Stand to create B3 feel from DP and Clone

[16251]

I've searched on the web and in old threads here about a proper 2 tier keyboard stand that will provide best B3 keys placement. Some good info but hoping this thread will stay on subject. Thanks

 

I do own an Apex stand but it reminds me of so many bad GB gigs I played in my life. The Apex and others like it do allow for a tight fit of two boards. My keys are the ES110 and Mojo 61.

 

I found this one - Pyle 2 tier stand It looks like I would have to trim the height of up upper tier, as it appears they don't have height adjustment.

 

The On-Stage Z stand seems to have height adjustment. The description says the lowest the upper tier can be 7". At first, I thought that is still to far apart, but the ES110 is tall, so this one seems to be a finalist.

 

I would love for people who are using a similar set up for best organ experience from two boards to chime in (maybe with pics.) Not interested in Apex-type stand set-ups. btw - I used Invisible Stands for many years. Height is good but top board is too far forward. Bottom board in my set up (ES110,) for the most part, can be hidden under top manual.

[Adan]

I've posted about this many times, but it always deserves repeating: On Stage WS with Tony Orant Mod.

 

Start with this:

 

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/WS8540--on-stage-stands-ws8540-heavy-duty-t-stand-medium-format

 

There's a small and large size, but both have the essential feature of holes in the brackets. Feed a 3/8" carriage bolt available in any hardware store up through the holes. Use wingnuts to adjust height, top with a stopper nut and rubber leg tips for traction. Rubber pipe ends, also a hardware store item, make for good front side spacers if needed. Or, because the WS stand has 2 sets of holes per leg, you can use a set of 4 bolts to create a platform for the clone. It looks (and is) chicken -wired, but can work well for getting keybeds cozy in a clone/DP combo.

 

I've tried many other solutions but keep coming back to this for simplicity, portability, and effectiveness.

 

Much depends of course on how the 2 particular keyboards line up. But if we're talking standard clone over standard DP slab, it's pretty simple.

 

As usual, many thanks to Tony Orant, may he rest in peace.

 

He's not dead! I just hope he's resting.

[PianoMan51]

I did this years ago with a VAX77, VMK-161 Organ, and a K&M 18880. The front edge of the VMK keys sat directly on top of the right side of the lower keyboard. I attached two small rubber feet on the bottom of the top keyboard to prevent scratching and sliding. Then the question comes, how do I secure the back of the top keyboard? I had a riser option on the K&M for a second keyboard. I hacked off the top of the risers and put rubber tops on them. Now the VMK could sit on four rubber feet. The K&M stand only supported the back of the top keyboard.

 

This gave me the absolute minimum of vertical space between the two sets of keys, without modifying the keyboards themselves. I set the left-right spacing to match the black-white key placement. My model was my Grandmother"s M series from back in the late 50s.

 

The result was not as robust as you might want from a rock gig (with drunken babes bumping into your 'rig", I wish) But the feel of moving from the two keyboards was nice. And the look was very clean and minimal.

 

Your DP would support this approach, but the rest is up to you.

[EscapeRocks]

As usual, many thanks to Tony Orant, may he rest in peace.

 

He's not dead! I just hope he's resting.

 

 

DAMMITT!!!!!!!

 

I read the top line quickly before my eyes focused on the bottom line. I thought I missed a horrible announcement

[AnotherScott]

I used Invisible Stands for many years.

yes, those can usually work, and I believe the Tony Orant modded board Adan talked about uses the same idea, which is basically, you can rest the front of the top board on the rear of the bottom board, and so only have to support the rear of the top board. The commercially available equivalent today is the K&M 18880 with the 18881 2nd-tier stacker, flipped backwards. You may have to mod it slightly to get the boards close enough, depending on the height of your bottom board. Sometimes just dropping the stacker down to its lowest position (without making use of the holes that lock in various heights) will do it, or you can drill additional holes, or with some more effort, you can trim off the bottom of the part that lets you angle those stackers (since you don't need to angle them for this usage) which will let you drop it further. Or if you need to reduce the height difference between the two tiers, instead of working to lower the top board, you can raise the bottom board, by velcro'ing some wooden "sticks" to the surface the bottom board is resting on (in effect creating very simple risers, mine are literally just 1" x 1.5" sticks of whatever length). Something I wish I'd thought of sooner. ;-)

[drawback]

As usual, many thanks to Tony Orant, may he rest in peace.

