Korg SV-1 Stage Vintage Piano - Official Product Intro Video

[MikeT156]

Its really too bad that the owner of the SV-1 can't create or edit their own splits, and balance between different sounds. So many Performance synths can be edited quickly and easily.

 

 

Mike T.

[kanker.]

Its really too bad that the owner of the SV-1 can't create or edit their own splits, and balance between different sounds. So many Performance synths can be edited quickly and easily.

 

 

Mike T.

One of the many things about the SV-1 that leave me scratching my head.

[Josh Paxton]

I've had a weekend of playing the CP5's EPs and clavs and while the EPs at least are OK, they have a flat and artificial quality compared with those in the Korg.

 

Gotta say I've been having a similar reaction. When I got my CP5, it replaced my SV-1 as my main gigging bottom board because the APs were light years better, the EPs were comparable-to-somewhat-better, and the other perks (splits and layers, more "other" sounds) were desirable for my situation.

 

Now a few weeks later, I have come to the realization that for all the advantages the CP offers on paper, I just don't have as much fun playing it as I did the SV. It's weird, the CP's Rhodes sounds should be preferable to the SV's; they're way "smoother" and less jumpy, without that annoying bell-like quality at lower velocities... and yet somehow, they still manage to be nowhere near as expressive and musical (in my hands, anyway). For Wurlitzer, the SV simply wins hands-down. I thought the CP could hold its own at first, but there's just no contest. The SV makes me think I'm playing the real deal, while CP Wurly just sounds and feels lifeless by comparison. Also, the effects in the SV seem more authentic and organic to my ears (including the ever controversial amp sims), while the CP's sound a little cold and digital. And while I have learned to deal with the CP's nonintuitive interface, it still actively bugs the bejeezus out of me, while the simplicity of the SV's was blissful. The only area where I still think the CP comes out clearly ahead is the APsbut in the rock/r&b band context where I use it most, the difference just isn't that big. It's better, sure, but not by as wide a margin as the other aspects are worse. As for the other "practical" advantages of the CP, like the additional sounds and split capabilities, they are definitely useful... but staying with the board because of them would feel a lot like marrying the person who's stable and will make a good provider/parent/whatever, rather than the one you love.

 

So last week, while making yet another failed attempt to tweak the CP Rhodes' velocity response and brightness to get it to be even half as expressive and fun as the SV was right out of the box (and that's with the original sound set, not even the new improved ones), my decision was made: the SV-1 will go back to being my main gigging board as soon as I get it out of the shop (hopefully in a week). The only remaining decision will be whether to keep the CP5 as an at-home/recording instrument, or sell it.

[SK]

... the additional sounds and split capabilities, they are definitely useful... but staying with the board because of them would feel a lot like marrying the person who's stable and will make a good provider/parent/whatever, rather than the one you love.

lol

very descriptive

[Bronks]

 

When I got my CP5, it replaced my SV-1 as my main gigging bottom board because the APs were light years better, the EPs were comparable-to-somewhat-better, and the other perks (splits and layers, more "other" sounds) were desirable for my situation.

 

Now a few weeks later, I have come to the realization that for all the advantages the CP offers on paper, I just don't have as much fun playing it as I did the SV. It's weird, the CP's Rhodes sounds should be preferable to the SV's; they're way "smoother" and less jumpy, without that annoying bell-like quality at lower velocities... and yet somehow, they still manage to be nowhere near as expressive and musical (in my hands, anyway). For Wurlitzer, the SV simply wins hands-down. I thought the CP could hold its own at first, but there's just no contest. The SV makes me think I'm playing the real deal, while CP Wurly just sounds and feels lifeless by comparison. Also, the effects in the SV seem more authentic and organic to my ears (including the ever controversial amp sims), while the CP's sound a little cold and digital. And while I have learned to deal with the CP's nonintuitive interface, it still actively bugs the bejeezus out of me, while the simplicity of the SV's was blissful. The only area where I still think the CP comes out clearly ahead is the APsbut in the rock/r&b band context where I use it most, the difference just isn't that big. It's better, sure, but not by as wide a margin as the other aspects are worse. As for the other "practical" advantages of the CP, like the additional sounds and split capabilities, they are definitely useful... but staying with the board because of them would feel a lot like marrying the person who's stable and will make a good provider/parent/whatever, rather than the one you love.

