Rhodes issue - low output

[Dglavko]

After a 25 yr hiatus, I recently gave in and reacquired a Rhodes stage 73 (1976 model).

 

But when I compare the output level to my other Keys (Nord, Kurzweil, Wurli), its output is almost anemic (25% of the volume of the others).

 

Is that normal? I can't remember having that issue on my first one in the 80's.

 

Thx

[Gary75]

That's perfectly normal, only the suitcase models with their built in preamp get you up to line level. Get a small inexpensive preamp to boost it. Or just a guitar amp if you like that kind of tone a guitar amp brings.

[Al Coda]

Is that normal? I can't remember having that issue on my first one in the 80's.

 

Thx

 

Yes, I think so.

It´s pickups like aguitar and no preamp inside.

To connect it to a line mixer, you need a preamp or better connect it to a guitar type amp like a Fender Twin or similar.

 

A.C.

[Pale]

Yes, that is normal. Rhodes has a "guitar like" output level, you need a guitar amp to play it. Or a preamp -> regular keyboard amp/mixer/monitor/PA. Or you can crank it all the way up. Signal level is lower on Rhodes and that is how it is.

[Pale]

Lol, 3 responses in a 1 minute span.

 

[JeffLearman]

When going straight to board I always use a board with hi-z mic inputs, which works great. I suppose those are rare these days.

 

Consider finding a cheap used guitar modeler like a Johnson J-Station or better yet a Line 6 POD XT. Not only will that bring it up to level, it can add a bit of tube-like warmth as well as effects.

 

BTW, I can also plug my Rhodes into my MOTU 828 and get a good level, to feed into software like S-Gear (a great little guitar amp/cab modeler for $75). That's using the 1/4" inputs on the MOTU channels that include a mic preamp; not sure if it would work as well on the standard line input channels.

[timwat]

The only thing loud about a Rhodes stage's output was the hum when you stacked the ARP string ensemble on top.

[Mark Schmieder]

I don't remember for sure as it's been so long since I've seen an 80's model, but they may have bumped up the output level by then.

 

Most of the vintage keys have low output levels, either due to amp quality and cost at the time (for one that is built into the board) or because people shaped their sounds with pre-amps and/or reused guitar amps for keys anyway. After all, it was all new back then so the "role" of each instrument wasn't as clearly defined from the point of view of the signal flow expected of each and how it would be reinforced.

 

The timing of this thread is interesting, because just last night I was giving thought to whether I should start recording vintage keys as "amped" sounds instead of "pure direct" sounds. But as I only have modern digital recreations, I'm not sure anything would be gained (no pun intended).

 

BTW, you say you compared your Rhodes to "other" digital keys, but I'm not aware of 70's Rhodes pianos having any digital technology on-board.

 

Many people like the Speakeasy series of pre-amps for vintage keys. Used to be marketed by Ashby Solutions. There was a thread on this topic a while back, and some discussion of what became of Ashby and/or Speakeasy. I think they were tube pre-amps but maybe they were full integrated pre/power amps. I haven't tried using a guitar amp on my XK-3c or on my digital Rhodes/Wurly/Clav sounds yet. I suspect I'd miss the deep bass though.

[Pale]

There is nothing in there that could "bump the level up" since all the stage models are passive. Even the bass boost is actually a bass cut circuit.

[kanker.]

There is nothing in there that could "bump the level up" since all the stage models are passive. Even the bass boost is actually a bass cut circuit.

Even the suitcase pre's rely on the cabinet. Take the line out of a suitcase and you're coming straight off the pickups, which require power to work.

[yorgatron]

The only thing loud about a Rhodes stage's output was the hum when you stacked the ARP string ensemble on top.

I was going to put my Elka Rhapsody 490 on top of mine, any recommendatios for shielding?

 

and to the OP, get a guitar amp. trust me, it sounds awesome.

[Al Coda]

any recommendatios for shielding?

 

Bit of work ...

 

Buy 1mm (0.0393701") copper foil,- disassemble the Rhodes and line the whole inner case (glue the foil).

You have to cut out parts from the foil which match all the inner dimensions of the Rhodes case as perfect as possible.

Connect/solder grounding wires into the angles and to the bottom.

Put copper foil into the lid the same way and make a long grounding cable which has contact to somewhere inside the bottom case.

All together is a faraday cage.

Connect a piece of grounding cable from that cage to the ground of the output jack.

All HF and hum gone forever.

 

We did that w/ a Fender Rhodes mkI 73 stage as also w/ a Rhodes mkII 73 stage in the past.

