New Studiologic Numa X Piano

[CyberGene]

From my short experience with the Numa X, the seamless transition was not always working and there were even abrupt pops and clicks (I believe due to the effect changes). The CP88 is absolutely flawless in that regard. 

[HammondDave]

And yes, you can change from one sound to another seamlessly. I have not heard the clicking or cut off mentioned above.  
 

The more I play the Numa Piano X the more I like it.  If you want to pay thousands more for a big name brand, be my guest.  It reminds me of the musicians who pay thousands more to buy a “Hammond (Suzuki)” just because of the name, even though the Italians kick ass when it comes to Hammond clones. 
 

In my opinion, the Piano X offers a logical, streamlined user interface with an excellent (if not the best) hammer action keyboard on the market. With some simple tweaking, the AP’s and EP’s are as good as any digital piano I auditioned, including the Viscount, Nords, and the Yamahas.  All in a lightweight form for $1500 (or less).  Hard to beat that value. 

[CyberGene]

Unfortunately I don’t have the Numa with me anymore but I’m sure I encountered a lot of “non-smooth” transitions although I can’t remember if it was on switching performances or on switching the sound for a zone within a performance. 

[CyberGene]

Also, the pops might have been when switching from a sampled sound to modeled electric piano and vice versa. 

[HammondDave]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

Also, the pops might have been when switching from a sampled sound to modeled electric piano and vice versa. 

Trying that now. No pops. Maybe it was just in the unit sent to you?  

[CyberGene]

Just to clarify, you play something, you hold the keys down and in the meantime change the performance or the sound assigned to a zone, right? Because that’s what is assumed by seamless transition.

 

It could be that something with my unit was not right but it was on the latest firmware and it would be strange if it was a firmware problem only with my unit. 
 

P.S. Also try with an effect turned up, e.g. reverb and delay and then switch to another performance where those are not the same. Or even with some of the insertion effects and switching to a performance with different insert effects. 

[HammondDave]

4 hours ago, CyberGene said:

Just to clarify, you play something, you hold the keys down and in the meantime change the performance or the sound assigned to a zone, right? Because that’s what is assumed by seamless transition.

 

It could be that something with my unit was not right but it was on the latest firmware and it would be strange if it was a firmware problem only with my unit. 
 

P.S. Also try with an effect turned up, e.g. reverb and delay and then switch to another performance where those are not the same. Or even with some of the insertion effects and switching to a performance with different insert effects. 

 

 

 

[CyberGene]

So, yes, when you change the performance (a new group of four zones with different instruments) while holding stuff from the first one, that is what I mean by seamless transition and is what works on a Yamaha without interruptions. Well, the Yamaha has only three zones, so it's slightly less demanding towards resources. I also believe Yamaha somehow over-dedicate DSP and effect resources just for being able to provide that functionality. I mean, they probably can provide twice more insert/send effects but keep those resources to provide for the seamless transition. More knowledgeable people such as @AnotherScott might be able to provide more details.

[HammondDave]

8 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

So, yes, when you change the performance (a new group of four zones with different instruments) while holding stuff from the first one, that is what I mean by seamless transition and is what works on a Yamaha without interruptions. Well, the Yamaha has only three zones, so it's slightly less demanding towards resources. I also believe Yamaha somehow over-dedicate DSP and effect resources just for being able to provide that functionality. I mean, they probably can provide twice more insert/send effects but keep those resources to provide for the seamless transition. More knowledgeable people such as @AnotherScott might be able to provide more details.

 

With all due respect, I doubt I would ever need to switch sounds from performance to performance in the middle of a song and have the sound from the previous performance sustain into the next one (four sounds is plenty for all the music I perform).  But sure, if you ever need that capability, the Piano X is not for you. 

[AnotherScott]

12 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

So, yes, when you change the performance (a new group of four zones with different instruments) while holding stuff from the first one, that is what I mean by seamless transition and is what works on a Yamaha without interruptions. Well, the Yamaha has only three zones

It sounds to me like Yamaha and Numa have kind of "opposite" implementations.