 

So last week, while making yet another failed attempt to tweak the CP Rhodes' velocity response and brightness to get it to be even half as expressive and fun as the SV was right out of the box (and that's with the original sound set, not even the new improved ones), my decision was made: the SV-1 will go back to being my main gigging board as soon as I get it out of the shop (hopefully in a week). The only remaining decision will be whether to keep the CP5 as an at-home/recording instrument, or sell it.

 

It's amazing how reading your post is like going through my own experiences. I'm now so eager to get my SV-1 from our bands training place to load it eith new sond back. It may be time for CP5 to work as training board...

[Aidan]

Its really too bad that the owner of the SV-1 can't create or edit their own splits, and balance between different sounds.

 

Actually, since an OS update a while back, you can adjust the volume of the layer on the fly, and I presume the same mechanism will now adjust the relative volumes in a split.

 

Jerry, is there a comprehensive list of the new patches in Soundpack 2 available somewhere? If there were enough bread-and-butter splits, it could yet force me to reconsider the SV-1...

[bhodaway10]

I hope Korg can figure out a way to route the splits to different outputs. I find that to be an extremely useful feature in the Nord Stage.

 

I'd also like to know if the volume of the splits could be adjusted on the fly or if split points could be changed via the editor?

 

 

[MusicaL]

I hope Korg can figure out a way to route the splits to different outputs. I find that to be an extremely useful feature in the Nord Stage.

 

I'd also like to know if the volume of the splits could be adjusted on the fly or if split points could be changed via the editor?

 

 

Me too. I play LHB, and use a bass amp to which I feed the Nord Stage bass patch routed to its own output. Simple. No fuss, no muss.

 

Split points are fixed. Can't be moved. See earlier post from Jerry @ Korg.

 

I am also scratching my head about the lack of basic functions such as true splits and multiple audio output assignments on a board of this caliber.

 

aL

[jerrythek]

Jerry, is there a comprehensive list of the new patches in Soundpack 2 available somewhere? If there were enough bread-and-butter splits, it could yet force me to reconsider the SV-1...

 

The list is included with the Editor file - just download and unzip the SoundPack 2.

 

:-)

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

[Dave Ferris]

The only area where I still think the CP comes out clearly ahead is the APsbut in the rock/r&b band context where I use it most, the difference just isn't that big. It's better, sure, but not by as wide a margin as the other aspects are worse.

 

I totally agree with a lot you said FKS regarding the CP-5. I've had mine now 2 days short of a month. There are some things I love about it and some things I'm not too keen on. I think the more clean APs work best in a softer Jazz/Standards context then a Rock/RnB scenario.

 

I think one of the perception problems with the CP-5, myself included , is that we expected this to be an all in one board. I think the SV-1, with its new soundset, seems to be about has close to that as I've heard in that price range. Of course you could add the S90XS in the mix too as the perfect all in one and maybe for some players it is. With the S6 piano sample issue on the S90XS, I don't think it would be for me.

 

Don't mean to turn this into a CP-5/S90XS thread. I too really love the Korg, especially after hearing the transformation yesterday. I don't know if I can afford or even want to have both the CP-5 and SV-1 sitting around. I'll probably make up my mind in the coming weeks on which way to go with this.

[orangefunk]

Haha Dave, you must have an understanding wife

 

Btw... got the ST-SV1 stand today.. gotta congratulate Korg for such an awesome sturdy construction... worth the wait...

 

[Dave Ferris]

She was ready to shoot me (I'm ready to shoot me) but now it's just gotten to the point of--w h a t e v e r .

[Dana.]

Dave: since you've focused a lot on the sounds in the CP5 and the SV-1, can you compare the actions? Which do you find more enjoyable to play? On which board do you feel more connected to the sounds? Does the CP5's wood keys make a noticeable difference?

