*New* Vintage KB Instruments

[Griffinator]

 

Griff, the only thing being made today with tonewheels and a mechanical scanner is the Pari.e (tone drums, actually). I'd love to play one to check it out but that is unlikely to ever happen.

 

Anyway, it's fun to look at a modern interpretation.

 

http://www.parieorgan.it/organ_en.htm

 

Now that is sweet.

[Blue JC]

 

2. Rhodes - never. Not only did I hate every minute I played the crappy action and broke my back hauling the original, but Mr. Brandsetter's obnoxious and heavy handed actions leave me unable to support his company.

 

I have to agree. My Rhodes was the only keyboard I ever had that I truly hated. The action was terrible (they all were IMO), it was a big baby on the road (I was always fixing and tuning it) and it was a bitch to move.

 

I think I hated it more because there was no better option available back then unless you wanted to schlep an upright piano. And a lot of guys hated the Rhodes, Wurlitzer, RMI, Pianet, etc so much they would carry an upright instead and mic it up.

[MikeT156]

Blue JC:

 

There were some "good" Rhodes, and some "bad" Rhodes instruments. I think the very early Rhodes were pretty lame. They had felt tip hammers in them and the tines were sensitive and broke. Rhodes went through a number of improvements and they became playable. One of the worst things you could do was use a Rhodes in a loud rock band. It was and is better suited for jazz.

 

My first Rhodes was lousy, my current Mark I suitcase Rhodes is great. Hammer tips and tines were updated in the Mar I and I love the built-in vibrato and tone controls.. I'd say I got a "good" one. That's why I still have it.

 

Mike T.

[Mr. Nightime]

I was very happy the day I traded my Rhodes Stage 88 for a Yamaha CP-70B. The action on my 88 was so stiff it was almost unplayable. I had a Rhodes Piano Bass for a while, and it had the same stiff, sluggish feel. Yet, every 73 I've played the feel was much easier and crisper.

 

I'll take my DP action over the old Rhodes action any time.

 

[MikeT156]

I never use my Rhodes for live gigs anymore. It hasn't been moved outta my music room in centuries! But I enjoy playing it. Its in "almost" mint condition and sounds wonderful. But I wouldn't want to move it around. I like the action on my Rhodes, but I have to admit I like the action on my Yamaha Motif ES8 better.

 

Mike T.

[ProfD]

I would hope the *new* Rhodes will be manufactured in such a way to 'correct' those past issues minus the weight.

 

I understand most of us are content with the KB(s) we own and play. But, if I wanted a Moog nowadays, I'd go with a Phatty instead of a Source unless the deal was ridiculous i.e. worth tuning.

 

 

[JeffLearman]

I didn't mean to start another old vs new instruments thread. Just asking which of the *new* Hammond, Rhodes or DSI Prophet 08 you all would consider buying and using on gigs. Overall, I'm satisified with my facsimile too.

Going along with the thread's intentions, which would I consider buying?

 

None of them. I don't have enough room on stage for a "one trick pony" that I might use on 15% of the songs. I need the versatility, and the current crop of instruments give me that. I use my current piano on 55% of the material, my clonewheel on 48%, and my old rompler on 10% (I know it doesn't add up to 100%, but there are many instances of multiple board use).

 

Ditto.

[Cliffk]

Did a gig a week or so ago with the Rhodes, kicking bass with the Phatty. Man what a blast.

 

Yeah, that's perilously close to sound heaven for me.

[Mark Schmieder]

I spent some time with Little Phatty in the store this morning, mostly making my own sounds but also running through the presets just out of curiosity.

 

It can sound great, but I personally feel it is only a shadow of the Minimoog Voyager. And at the price differential, that is to be expected.

 

For me, I don't think Little Phatty justifies its price as I don't think it would sufficiently cover all of the bass and lead sounds that I need; whereas the Voyager probably would. And I also think I agree with the harmony-central user review that says it isn't as authentic sounding as the Voyager, aside from its cut-down feature-set. But of course its not meant to be a minimoog replica, so it may well be close to whichever cheaper moog (if any) that it is emulating.

[kanker.]

It's not really emulating any particular Moog, it's just the last synth that Bob Moog designed, aimed at getting people that classic Moog sound at a very reasonable price. It does have an obvious comparison to any 2 OSC Moog, but it's an entity all it's own. You'd be hard pressed to build a true analog synth with the components that the Phatty has in the US for anything less than that price. Personally, I couldn't really justify spending any more than that on a monosynth. Don't get me wrong, if I had the bread I'd get a Voyager quicker'n you can say ladder filter, but I'm very happy with what I can do with the Phatty for the bread.