 

Seamless transition when changing from one set of 3 or 4 sounds (Yamaha, Numa respectively) to another set of 3 or 4 sounds? Yamaha yes, Numa no.

 

Seamless transition when switching between those 3 or 4 sounds that are part of the current sound set? Yamaha no, Numa yes. (It would be nice if Yamaha did this too, you can upvote the request on ideascale at https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/c/idea/271403 )

[CyberGene]

3 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

Seamless transition when switching between those 3 or 4 sounds that are part of the current sound set? Yamaha no, Numa yes. (It would be nice if Yamaha did this too, you can upvote the request on ideascale at https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/c/idea/271403 )

Yes, I noticed that and didn't like it! Numa is better in that regard. I'm not sure I'm a guy who would need to turn on/off parts within a performance more though. I'm more of a guy who would switch between performances. I kind of consider a performance like a single sound, well, a performance, maybe that's why it's called this way 😀 I mean, I won't use a performance to mute/unmute instruments within that performance, I'd rather switch to another one... I don't know, I will have to resume my band duties to know more about that. But I upvoted your idea and I think both instruments should support both scenarios.

[HammondDave]

3 hours ago, CyberGene said:

Yes, I noticed that and didn't like it! Numa is better in that regard. I'm not sure I'm a guy who would need to turn on/off parts within a performance more though. I'm more of a guy who would switch between performances. I kind of consider a performance like a single sound, well, a performance, maybe that's why it's called this way 😀 I mean, I won't use a performance to mute/unmute instruments within that performance, I'd rather switch to another one... I don't know, I will have to resume my band duties to know more about that. But I upvoted your idea and I think both instruments should support both scenarios.

Now this is getting interesting… This is how I work. I set up some custom performances that allows me to mix Sounds from the AP’s and EP’s performances.  I can make custom combos on the fly by using the mixing knobs. 

[CyberGene]

I think as little difference as it may seem, four zones (where you can put every instrument in each zone) vs three (where you have only pianos in the first and electric pianos in the second) make for a different usage pattern. When I was mentally preparing for the Numa to arrive, I thought why I would need four zones. Because, I always play with a bass player, so I won't do bass splits. I often do Rhodes on the left, lead on the right but that's just two zones. And I think I imagined using the single four zone on the Numa performance like a control room, switching off and on, although I haven't exactly decided what but yeah, that's probably the idea 😀 With the CP it's rather limited. Well, there's the advanced mode on the CP where you can set any instrument type to any zone but it kind of defeats the purpose of the direct interface.

 

So, in other words, the Numa is slightly closer to a workstation type of instrument with traditional multi-zone setups. Whereas the CP/YC are more like very specialized keyboards with dedicated piano, Rhodes, Organ sections and spice it up with a pad or something but the main focus is the ultra direct and easy access to the three main sections (which I guess they copied over from Nord).

[HammondDave]

3 hours ago, CyberGene said:

I think as little difference as it may seem, four zones (where you can put every instrument in each zone) vs three (where you have only pianos in the first and electric pianos in the second) make for a different usage pattern. When I was mentally preparing for the Numa to arrive, I thought why I would need four zones. Because, I always play with a bass player, so I won't do bass splits. I often do Rhodes on the left, lead on the right but that's just two zones. And I think I imagined using the single four zone on the Numa performance like a control room, switching off and on, although I haven't exactly decided what but yeah, that's probably the idea 😀 With the CP it's rather limited. Well, there's the advanced mode on the CP where you can set any instrument type to any zone but it kind of defeats the purpose of the direct interface.

 

So, in other words, the Numa is slightly closer to a workstation type of instrument with traditional multi-zone setups. Whereas the CP/YC are more like very specialized keyboards with dedicated piano, Rhodes, Organ sections and spice it up with a pad or something but the main focus is the ultra direct and easy access to the three main sections (which I guess they copied over from Nord).