[orangefunk]

From my POV, I know that my RD-700GX has a much better action, but the tradeoff with the weight and far better e-piano sounds makes the SV-1 a much better gigging option for my purposes...

[jerrythek]

A couple of quick notes:

 

On the new splits we put the LH sounds into the RX/Layer element so you CAN adjust their volume relative to the RH. Just use the Function 8 + bass EQ knob shortcut, or the editor.

 

You can't set the split point yourself, but we could if enough people said they needed a different point.

 

I know it's a "kludge" and originally the team was reticent to expose these sounds for the very reason that the product was not designed to offer split functionality. But since we had the extra room in the ROM and chose to put in a few basses for future reuse of the ROM, and then people were asking for the splits we figured why not give you the basic sounds you were asking for/we could rather than holding back... So we knew these issues of flexibility would come up. But isn't it better to do something rather than holding it back?

 

I'm just sharing some honest dialog with you all. Keep the feedback coming!

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

Korg Guy

 

 

[orangefunk]

Hi Jerry,

 

I'm very appreciative of the updates you guys have done.

 

Btw, y'know I just put my CX3 on that SV-1 stand and I'm just thinking it a shame those holes don't line up with the ones on the CX!! I know I want the moon on a stick right?

[Marillo]

Great sounds, but if classical/romantic is your bag (as it is mine) I'm not sure the APs still quite cut it. I'm aware that Chopin nocturnes were not really why this board was created, but it'd be nice to have it all!

[HAMEGZ]

Splits ARE nice, but I can see where the original concept of the board was mono-timbral and the designers hesitant to open up a can of worms (or waveforms).

 

I would like to see layering where the second layer could be controlled by the expression pedal, but thats contrary to my previous observation.

 

Jerry made a statement about the "hidden" bass waveforms/voices in the ROM. I wonder what else might be lurking there?

[Moonglow]

While I really liked the SV-1 when I briefly played it at a GC in Chicago, I personally can't seriously consider it until it approaches some of the features of my Nord Stage (e.g., splits, layers, MIDI controller functions....dare I say even a dedicated organ section). Admittedly, an unfair comparison given the price differential and inconsistent with the concept Korg had in mind when they developed the SV-1....but I'm afraid the can of worms has been opened.

[orangefunk]

The only workaround I could see would be to allow split points to be defined in the software editor... not perfect by any means but better than nothing.

 

My thinking is that Korg went at the SV-1 to make it clear it was a piano first and foremost and the immediate usability of the UI illustrates that... I have checked out the Yamaha CP-1, CP-5 et al and I have no idea what I'm doing to even change a patch... I had a similar experience with the RD700 in a shop years before I bought the GX... they are not very intuitive at all at first use.

 

However for the jobbing keyboard player who needs on demand definable splits and all that the SV-1 is probably not ideal for them.. but for the guy who is in a band with a bass player and drummer the SV-1 is tops... I do agree it should have been there orignally though... but then again Moog missed off a WRITE Patch button on the Voyager of all things.. so nobody is perfect in this regard!

 

Like, Jerry states, Korg have tried to incorporate requests but there is a limit imposed by the interface. I suppose given time again some kind of 'soft key' approach would be better but thats getting back to more complexity that the SV-1 was trying to avoid in the first place...

[Dave Ferris]

Dave: since you've focused a lot on the sounds in the CP5 and the SV-1, can you compare the actions? Which do you find more enjoyable to play? On which board do you feel more connected to the sounds? Does the CP5's wood keys make a noticeable difference?

Dana-

 

From just the one time of playing the revised Korg sounds, I thought the CP-5 still has the superior action for playing the CF Grand patch.

I can't connect however with the CP-5's action on the only Rhodes that will cut through for me live right now--that would be the "78Rd".

 

I don't think I'm consciously aware of the fact the Cp-5 has the wooden or faux wood keys, I'm more concerned how the action feels then the materiel itself.