 

 

(Plus the lights are Colts blue...)

[Mark Schmieder]

Oh, I do think it's offered at the right price. And I would especially recommend it as a next step for those who start out with the Roland SH-201.

 

I just can't justify the money spent, even during all these seasonal 15% = 10% extra off sales. I could if it was as good sounding as the Voyager but not as full-featured. But at its level of sound quality, the advantage of the monosynth for better bass sounds (my main need) isn't really met as well as with some higher-end polysynths that otherwise don't have synth bass as their forte but nevertheless are excellent choices.

 

As it is, I think the RADIAS is quite good for synth bass, and that that is one of its two biggest strengths (the other being vocoding). I found some keyboard stand accessories on-line this past week that might make it easier to set up for live use.

 

I learned yesterday that the Mono Evolver and Poly Evolver are essentially updates to the Prophet VS, which I didn't know before. To me they sound almost like the Waldorf stuff, which I sold because it didn't sit well in a mix no matter what I did. Fun sounds to listen to but not easy to use in actual songs.

[burningbusch]

I own a Voyager but I guess I would be mildly shocked if, side-by-side, using a couple of sawtooths swept through the 24db filter, the Phatty and Voyager didn't sound identical. Three oscillators is great but there are plenty of great synth bass recordings that were done with two and even one osc. I've only played the Phatty a few times and this has been in non-critical listen environments like music stores, but I still thought it was bad-ass.

 

Busch.

 

 

[Mark Schmieder]

It was the leads that I didn't think sounded as good on the Phatty as the Voyager. The basses sound great; it's just that in order to cover a lot of the material that my band does, I also need some FM based bass sounds, which some of my VA's can handle (not sure if Voyager can, but at least it would cover a wider range of lead sounds).

 

I know this isn't just me, because many of us actively gigging have to be practical and pragmatic and this is one of the reasons some of these companies disappeared in the first place once the Korg M1 came out. It's the usual balance of "good enough" vs. "enough sounds". For most of us, two keyboards at a gig is the limit, and certainly three. So each component in the system really has to be maximised.

 

For studio players, there are different considerations (I cover both roles). But I think this issue of how much a given synth can do is of general interest anyway because it MUST play a big role in how these "new" vintage keyboard instruments position themselves and determine their final feature sets and price points.

 

Guitar Centre tells me the Evolver doesn't sell, but I've heard quite the opposite from people in the industry. That in itself may be telling, if something doesn't sell on the floor, where presets are so important, but does well enough by word of mouth, direct sales, web sales only, etc.

 

Interestingly, my impression with the Moog gear is that most of its sales are store-based. That could also have to do with the fact that Moog is the one synth brand that almost every American has heard of.

 

There's a used Little Phatty on San Francisco Craigslist tonight for $1050. That's more than it would cost on-line this weekend during the multiple markdowns, so anybody local who is interested might want to mention it to the guy. I think I'm still going to pass on Little Phatty as my first modern True Analog synth, but the night is still young... ;-).

[burningbusch]

Getting back to PD's original question, I am more drawn to new synthesizers than to new electromechanicals.

 

I own an absolutely beautiful B3 and a couple of mint Leslies. I wouldn't even consider trading even up for a New B3 ($25,000 list). Why? Because it's new? Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I am interested in the Rhodes Mark VII mainly because of the active EQ and MIDI. On the other hand it has the same action as my Mark V and, in total, it will probably weigh more. The Mark V is 100 lbs but that includes the cover which makes up the case. With the Mark VII you're going to have to add the weight of the case to the 85 lbs which will bring it over 100 lbs.

 

My D6 is in great shape. I am always on the lookout for a good Wurly. I have no interest in a Mellotron, CP70, RMI or really anything else.

 

I've owned a few 20 -25 year old synths and they've always had issues, e.g. scatchy pots and intermittent contacts. The thing is I can fix most of the problems that arise on the electromechanicals, but not on the synths. I think the new offerings from DSI, Moog and Studio Electronics sound as good or better than the synths from the past. They have MIDI, memory and other numerous improvements. I would still grab a Mini if it was in good shape and the price was reasonable. Maybe an Oberheim 4/8 voice and a few others from the 1970s. But there were a lot of polys pumped out during the early 1980s that I don't think hold a candle to my Omega 8.

 

Busch.