If I ever use this as a performance keyboard, I would use each performance as a dedicated song setup. For instance, when we play “Rebel Yell” I would split the keyboard into four zones. The top being the synth stabs at the beginning, then the next being the synth “bells” for the intro, then the next two octaves the Moog part in the bridge (probably MIDI sourced from my Model D in my iPad), and the bottom two octaves the synth pad during the verses.  I could also use the entire keyboard for each sound and just turn the parts on and off. I could also dedicate one (or more) of the zones to MIDI and control the VB3 and Model D on my iPad with it. 

 

Most of the songs we play have one or two parts (AP and Organ… EP and horns, etc). So such an elaborate setup is not that necessary for me. 

[Brad Kaenel]

On 5/20/2022 at 1:46 PM, Brad Kaenel said:

OK, TP110 keybed...

• Haven't taken it to church yet to play alongside the Legend 70s Compact; more impressions there, later.
• The aftertouch seems very well implemented.  You don't notice it with normal playing, and you have to lean into it pretty good to get it to trigger, which I like.

 

Playing both actions side-by-side, I still prefer the Legend70s TP100 implementation over the TP110 -- for E.Piano playing.  For A.Piano playing, I would pick the TP110; it does feel like you're moving a little more mass, and the key pivot/fulcrum "feels" like it's a little further away from the front of the keys than on the TP100.  It's subtle, but I stand by my assessment that A.Piano players will prefer TP110, and E.Piano players will prefer TP100.  Also, I was wrong in my theory that TP110 had a bit more key-travel; it doesn't.  But I think the reason it again "feels" that way to me is because the Legend70s doesn't have aftertouch, and thus bottoms-out harder, whereas the Numa X bottoms-out softer and presses into the aftertouch zone just a hair.

 

I've been wondering to myself, if such an upgrade were even possible, would I replace the TP100 in my Legend70s with the TP110?  After this morning's experiments, my answer would be 'no'.  I bought the Legend70s to be a Rhodes, and it plays like the very best Rhodes action setups (Mark VIII, notwithstanding, I'm sure); I don't want it to feel more like an A.Piano than it does.  Likewise, the Numa X probably wants to be more of an A.Piano player's board -- I think both companies did the right thing.

 

Would I play a solo piano-bar gig on the Legend70s? Yes; and I have.  Would I enjoy the experience just a touch more on the Numa X? Yes, I think I would.  But for my '80s fusion combo, I still want the Legend70s.  NX may replace the L70s at church; haven't decided yet.  Need to get some input from the other players who use it during the week.  NX is a little more svelte, so the schlep-factor is lower and it might have a slight advantage as a rehearsal board, rather than a "permanent install".

[drawback]

Thanks for these reviews, Brad. It's great to read your thoughts on the both TP actions, even though I've been thinking all along that I'd probably want the wooden action in either the Numa X or the Legend '70. For my uses I'd like to know more about the sound comparisons – AP & EP – between the two brands.

 

I've been putting these up against the CP88 (not a fan of that heavy an action, but the familiar sound/hand-ear quality may sway me). I have read that the Viscount has Dexibell AP samples onboard and I've great respect what I've heard on Dexibell's and Viscount's online channels. Seems to me Yamaha has upped their Rhodes & Wurlitzer game, but with modelling tweaks both Italian brands seem to have potential for outstanding Rhodes. 

 

Another consideration in all comparisons is resale. I know there will never be a be-all-end-all for me and resale interest in my market for the Italian brands will be far less than that of any Yamaha. So the Viscount and/or the Studiologic would have to be a stunner for me to dive in.

 

I follow this thread closely and really appreciate the hands-on knowledge!

[Brad Kaenel]

@Drawback:

"For my uses I'd like to know more about the sound comparisons – AP & EP – between the two brands."