 

1st, I had a Solina Stringensemble on top,- later Minimoogs and Prophet 5.

No biggie w/ Minimoog, but Solina and Prophet was horrible,- so we did it and it worked so good we also did it w/ my Clavinet D6.

In addition, toroidal transformers in all my instruments been used on top of Rhodes and Clavinet improved too.

 

A.C.

[Delaware Dave]

I use one of these for the low output on my hammond L100-P who's 1/4" output level is low. Provides up to a 30 db boost.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolls-MX22-MX22S-Mini-Mix-mxChannel-Stereo-Mono-Mix-/300416452249?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45f2374699

[funkphingerz88]

It could be that a couple of your pickups are going bad and that has cut the output level..possibly..

[yorgatron]

any recommendatios for shielding?

Buy 1mm (0.0393701") copper foil

 

does it have to be 1mm? seems awfully thick, especially with the price of copper these days.

[JeffLearman]

A Faraday cage doesn't have to be solid foil, which is why the braids in a shielded cable works. I believe the foil wrap in coax is more to keep the capacitance constant than to provide better shielding, but also, the higher the frequency you need to shield, the more dense the shield has to be. Dense as in fewer gaps, not as in thicker or heavier.

 

For this, we're only worried about audio frequencies. Anything higher should be filtered out at the first preamp's input. If there was copper screen, I bet that would work great.

 

I remember way way back in physics class learning the relationship between frequency and hole size and it turns out to be quite large, but I don't remember any of the details.

 

I bet the thinnest copper foil you can manage would work just fine. Note: I'm just a software guy and I'm *remembering* the physics here. I once thought I understood it -- well enough to pass an exam -- but those days are long behind me!

[Pale]

It doesn't have to be copper, it just has to be conductive. Chepaer alternative to copper foil could be ordinary aluminium foil aka kitchen foil. Copper cunducts better but aluminium should work just as good for this purpose - at a fraction of a cost.

 

As for the physics, the hole size should be at most half the wavelength of the incoming EM wave to block it. Calculating wavelength from frequency is easy. But that (the hole size thing) isn't true for near field conditions. But I am digressing .

[MoodyBluesKeys]

The primary advantage of copper is that the individual pieces that make up the shield can be soldered for good conductivity. Aluminum is not solderable (without special and expensive techniques), and is subject to just enough oxidation to make good contact between pieces questionable.

 

There is very thin copper shielding available. Stewart-MacDonald sells it for shielding guitar cavities, although the pieces are small enough it would take a lot of them for something the size of a Rhodes lid. It is a lot thinner than 1mm.

 

[Al Coda]

does it have to be 1mm? seems awfully thick, especially with the price of copper these days.

 

I don´t think so.

I just only described what we did with my 2 (Fender) Rhodes and my Hohner D6 Clavinet in the past and it worked.

Have in mind that was in the late 70th already and copper was much cheaper.

Also, we took what we found in a local shop within the same day we started doing it.

But have also in mind, if you cover the bottom of the Rhodes´s case and the foil is solid,- you won´t damage the foil while assembling the piano back to original state and if there are adjustments necessary like finding the holes for the screws etc..

Our interest was also to prevent from interspersion of all kind,- p.ex. big light rigs.

That was very important because my Rhodes and Clavinet got line level preamps and active EQ built in in addition and for usage w/ standard mixers which had unbalanced line level inputs at that time.

 

Anyway,- there might be more solutions today ... :-)

 

A.C.

[zoooombiex]

 

Anyway,- there might be more solutions today ... :-)

 

A.C.

 

I haven't tried it, but Vintage Vibe sells shielding for this very purpose:

 

http://www.vintagevibe.com/p-142-conductive-foil-shielding-with-adhesive.aspx

[zoooombiex]

The timing of this thread is interesting, because just last night I was giving thought to whether I should start recording vintage keys as "amped" sounds instead of "pure direct" sounds. But as I only have modern digital recreations, I'm not sure anything would be gained (no pun intended).

. . .

 

I haven't tried using a guitar amp on my XK-3c or on my digital Rhodes/Wurly/Clav sounds yet. I suspect I'd miss the deep bass though.

 

Getting OT, but IMO it's worth it to give it a try to see if you like it as a different flavor. I mainly play rhodes and clav, and some organ, and I use a combination of vintage keys and modern reproductions (NE3, XK3c). There are definitely advantages and disadvantages of each, but on the average I prefer hearing them through a guitar amp (both the vintage and modern reproductions of them). If my laziness and circumstances permit I bring a guitar and a powered PA, and it's definitely nice to have both options available for what they offer. But there's nothing inherently wrong with either.