries. Have you seen where gasoline comes from? The grid can handle electric cars just as it has handled ovens, refrigerators, air conditioning, etc., by growing as needed. There are a fair number of misconceptions bouncing around the inter-webs regarding the sustainability of electric cars vs. gas/diesel cars. It's a good idea to check sources carefully. Things to keep in mind when you hear various claims: A lot of money is spent on disinformation to protect existing business models. So it pays to look carefully at any sources and check their procedures, their use of data, and their potential conflicts of interest (often hidden in the case of "think tanks" - look at their sources of financial support). A source that is disinforming the public for their own benefit (not your benefit) will cherrypick data, using only what seems to support their preconceived conclusion. Whereas a source that is truly informing the public will look at all the data and let the chips fall where they may. Second, look at the advantages and disadvantages of each option with open eyes, from all angles. It's too easy to look for confirmation of our own biases - things/ideas we're used to, things we're invested in. The data shows that electric motors are far more efficient than gas/diesel engines. Electric motors create no pollution locally and less pollution overall - even taking current energy sources into account and taking into account manufacturing of electric cars, motors and batteries. When looking at gas/diesel cars make sure you account for manufacturing cars, engines, gas tanks, exhaust systems, transmissions, plus the associated drilling, mitigation, refining and transportation of fossil fuels, and the health costs associated with the resulting pollution. On the maintenance side, there are significantly fewer moving parts in an electric vehicle. Cars are useful tools and some are more fun than others. Electric cars are an improvement on multiple levels and getting better every year. Test ride one at your own risk, it's hard to go back to gas.

Good thing electric cars are already cleaner than comparable gas/diesel cars even when running on today's grid energy mix. Already we use less than 100% coal, and depending on the area, generally a lot less. That's how it is right now. Looking down the road, gas/diesel cars run dirtier as they age. Whereas electric cars run cleaner and cleaner as the area grid becomes cleaner. Despite the best efforts of the coal industry, coal's contribution to the grid has been falling as natural gas and renewables out-compete coal in the marketplace. Electric cars are not only cleaner today but will continue to improve over time, the opposite of gas/diesel cars. Some folks fuel electric cars from their own solar systems and run on sunshine. Whereas, try putting an oil refinery on your roof - it won't work and you wouldn't want to live under one if it did... All that aside, as a driver of electric and gas vehicles, I prefer electric. Electric cars are more fun. Even the current non-Tesla cars have smoother application of power and torque, quieter ride and lack of stinky fumes. There are a variety of electric vehicles on the market (and more coming) - take a test drive if you can, and see what you think. We've been driving electric for 90+% of our trips for more than five years, all around the metro area here. It's been a great experience. No oil changes, no tune-ups, no stinky gas stations, no fumes in the garage when we preheat the car on a cold winter's day. Always fully charged every morning and ready for the day. We do appreciate our gas (hybrid) as a stand-in for long distance trips until we can afford a long range Tesla or equivalent pure-electric road-tripping' car. In the mean time, we use our gas car sparingly as it's more expensive to run and more of a time soak with oil changes, gas stations, and other maintenance, I appreciate it for now, but won't miss it when it's gone. Fuel cells in cars will soon overtake electric cars - they are a poor substitute for petrol cars anyway in terms of the environment. Actually, looking at the data, electric cars ARE a great replacement for petrol cars in terms of the environment. Cleaner now, even cleaner over time. Despite a variety of industry-funded disinformation on the inter webs, the data shows that electric motors are far more efficient than gas/diesel engines. Electric motors create no pollution locally and less pollution overall, even taking current energy sources into account and even taking into account manufacturing of electric cars and batteries vs. gas/diesel cars, engines, exhaust systems, transmissions and the associated refining and transportation of fossil fuels. Consider also that there significantly fewer moving parts in an electric vehicle and no exhaust system needed. Even brakes have less wear in an electric car due to regenerative braking that adds energy back the battery instead of burning it off into brake pads. As for fuel cells, they may find a home in aviation. Possibly in over the road trucking. They're not doing great for cars so far. They take us back to filling stations and expensive fill-ups. It's a lot more efficient to put the power directly into batteries than to create hydrogen from electrolysis out of water, or from natural gas where most of it comes from now. Once you have hydrogen you have to deal with the smallest molecule on the periodic table, harder to contain and transport. The impact of leaked hydrogen on atmospheric chemistry is also worth looking into as we consider its use in fuel cells. As the range of battery-based cars continues to increase, fuel cells look less and less like a viable solution. Tesla already has a Model S with 370 mile range, and 400 miles has been mentioned as coming soon. The current model 3 at 310 mile range is a compelling distance car today. Its fast charging ability and the comprehensive and growing Tesla supercharger network makes it even better. Look for the Model Y next year if you want the added utility of a hatch. Up front cost has been the main barrier and it's been heading down, while total cost of operation is already competitive with other alternatives. As more electric models and options are added, as range increases, as battery and charging tech improves, electric cars are becoming viable for more and more drivers. It's been really cool to see the electric car industry taking off!