 

He's not dead! I just hope he's resting.

 

 

DAMMITT!!!!!!!

 

I read the top line quickly before my eyes focused on the bottom line. I thought I missed a horrible announcement

 

My iPad screen bottomed out in the space after the 'As usual' line!

 

 

Back on topic, I"ve posted this a couple of times but I think it"s the best solution for modifying OnStage Z"s tiers to have the upper board resting on the top of the lower board. Can"t get any closer than this.

 

 

Excuse the studio clutter - I threw this together for your request for pics. When I was gigging with this setup, I had a CP4 on the lower and a NS2-73 above, but you get the drift. The CP is a level horizontal top while the SL88 has a slight angle. I just realized I hadn't shot the front view, but really it's the closest the upper can be to the lower; even take it down another half an inch if you remove the bottom feet, and lower the 1x2 a bit more.

 

[mate stubb]

It's always a good idea to revisit the stand construction thread.

 

Here's my current gig stand made from a K&M 18880 and wood risers.

 

It's a bit complex due to the sliders but the basic idea is to pop the plastic cap from the top of the column and make a wood riser that sits inside.

[stoken6]

I've posted these before, same principle as the comments above:

 

 

 

The second "tier" is sourced from a Quiklok QLX3 - retaining the uprights but not using the tier arms themselves.

 

I've moved on from the X-stand, but my Stagg MSX-A3 table stand now uses the same uprights to become a two-tier stand.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[Mighty Ferguson]

I did the same thing that several other above said - took apart the stackers on a K&M 18880 and put some padding on the vertical poles to support the back of my Kronos. The front rested on the back of my VR700 below it. This was from a couple of years ago, I don't use this rig anymore.

 

[16251]

I'm kind of amazed (I guess a bit naïve,) that so many people have modified a factory stand.

 

Keyboard stands are so niche. It would be great if there were a few original thinkers that design and sell. My DIY skills are not great.

[AnotherScott]

I'm kind of amazed (I guess a bit naïve,) that so many people have modified a factory stand.

As you say, it's a niche, and even within this niche, a lot of designs are inherently bad for what many of us prefer, keeping the two boards is close together as possible. There just isn't much where you can support a second board just from the rear. And within those, the fact that all boards are different sizes makes it hard for any stock stand to perfectly accommodate every possible keyboard height, to allow the second board to rest on the first. Though it would be nice if some manufacturer cottoned on to some of what some of us here have done, and supplied comparable pieces and/or provided that level of adjustability. BTW, my DIY skills are poor as well. I have done some mods myself, but for some, I paid someone to do it. Where there's a will... you can just pay the bill.

[Marzzz]

I will probably continued to be ignored regarding this, but thanks to Doctor Mix I discovered the Black Panther System stands, made in Germany. I had to order from Thomann USA, but I have never seen a stand that was so well designed, so sturdy, and so minutely adjustible. Here's mine, I can literally lower the Mini right down on top of the VAX if I wanted.

 

 

I'm kind of amazed (I guess a bit naïve,) that so many people have modified a factory stand.

As you say, it's a niche, and even within this niche, a lot of designs are inherently bad for what many of us prefer, keeping the two boards is close together as possible.

Yeah, in the past I literally had to drill extra holes in the vertical supports of my Quiklok Z-726 stand to get the top tier closer...