 

I'd probably have to use the new and improved SV-1 live again and see how it responds in the heat of battle to really say for sure but for overall sounds and overall "player connection", I think the Korg would have the edge in that area. Again, I'd need to have the SV-1 in my studio next to the CP-5 for awhile to say for sure, but right now I think I'd still prefer the AP connection on the Yamaha, on the other hand the AP sound of the Korg I'm thinking will have more color and character live, so it's a hard to say for sure till you live with both of them for awhile and really get the sound and feel in your head and hands. That's the way it works for me in any case.

 

Both keyboards are very nice to play as far as electronic keyboards go-imo they are the two of the best feeling actions available. I'd still prefer to be on a quality acoustic though.

[Dana.]

Thanks Dave.

[HAMEGZ]

I have to admit it, I got caught up in the split/layer fervor here. I had lost sight of the original goal the designers had in mind for the SV-1 and emulation of electro mechanical keyboards of vintage variety. A Rhodes had no splits or layers, CP-80, Wurli, B3-- NADA

.

I find the APs very usable for the type of music my band is playing. I feel the organs are the least shining in an exposed light, but thats what the Electro 3 is for.

 

Kudos to Korg for attempting to meet the suggestions of owners for the split and layers with an OS that was not designed to accomplish such.

 

Finally , the case design is out of the ordinary , but I love the slanted front panel, its easy to grab a knob or push a button asnd its right in front of you.

 

I hope we see more sound packs from Korg and there are a few more waveforms yet untapped.

[orangefunk]

good point musicman.... I for sure love the SV-1 in the band context. In solo context or bassless bands (I do a trio sometimes with a singer and sax and I use my GX in that case) its not quite up to the task unless you consider taking another board..

 

Bottom line... SV-1 is a great board and a modern classic IMHO... but not meant to be an all rounder.

 

 

[RichF]

Thanks for the review Dave, glad you liked it.

[musomarc]

Hi Dave and any other Korg SV1 owners,

I'm about to buy a Korg SV1 but having trouble deciding between the 73 and 88 note versions.

I'd just like to get your opinions/feedback on the Korg SV1 73 versus 88 note boards.Which one did you choose and what were your reasons for selecting?

Any comments would be most appreciated.

Regards

musomarc

[Aidan]

I originally bought the 73 because I fancied a lighter, more compact piano I could move in and out of small venues and spaces easier. It was brilliant for band work but solo, as primarily a pianist, I found the cut-off at the bottom particularly difficult to work with.

 

As I work mostly solo piano jobs, I couldn't justify keeping the Korg just for the occasional band work and so sold it. Had I bought the 88, I suspect I would still have it in my possession.

 

So, if you're going to use it primarily in a band, I'd say save the space, weight and (a little) cash with the 73. If you're going to use it solo for any extended periods, it's 88 all the way.

[orangefunk]

73 is good for transportation and is a little bit lighter... I didn't mind too much the lack of the other keys for most things as I used a Rhodes 73 for a while, but it is a little strange when playing acoustic piano.. thing is you do get used to it...

[musomarc]

Hi Korg SV1'ers,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions re 73 vs 88 keys!

Regards

musomarc

[Josh Paxton]

Following up on my post above, I'm just finishing up my second week of gigs after switching back to the SV-1 from the CP5, and I couldn't be happier about it. The SV, even with its limitations and imperfections, just feels and sounds and reacts like a real instrument under my fingers, while the CP, much as I hate to say it, always ended up feeling like a rompler (with the notable exception of the AP sounds). As soon as I got the SV back home, plugged it in and played one chord, I could feel my brain and body go, "Aaahhh, that's what we've been missing."

 

All the comparisons I made above are still holding true. The Rhodes and Wurli tunes have gone back to being honestly fun to play, rather than a chore of trying to coax something musical out of the sounds. And while AP sounds are clearly not as realistic or detailed as the CP's, I still find them musical and expressive, and easily good enough to do what they really need to do: allow me to forget about them and focus on making music (which no non-AP sound on the CP ever did). Sure, there are times when I miss the CP's piano, but they're a tiny fraction of the times I find myself smiling about something the SV can do, that the CP lacked.

 

Thus is my journey from SV-1 to CP5 and back.