I agree, wheels above the keys is helpful for sure. Good for Kurz on the Forte7, Artis7 and SP6 (although the latter two lack aftertouch). Wheels over keys is how my new Arturia 61 and old faithful Alesis 76 are set up. The Alesis has a pretty nice non-hammer action so I keep it around as a controller (30-ish pounds). The Arturia fits in a 49 key bag and weighs around half that (including a MacBook). It has enough footswitch inputs that I can dedicate one for octave shift, making it a virtual 73 c-c keyboard. You can maybe see why I want a 76 key A-C keyboard, which would give me a complete virtual 88 key piano-range keyboard via an octave shift footswitch, without the actual 88 key length. And as you say, 76 keys with wheels over keys is much easier to handle. Since I personally don't require or desire a hammer action, I would also welcome a lighter weight Forte7L.

That sounds like what Dave would say. There's a lot to like about the Forte and Kurz keeps making it better. BTW congrats on your new SP6, Jim! When you get the Forte7 it could be a good combo for you if you decide to keep both. Put the Forte up top for organ, orchestral and synth duties if you like, (but I'll bet a non-hammer Hammond or synth action would still be better for that). Keep in mind that I don't want "all possible worlds" in the sense of needing hammer-action at all. I didn't even like the PC3A7 action which was another attempt at a compromise action (sprung too heavily while trying to satisfy piano players). For me (not you) I don't need to compromise in that direction. I am happy with the PC361 action and similar boards. I can play piano on a non-HA without any regrets, and it's better for synth, organ and sample-based stuff. For me. For my purposes I can enjoy a really good non-hammered action and I'm set. No reason for complicated hammer contraptions and extra weight, for me. I dig that you come from really liking the Roland RD2000 so we are looking at it from different perspectives. No right and wrong here, just opinion and different preferences. Having played the Forte7 your opinion does carry some weight (heh). But again, you're looking through a lens that's willing to see a compromise action as the "best of both worlds" which it is for you. From my vantage point it's still hammer-action and not likely a direct replacement for a hammond or synth non-hammer action. If you were doing an organ-only gig would you really choose the Forte or would you go with a hammond or similar? Another topic that matters to both of us is overall weight: You like the SP6 at 27.25 lb vs the RD2000's 47 lbs 14 oz. (imagine how light the SP6 could be without HA). You'll be going back up to 41.4 lb for the Forte7, a bit better than the RD but still a haul. A non-HA version would likely be noticeably lighter. Eventually Kurz may come around to offering non-HA versions of the newest tech. Meanwhile, I look forward to playing the Forte7 when I get a chance and I'll keep an eye out for any non-HA additions to the current lineup. I'll watch to see if anyone else steps up with a keyboard that meets my particular specs (I recently got an Arturia controller that meets a lot of them); and I'll continue to enjoy the gear and music I play every day. Rock on!