[Noah DC]

Here"s one that doesn"t require any mods (may eventually add to the diy stand thread). I wanted a simple and inexpensive way to rest the front of my Mojo 61 on the back panel of my CP4. I combined two recommendations from AnotherScott: buying this Knox stand and finding a way to elevate the CP4 back panel higher (by buying two hockey pucks as a means of leveling the Mojo). Yeah, you"ve got to use two stands (in my case a KM18880 and the Knox), but the combined weight and folded size is way less than plenty of two-tiered options out there. The Knox cost 42 bucks open box and the hockey pucks cost 8 dollarsâ and there"s no reason you couldn"t do it with two Knox instead of the 18880, trimming the cost to about 100 dollars. Added bonus: there is six inches of extra room on the back rails that should allow me to attach risers of some kind and create a deep enough flat surface on the Mojo to put a third board on top.

[16251]

I will probably continued to be ignored regarding this, but thanks to Doctor Mix I discovered the Black Panther System stands, made in Germany. I had to order from Thomann USA, but I have never seen a stand that was so well designed, so sturdy, and so minutely adjustible. Here's mine, I can literally lower the Mini right down on top of the VAX if I wanted.

 

 

I'm kind of amazed (I guess a bit naïve,) that so many people have modified a factory stand.

As you say, it's a niche, and even within this niche, a lot of designs are inherently bad for what many of us prefer, keeping the two boards is close together as possible.

Yeah, in the past I literally had to drill extra holes in the vertical supports of my Quiklok Z-726 stand to get the top tier closer...

 

Nice and clean design. Not cheap. Thanks

[zxcvbnm098]

I will probably continued to be ignored regarding this, but thanks to Doctor Mix I discovered the Black Panther System stands, made in Germany. I had to order from Thomann USA, but I have never seen a stand that was so well designed, so sturdy, and so minutely adjustible. Here's mine, I can literally lower the Mini right down on top of the VAX if I wanted.

 

 

I'm kind of amazed (I guess a bit naïve,) that so many people have modified a factory stand.

As you say, it's a niche, and even within this niche, a lot of designs are inherently bad for what many of us prefer, keeping the two boards is close together as possible.

Yeah, in the past I literally had to drill extra holes in the vertical supports of my Quiklok Z-726 stand to get the top tier closer...

 

I really like the way those look...way cool.

[Marzzz]

Black Panther System

 

Nice and clean design. Not cheap. Thanks

Extremely high quality, precision-machined parts. Solid as a rock. Totally worth it. The Euro versions can have an ingenious built-in power supply rail, hoping that they make a USA 120V version, and get a distributor on this side of the pond.

[AnotherScott]

I can literally lower the Mini right down on top of the VAX if I wanted.

Hmmm... It doesn't look like you can rest the Mini right on top of the Vax, because I see support arms under the front of the Mini. Anything with front-facing supports under the top board is problematic, that's why I talked about flipping the K&M top tier pieces backwards, can you do that on this one?

 

There are two possible issues with front-facing supports. One is that anything that sits under the top board adds height (the height of the support piece itself) and so prevents you from getting the two boards as close you otherwise might. The other is that many supports have some kind of structure in the back of them that prevents you from moving the board back beyond a certain point, which can be a problem if your top board is deep. Then, if you don't want to raise the top board higher (exactly what we're trying to avoid here), you are forced to pull the bottom board forward, and some stands may not have enough front leeway for that on the bottom tier, or can get less stable if most of the weight of the lower board is forced onto front extension pieces.

 

A tangential issue, which we haven't yet discussed here, is ease of transport. Another important factor for me, besides getting the boards as close as I can, is that I want the stand be collapsable for transport without removing the second tier supports. Or at minimum, for a compromise, if you must remove them, they should be able to be reattached extremeley easily and quickly back into their ideal position. Though it's still a hassle to have to bring your stand in in multiple pieces. (That was a hassle with even the original Invisible stand, though at least the pieces were light, and assemebled/diassembled in seconds.)