 

Try this YT vid for a comparison:

Numa X vs. Legend70s

 

Also see PianoManChuck's videos on both models 👍

[AnotherScott]

3 hours ago, HammondDave said:

If I ever use this as a performance keyboard, I would use each performance as a dedicated song setup.

 

There are two basic approaches, which can make one keyboard more or less suitable for someone. One approach is what you describe here, creating a performance (aka combi, multi, setup, live set, scene, etc.) for each song you do. Another approach is to rarely create such a performance for a single song, but rather, for most songs, just be able to grab the sounds you need, on the fly, from maybe 25 sounds in total, which between them, can get you through almost any song you need, which is my approach for my main band. It makes sense for me because we have a repertoire of literally hundreds of songs, and it's not worth taking the time to set up hundreds of sound setups, when 95% of them use sounds from that same set of 25, just in different combinations. Plus, I can swap out one board for another, and as long as I have a way to access those common sounds, it's immediately usable without again having to program a whole bunch of songs individually. That's what works for me... but I know there are good reasons it can make sense for someone to take the other approach as well. But this difference in how you assemble and recall sounds can also impact your decision about what boards work best for you.

[HammondDave]

2 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

There are two basic approaches, which can make one keyboard more or less suitable for someone. One approach is what you describe here, creating a performance (aka combi, multi, setup, live set, scene, etc.) for each song you do. Another approach is to rarely create such a performance for a single song, but rather, for most songs, just be able to grab the sounds you need, on the fly, from maybe 25 sounds in total, which between them, can get you through almost any song you need, which is my approach for my main band. It makes sense for me because we have a repertoire of literally hundreds of songs, and it's not worth taking the time to set up hundreds of sound setups, when 95% of them use sounds from that same set of 25, just in different combinations. Plus, I can swap out one board for another, and as long as I have a way to access those common sounds, it's immediately usable without again having to program a whole bunch of songs individually. That's what works for me... but I know there are good reasons it can make sense for someone to take the other approach as well. But this difference in how you assemble and recall sounds can also impact your decision about what boards work best for you.

Excellent point.  Depending on the band, I can do either. For an Allman Bros tribute you only need AP, EP, and B3. In most bands you can do the same. That’s why I also have performances for AP, EP, and My iPad for VB3 (see my post above). That is when I use that approach as well. 

[Brad Kaenel]

Got stuck for quite awhile today, taking my first steps with the onboard mixer -- I couldn't get the mixer "outs" to produce a signal, even though I had two of the inputs activated and was feeding it a stereo audio signal from a simple drum machine.  The manual was not much help... 😑  But for those who might get stuck in the same place:

 

After you press the "Mixer" button (the top button of the three, just left of the screen), at the top of the display there's a band of colored text.  It might initially be red, and say "NOISE GATE ACTIVE", or if there's audio incoming it might be grey and say "Master Level: 33"  (or another value).  Here's where I got stuck: I needed to push/click the master navigation knob to turn on the output -- "Master Level: xx" text then changed color from grey to white.  But *still* there was nothing coming out of the headphones -- until I turned the navigation knob to change the Master Level by one notch. Bam! Audio in the headphones.  So, even though the "Master Level" was ON, and the Level was not at zero, nothing was coming out until I actually changed the Level value to something other than what it had been when I activated it.  Bug or quirk or safety feature; hmmm, not sure.  I tried it several times, and never could get it to work differently.

 

Also, don't forget to turn up the Gain setting of your mixer inputs: click the white button underneath the zone knob(s), which will now be pink. The display will show the values for Gain - EQ Low -- EQ Mid -- EQ Hi.  By default, my Gain values were at 0, so even if I *had* figured out the Master Level, I still wouldn't have been passing any signal.

 

So, to recap: Gain value for the input zone greater than zero; Master Level activated; and Master Level value changed at least one notch.  Audio should now flow from inputs to outputs.

[Al Coda]

It´s irritating the noise gate, possibly essential when working w/ mics, guitars and/or bass at the audio inputs, cannot be deactivated for line level signals.