IYHO, I'm sure it is. I haven't had the opportunity. Don't know of anyone carrying them locally. I have however tried the hammer actions on Nord keyboards, Korg keyboards, Roland keyboards, Yamaha keyboards, a huge variety of acoustic pianos and even a Prophet T8 I had for a while (hammer action on a synth, not a great idea). I'm just not a big fan of hammer action, OK? Yes, even for piano. Nothing against those who value HA, more power to you. You have more choices than I do. I once played with another guitarist who could only play his particular guitar because that's what he was used to. I can play any guitar or keyboard but I do have my preferences. Especially for a situation where I may be playing a lot of sounds that have nothing to do with piano, it's seems ludicrous to slam hammers around to play organ smears, orchestral instrument emulations and fast synth lines. Even a gliss on a piano is much more comfortable on a non-hammer action. Is the Forte7 as good as a non-hammer action for everything? Probably not. Would love to try it though but I'm not going to order one on that slim chance. I am a Kurz fan, have put in the time to program VAST and have gotten some reasonable sounds from my PC361, so if a non-hammer lighter Forte7 should appear someday Kurz would have my attention. Otherwise it feels like there's no real upgrade path to the current Kurz tech for me. I can put up with HA at a gig if that's what's available, but I don't see the need to lug around the extra weight of a hammer-action board when I don't like the feel. A Forte7 at 41 pounds is over my limit to haul. Even the PC361 at 31 is pushing it. A laptop and controller keyboard, for example, is under 20 pounds and doesn't slow me down with a HA. I also play a variety of other instruments so anywhere I can reduce the hauling load is a win. I may have to play more precisely on a non-hammer action but that's a good habit to get into. Again, not to digress, go Kurz!

I'd go A-C for ANY 76 keyboard, hammer or non-hammer. Big improvement in both cases. But in this case, since we're talking Forte, there is currently NO non-hammer version so that's what we're talking about. And yes, this is all a digression, so again, thanks Kurz for what you do. Still love my PC361. Did not love the PC3A7 action. Do not want/need hammer-action either.

At this point it's all a pipe dream when it comes to a non-hammer Forte. But yes A-C is on VAX and there was another controller that also offered it. Korg Krome is also C-C 73, so that's close and still better than E-G, AFAIK all 61's are C-C. I'm also a guitarist and still don't see the point of E-G 76 on a keyboard, I'm either not using anything below the A (most of the time from where I'm transposed) or not caring about anything above the highest C because piano and organ don't go there (when I transpose the keyboard up an octave). If I'm carrying 76 keys I want them to be useful in a keyboard-based sense and not wasted/unused at the ends. Pianos start on A and end on C. Give me a 76 note version and I can use a footswitch to transpose for that rarely used last octave and have a much more portable piano. B3 goes up to C, so again, A-C is better. Alright, this is getting OT, congrats to Kurz for the update and here's hoping non-hammer options are added to the line. Someday... (and without losing aftertouch, keep the feature set, just change the keyboard which will automatically make it lighter, maybe lighten it up in other ways if possible).

I'd like a synth-weighted (or waterfall) 73/76. Think Nord Stage: 73SW and 76 and 88 hammers. Forte has the latter two already. Cheers, Mike. Yes please, it's time for a Forte7 with a non-hammer action. Much like the PC3 range, but make the action/feel more like the PC361 and not as stiff as the PC3A7. 76 notes is great but make it A to C. Forte7 already has 76 notes with the wheels above the keyboard, so as good as it is for the weighted action crowd it's also a great basic layout for a lighter action/lighter weight version. Call it the "Forte7L" (for light): -unweighted PC361-style action, -lighter overall for easier cartage, -76 notes _A to C range_. -Take my money. (And yes, could also offer a Forte6L, similar to the PC361 but w/wheels above the keyboard for compactness like the 7L)

Thanks for the report, Noel. Glad to hear you found a usable piano. Minuses: I often use aftertouch to control filter frequency. I like a touch of overdrive on B3. Sounds like I'd be out of luck on those. Would love to hear more about the synth section and to what extent it's programmable.

Same here, and I'd gladly pay more for it. The only current 7x semi-weighted boards I can think of with drawbars/sliders and aftertouch are Nord Stage 2EX/3 and the too-heavy (and long-in-the-tooth) Kurzweil PC3A7/K7. No aftertouch, no sale. Roland, Yamaha, Kurzweil, etc. you are competing with inexpensive lightweight controller keyboards with semi-weighted keys, _aftertouch_ and 9 faders plus knobs, switches, pitch/mod wheels, coupled with a powerful laptop and amazing software. I like dedicated boards but not when lacking critical features like aftertouch. Especially in any keyboard that can go beyond piano and do synths, strings, horns, etc. So for me this new Roland is a miss. For everyone who doesn't need what's missing, enjoy the new shiny (or matte?). And speaking of Kurzweil, I'd also love to see a Kurzweil Artis7 with aftertouch. Or a lighter Forte7 with a semi-weighted keyboard, especially if the sequencer comes back. The PC3 variants, despite having been around for a while, are still some of the more capable all-arounders. The newer Kurzweils, despite some great improvements, oddly left off some of the PC3 capabilities.