 

(And yes, thirdly, the whole thing needs to be lightweight.)

 

Here"s one that doesn"t require any mods...use two stands (in my case a KM18880 and the Knox), but the combined weight and folded size is way less than plenty of two-tiered options out there. The Knox cost 42 bucks open box and the hockey pucks cost 8 dollarsâ and there"s no reason you couldn"t do it with two Knox instead of the 18880, trimming the cost to about 100 dollars.

Yes, two stands is another way to go, which is worth mentioning. Even two X-stands could do it (if you must). A pair of those Knox stands is a good inexpensive, stable, and not-too-heavy solution, good call. I'd still generally prefer the K&M 18880/18881 because it moves in one piece instead of two, setup/breakdown is faster (though a pair of Knox would still be quite fast), and total weight is less (one piece of under 10 lbs vs. 2 pieces of I think about 10 lbs each), but the dual Knox approach should work well and is high value, no doubt. And even though the 18880/18881 in many cases will require no modification at all (just attach the stackers backwards), the dual Knox looks even less likely to need modification for a given setup, since you can set the two Knox closer to each other in height than you can normally get the 18880 and its second tier. (You also have total freedom in how far forward or back your second tier support is.) So yeah, if you don't mind moving your "stand" in two pieces instead of one, and dealing with just a bit more weight and setup time (not a lot), this could be the best solution!

 

The only real limitation I see is that the height is adjustable in roughly 2" increments, so it's not impossible you might want to drill a hole at an in-between point if one of the holes is an inch too high for your particular needed height but the other is an inch too low. (And drilling holes can be a bit tricky when you want to make sure your left and right ones are at the exact same height.) And unlike the K&M with its square tier arms, the Knox supports are cylindrical, so you can't so easily just velcro small pieces of wood to get some more height out of one tier or the other to get the tiers at the exact height distance you want. You could lay an entire plank or wood (or pair of long strips) under a board, that would work, but that adds some more hassle... more total pieces (and weight) to bring, and again a bit more setup time, and could require some additional effort to not look goofy. Was your hockey puck "mod" needed because you needed an in-between height on the Knox?

[Spider76]

I discovered the Black Panther System stands, made in Germany.

 

Interesting. Looks loike an evolution of the renowned 18810 Omega from K&M. From the product page, I'd say that the main improvements are the much finer regulation possibilities (and the built-in power strip, although that's and easy diy job).

But that looks about it, against the disadvantages of a much higher cost and weight, and with the same shape-related issues (non-foldable and essentially non-portable).

 

I can't imagine build quality being possibly better than the Omega, which is built like a German tank, costs less, weighs less and has the option of the 18820 foldable version for somewhat improved portability.

[16251]

Anotherscott, good questions for this discussion. Like I said in my original post, I do own an Apex stand, which will work for the time being but would love to have something easy to carry, set up and looks pleasing.

 

It seems some of these co's could just drill more holes at factory to increase options for players, especially on top tier component.

[16251]

What about This one?

 

I understand the top brace impedes the tight fit but the top tier seems to be very adjustable. I do like that it has less tubing than other z stands. I don't need to hold any serious weight. Mojo 61 is 24 lbs and ES110 is 26 lbs.

[AnotherScott]

It seems some of these co's could just drill more holes at factory to increase options for players, especially on top tier component.

Yes, that could help a lot. I guess there could be some structural integrity issue from having too many holes, but it sure seems like they often should be able to provide more options than they do. And as you alluded to as well, considering I've never used a top tier board over about 30 lbs (usually substantially less), it's not like I need the top tier to support a whole lot of weight, either. (Related aside... If you do use the K&M 18881 top tier support backwards, make sure you put your bottom board on the stand before the top one. If you put weight on the backwards top tier without having it anchored by something on the bottom tier, the stand will be "inclined" to tip over backwards!)

 

What about This one?