 

A.C.

[wd8dky]

 

[HammondDave]

All welcome improvements…. I Especially like the key repeat algorithm and the EP resonator improvements… not to mention the ability to turn off the noise gate.

2.0

Read the blog post

New resonator for Electric Piano models.

New dynamic curves for Electric piano models.

Enhanced keyboard scanner algorithm to improves repeat rate and speed sensitivity.

New Insert FX algorithm Warm to emulate a tube sound.

New Amount function in Equalizer.

New Return function Master Effects Delay and Reverb, controllable via MIDI.

Possibility to disable noise gate in Audio inputs.

Possibility to change Programs by pedals. On SLP3-D you can choose between Off, Piano Pedals, Prg+/-and Damper.

USB Audio is disabled during startup to avoid undesired messages in DAW Applications.

Fixed an issue that didn't prevent Pedal Noise to sound with Local Off enabled.

Fixed balance and equalizer in Audio in channels 3 and 4.

[drawback]

Numa X is looking better and better. I sure wasn't expecting these updates so quickly and it sounds as if they're paying attention to users' concerns. From what I've heard, the EPs sound good already – so an improvement in dynamic curves would make for improved playability. Not sure what resonator is supposed to address, but hopefully it, er... resonates to resounding response in realism.

[D. Gauss]

did they update the compact 2x as well?

[wd8dky]

47 minutes ago, D. Gauss said:

did they update the compact 2x as well?

No. 

[CyberGene]

2 hours ago, drawback said:

Not sure what resonator is supposed to address, but hopefully it, er... resonates to resounding response in realism.

According to the video it adds more bark at high velocities and more tine randomness, at least that’s how I got it. 
 

The Numa is an excellent board. If it wasn’t for the slightly lukewarm acoustic pianos that were not to my taste and with slightly odd touch response in the pianissimos, I would’ve kept it. The Rhodes was pretty good already though. 

[b3plyr]

5 hours ago, HammondDave said:

All welcome improvements…. I Especially like the key repeat algorithm and the EP resonator improvements… not to mention the ability to turn off the noise gate.

2.0

Read the blog post

New resonator for Electric Piano models.

New dynamic curves for Electric piano models.

Enhanced keyboard scanner algorithm to improves repeat rate and speed sensitivity.

New Insert FX algorithm Warm to emulate a tube sound.

New Amount function in Equalizer.

New Return function Master Effects Delay and Reverb, controllable via MIDI.

Possibility to disable noise gate in Audio inputs.

Possibility to change Programs by pedals. On SLP3-D you can choose between Off, Piano Pedals, Prg+/-and Damper.

USB Audio is disabled during startup to avoid undesired messages in DAW Applications.

Fixed an issue that didn't prevent Pedal Noise to sound with Local Off enabled.

Fixed balance and equalizer in Audio in channels 3 and 4.

 

Ok Dave, we're waiting to hear what you think of the EP updates. Thanks for all you have posted to date - a real help in deciding whether to try this board.

[napilopez]

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but Studiologic appears to have recently added a new piano sample too: A 6' 3" August Forster from 1914 recorded binaurally. No YouTube video, but there's a demo of Debussy's reverie using the piano on Studiologic's site.

To my ear it is by far the most realistic-sounding of the pianos. A really nice addition that isn't one of the usual suspects.

They also added some plucked instruments and clarinets (solo and ensemble).

[Eli K.]

Hey, I didn't know this forum exists and I'm very glad I found it. I'm considering buying the the Numa X Piano 73. On paper it seems like a great option for me.

Main thing I'm concerned about is the feel of the action. Does the TP 110 key action feel the same weight across the board? meaning not "graded"? If so, does playing the Numa X Piano feel close to an acoustic piano? if the weight feel of the keys is the same across the board.? I understand that the "After Touch" feature might have to do with the emulation on an acoustic piano? Reading your comments is very helpful. Thanks everyone!