 

I understand the top brace impedes the tight fit but the top tier seems to be very adjustable. I do like that it has less tubing than other z stands.

I wonder how low the top supports go, and whether they can be flipped backwards, that could work pretty well... but it's still on the heavy side (heavier than either of your keyboards), and Z-Stands are typically somewhat of a nuisance to knock down and set up, especially with additional tiers. From a portability perspective, when I was looking at Z-stands, I thought the best of the bunch was probably the Hercules KS410B. Knockdown/setup and weight seems better than most, though the top tier could probably benefit from being able to slide back and forth, as it looks like you can do on that Quik-Lok.

[Greg Mein]

 

The On-Stage Z stand seems to have height adjustment. The description says the lowest the upper tier can be 7". At first, I thought that is still to far apart, but the ES110 is tall, so this one seems to be a finalist.

 

This is the one I was using when last doing keys in a band, it's solid and worked well for me but kind of a pain to pack up. It's definitely a "sit down" stand. I'm currently back to using my old Apex stand with my husband/wife duo because I'm standing and primarily playing guitar because keys are my wife's main instrument.

 

If I ever got a new stand it would probably be one of those Spider models.

[Noah DC]

What about This one?

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that stand cost nearly twice as much as two Knox stands and a couple hockey pucks (160 vs. around 90), weighs more than twice as much, and takes longer to assemble (the accordion-style stands like the Knox or 18880 take literally 20-30 seconds).

 

 

Here"s one that doesn"t require any mods...use two stands (in my case a KM18880 and the Knox), but the combined weight and folded size is way less than plenty of two-tiered options out there. The Knox cost 42 bucks open box and the hockey pucks cost 8 dollarsâ and there"s no reason you couldn"t do it with two Knox instead of the 18880, trimming the cost to about 100 dollars.

Yes, two stands is another way to go, which is worth mentioning. Even two X-stands could do it (if you must). A pair of those Knox stands is a good inexpensive, stable, and not-too-heavy solution, good call. I'd still generally prefer the K&M 18880/18881 because it moves in one piece instead of two, setup/breakdown is faster (though a pair of Knox would still be quite fast), and total weight is less (one piece of under 10 lbs vs. 2 pieces of I think about 10 lbs each), but the dual Knox approach should work well and is high value, no doubt. And even though the 18880/18881 in many cases will require no modification at all (just attach the stackers backwards), the dual Knox looks even less likely to need modification for a given setup, since you can set the two Knox closer to each other in height than you can normally get the 18880 and its second tier. (You also have total freedom in how far forward or back your second tier support is.) So yeah, if you don't mind moving your "stand" in two pieces instead of one, and dealing with just a bit more weight and setup time (not a lot), this could be the best solution!

 

The only real limitation I see is that the height is adjustable in roughly 2" increments, so it's not impossible you might want to drill a hole at an in-between point if one of the holes is an inch too high for your particular needed height but the other is an inch too low. (And drilling holes can be a bit tricky when you want to make sure your left and right ones are at the exact same height.) And unlike the K&M with its square tier arms, the Knox supports are cylindrical, so you can't so easily just velcro small pieces of wood to get some more height out of one tier or the other to get the tiers at the exact height distance you want. You could lay an entire plank or wood (or pair of long strips) under a board, that would work, but that adds some more hassle... more total pieces (and weight) to bring, and again a bit more setup time, and could require some additional effort to not look goofy. Was your hockey puck "mod" needed because you needed an in-between height on the Knox?

 

To be clear, I"ve got a KM18880/81 stacker combo. But I found I could not get the height adjusted right for the backward upper stackers without drilling holes and it seemed like such an expensive piece of gear to risk modifying. Might still do it, but for now, I"m satisfied with this Knox alternative.

 

Yes, the hockey puck mod was because I couldn"t get the two levels to line up perfectly on the CP4"s back panel and I didn"t want to drill holes. I like the idea of adding a wood planks... I"m going to go back and mess with all this. It may even be the case that using hockey pucks or wood planks would allow me to use the backward-stacker KM18880/81 combo after all.

 

This is the kind of over-the-top minutiae one has time for in quarantine...

[16251]

What about This one?

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that stand cost nearly twice as much as two Knox stands and a couple hockey pucks (160 vs. around 90), weighs more than twice as much, and takes longer to assemble (the accordion-style stands like the Knox or 18880 take literally 20-30 seconds).

 

 

Here"s one that doesn"t require any mods...use two stands (in my case a KM18880 and the Knox), but the combined weight and folded size is way less than plenty of two-tiered options out there. The Knox cost 42 bucks open box and the hockey pucks cost 8 dollarsâ and there"s no reason you couldn"t do it with two Knox instead of the 18880, trimming the cost to about 100 dollars.

Yes, two stands is another way to go, which is worth mentioning. Even two X-stands could do it (if you must). A pair of those Knox stands is a good inexpensive, stable, and not-too-heavy solution, good call. I'd still generally prefer the K&M 18880/18881 because it moves in one piece instead of two, setup/breakdown is faster (though a pair of Knox would still be quite fast), and total weight is less (one piece of under 10 lbs vs. 2 pieces of I think about 10 lbs each), but the dual Knox approach should work well and is high value, no doubt. And even though the 18880/18881 in many cases will require no modification at all (just attach the stackers backwards), the dual Knox looks even less likely to need modification for a given setup, since you can set the two Knox closer to each other in height than you can normally get the 18880 and its second tier. (You also have total freedom in how far forward or back your second tier support is.) So yeah, if you don't mind moving your "stand" in two pieces instead of one, and dealing with just a bit more weight and setup time (not a lot), this could be the best solution!

 

The only real limitation I see is that the height is adjustable in roughly 2" increments, so it's not impossible you might want to drill a hole at an in-between point if one of the holes is an inch too high for your particular needed height but the other is an inch too low. (And drilling holes can be a bit tricky when you want to make sure your left and right ones are at the exact same height.) And unlike the K&M with its square tier arms, the Knox supports are cylindrical, so you can't so easily just velcro small pieces of wood to get some more height out of one tier or the other to get the tiers at the exact height distance you want. You could lay an entire plank or wood (or pair of long strips) under a board, that would work, but that adds some more hassle... more total pieces (and weight) to bring, and again a bit more setup time, and could require some additional effort to not look goofy. Was your hockey puck "mod" needed because you needed an in-between height on the Knox?

 

To be clear, I"ve got a KM18880/81 stacker combo. But I found I could not get the height adjusted right for the backward upper stackers without drilling holes and it seemed like such an expensive piece of gear to risk modifying. Might still do it, but for now, I"m satisfied with this Knox alternative.

 

Yes, the hockey puck mod was because I couldn"t get the two levels to line up perfectly on the CP4"s back panel and I didn"t want to drill holes. I like the idea of adding a wood planks... I"m going to go back and mess with all this. It may even be the case that using hockey pucks or wood planks would allow me to use the backward-stacker KM18880/81 combo after all.

 

This is the kind of over-the-top minutiae one has time for in quarantine...

 

I'm not ready to commit to a setup where top board rests on bottom one.

[MathOfInsects]

My search for the perfect stand has been endless. I am often baffled at how wrong companies get this.

 

I want: EASY portability, quick set-up/tear-down, reliable support, and, most of all, extreme adjustability for both levels, including a stand that is still useful if I only use one level. That is, I don't want a monstrosity for a single board gigs, and flip-side I don't want a flimsy base with a contrived add-on for double-board ones. I also don't want the stand manufacturers to tell me how much space I have to have between boards. Getting that right is the whole reason for the stand, basically.

 

The closest I've ever come is a drum rack. They are light and infinitely adjustable. But it's just too fussy in the long run. Second-closest is the Stay column stand, which is pretty close, but that's just too much stand most of the time.

 

All the rest either tear up your cars or fingers, don't fold flat enough for practical transport, or are "good in concept" but impractical in execution. If someone would develop a better X-stand with a telescoping second level, that might do it.

 

That Black Panther system is just the K&M 18820, right? If they solved the second tier, it might be worth seeing if it can be modded to replace the utterly useless K&M Stacker, AKA Tierzilla, the Monster That Ate My Money.

[AnotherScott]

I"ve got a KM18880/81 stacker combo. But I found I could not get the height adjusted right for the backward upper stackers without drilling holes

...

It may even be the case that using hockey pucks or wood planks would allow me to use the backward-stacker KM18880/81 combo after all.

Yes, it's what I said I wish I'd realized earlier... sometimes it could be simpler to raise the bottom board than to lower the top one. Here's a picture of the little wooden stick riser on the 18880, which allows the stacker above to be that much closer. (The stick can be rotated to provide less height if need be, too.) It can be velcro'd in place so it adds nothing else to bring or setup and does not add noticeable weight.

 

 

There's still a limit to how close you can get the second tier without modifying the 18881, but it's a noticeable improvement. BTW, that photo is not of the actual setup, I just moved some stuff around to illutrate the concept. As you can probably surmise, the idea is that the "nubs" of the top tier would butt up right against the rear of the keyboard sitting on the bottom tier, and be at a height where the top keyboard rests on the bottom one, and the rear-facing stacker is supporting the back of the top board.

 

A plank could work too, but is another piece to have to bring, of some weight besides.

 

One of the things that also complicates these things for me is that I'm often switching what keyboards I'm using. If I was always using the same pair of boards, I wouldn't have to accommodate so many different height possibilities.

[16251]

Second-closest is the Stay column stand, which is pretty close, but that's just too much stand most of the time.

 

I've been looking at the Stay column stands. Unlike the Apex, Spider, etc., I like how they use two thinner columns and they have one with a thin column.

[stoken6]

a better X-stand with a telescoping second level

How close does this come?

 

 

 

Cheers, Mike.

[AnotherScott]

I'm not ready to commit to a setup where top board rests on bottom one.

The K&M 18880/18881 still works. Just because you can (likely) get the top board to rest on the first, that doesn't mean you must. In fact, if you don't care about doing that, it's easier! On the K&M, you'd probably just leave the stackers facing forward... IOW, use it the way they actually designed it to be used. You can always "graduate" to the other approach later. ;-)

 

I want: EASY portability, quick set-up/tear-down, reliable support, and, most of all, extreme adjustability for both levels, including a stand that is still useful if I only use one level. That is, I don't want a monstrosity for a single board gigs, and flip-side I don't want a flimsy base with a contrived add-on for double-board ones. I also don't want the stand manufacturers to tell me how much space I have to have between boards.

The K&M comes close. The biggest flaw is that it is cumbersome to adjust the height of the first level. Possible additional flaw is that, even with my simple wood sticks illustrated above, if you don't want a gap between your boards and don't want to take to significant modifications to the stackers, your lower tier board can't be much under 5 inches in height. This is unlikley to be an issue if your bottom board has a hammer action. But if your bottom board is really thin (e.g. a Vox Continental or Numa Compact 2/2X), you're not going to be able to get them as close as you might want. (I guess you could use taller pieces of wood, though.)

 

It's possible that the pair-o'-knox might be perfect for you. I think it meets your listed criteria, with the caveat that (as I mentioned) the height adjustment points are about 2 inches apart, I'd prefer less. (And as I mentioned, the wood sticks idea doesn't work because the supports are round tubes instead of giving you the solid square surfaces of the K&M.)

[AnotherScott]

a better X-stand with a telescoping second level

How close does this come?

That's a nice looking X-system. That could work for me, assuming you could flip the top supports backwards. And assuming it was lightweight.