New Studiologic Numa X Piano

[CyberGene]

I think in the previous video they should’ve switched to any of the Yamaha samples on the Numa, not the default German grand which is horrible. Actually that German grand might be the worst of all the samples, at least to my ears, not sure why they decided to use it as their main sound 🧐

[RandyFF]

On 8/28/2023 at 7:33 AM, RDM said:

 

Have been meaning to respond to this one.  Here's the comment on wrote on their YouTube channel:

 

"I give this blindfold shoot out a thumbs down. The concept is good: blindfolded means there'll be no pre-conceptions. And Mike Patrick is a great player.

But any serious or semi-serious digital piano player knows there are a few adjustments that HAVE to be made:

 

1. Setting the velocity sensitivity to suit the player is absolutely required, it can change the feel considerably. For example, with the Numa X Piano, besides the usual velocity setting there's also a second setting, Keyboard Sensitivity. Mike remarked that the sounds sometimes jumped out at him uncontrollably on that board, hence the need to dial in both of those setting. People who've reviewed this board have remarked at how fluid and absolutely expressive this new keybed is, but first they found the sensitivity that worked for them.

> And it's not like those settings would be that hard to set or take that much time, and could easily be done while Mike was blindfolded. It would certainly lend credibility to the shootout for the majority of us keyboard players that know how important these settings are in order to fairly compare one board to the next. And it wouldn't even need to be part of the video, just an acknowledgment that it was done.

 

2. Choosing the piano. We're not talking about going in-depth or fine-tuning or even eq'ing, but there does need to be a selection of the piano sound. Most keyboards have 2-5 pianos, and while there can be multiple examples of any given piano, usually the first one of its kind is optimized. Some preparation and judgement call would need to be made by the producer to streamline and simplify this selection process for Mike. Once again, selecting which piano was used could be done off camera, and still blindfolded.

 

The excuse given here was that it'd take forever to find the best piano sound, but all told, if the presenter was prepared, this could be a 5-10 minute process for each board, including setting the velocity settings.

 

Once I saw that this small but significant bit of extra work was not done to find the best piano and velocity response for the player, I knew right away that the results would have very limited meaning, even for Mike Patrick and could not be taken seriously."

 

[CHarrell]

7 hours ago, RandyFF said:

Have been meaning to respond to this one.  Here's the comment on wrote on their YouTube channel:

 

"I give this blindfold shoot out a thumbs down. The concept is good: blindfolded means there'll be no pre-conceptions. And Mike Patrick is a great player.

But any serious or semi-serious digital piano player knows there are a few adjustments that HAVE to be made:

 

1. Setting the velocity sensitivity to suit the player is absolutely required, it can change the feel considerably. For example, with the Numa X Piano, besides the usual velocity setting there's also a second setting, Keyboard Sensitivity. Mike remarked that the sounds sometimes jumped out at him uncontrollably on that board, hence the need to dial in both of those setting. People who've reviewed this board have remarked at how fluid and absolutely expressive this new keybed is, but first they found the sensitivity that worked for them.

> And it's not like those settings would be that hard to set or take that much time, and could easily be done while Mike was blindfolded. It would certainly lend credibility to the shootout for the majority of us keyboard players that know how important these settings are in order to fairly compare one board to the next. And it wouldn't even need to be part of the video, just an acknowledgment that it was done.

 

2. Choosing the piano. We're not talking about going in-depth or fine-tuning or even eq'ing, but there does need to be a selection of the piano sound. Most keyboards have 2-5 pianos, and while there can be multiple examples of any given piano, usually the first one of its kind is optimized. Some preparation and judgement call would need to be made by the producer to streamline and simplify this selection process for Mike. Once again, selecting which piano was used could be done off camera, and still blindfolded.

 

The excuse given here was that it'd take forever to find the best piano sound, but all told, if the presenter was prepared, this could be a 5-10 minute process for each board, including setting the velocity settings.

 

Once I saw that this small but significant bit of extra work was not done to find the best piano and velocity response for the player, I knew right away that the results would have very limited meaning, even for Mike Patrick and could not be taken seriously."

Have been meaning to respond to this one.  Here's the comment on wrote on their YouTube channel:

 

"I give this blindfold shoot out a thumbs down. The concept is good: blindfolded means there'll be no pre-conceptions. And Mike Patrick is a great player.

But any serious or semi-serious digital piano player knows there are a few adjustments that HAVE to be made:

 

1. Setting the velocity sensitivity to suit the player is absolutely required, it can change the feel considerably. For example, with the Numa X Piano, besides the usual velocity setting there's also a second setting, Keyboard Sensitivity. Mike remarked that the sounds sometimes jumped out at him uncontrollably on that board, hence the need to dial in both of those setting. People who've reviewed this board have remarked at how fluid and absolutely expressive this new keybed is, but first they found the sensitivity that worked for them.

> And it's not like those settings would be that hard to set or take that much time, and could easily be done while Mike was blindfolded. It would certainly lend credibility to the shootout for the majority of us keyboard players that know how important these settings are in order to fairly compare one board to the next. And it wouldn't even need to be part of the video, just an acknowledgment that it was done.

 

2. Choosing the piano. We're not talking about going in-depth or fine-tuning or even eq'ing, but there does need to be a selection of the piano sound. Most keyboards have 2-5 pianos, and while there can be multiple examples of any given piano, usually the first one of its kind is optimized. Some preparation and judgement call would need to be made by the producer to streamline and simplify this selection process for Mike. Once again, selecting which piano was used could be done off camera, and still blindfolded.

 

The excuse given here was that it'd take forever to find the best piano sound, but all told, if the presenter was prepared, this could be a 5-10 minute process for each board, including setting the velocity settings.

 

Once I saw that this small but significant bit of extra work was not done to find the best piano and velocity response for the player, I knew right away that the results would have very limited meaning, even for Mike Patrick and could not be taken seriously."

 

I think if you wanted to preserve the blindfold element you could even have the player call out what they're feeling ie "I can't get a pianissimo" or "I feel like I have to really force out the higher dynamics", and the other person can be on standby to adjust the velocity settings in real time. 

 

Just last week I was trying out the FP90X and was underwhelmed by the keybed...until I tweaked the velocity sensitivity. "Oh, THIS is why people love the PHA50!"

[RandyFF]

1 hour ago, CHarrell said:

 

I think if you wanted to preserve the blindfold element you could even have the player call out what they're feeling ie "I can't get a pianissimo" or "I feel like I have to really force out the higher dynamics", and the other person can be on standby to adjust the velocity settings in real time. 

 

Just last week I was trying out the FP90X and was underwhelmed by the keybed...until I tweaked the velocity sensitivity. "Oh, THIS is why people love the PHA50!"

Huh, you're right, setting the velocity could be done in real-time.  However, selecting the piano would be more challenging. The producer would need to make judgement calls to find the 'best' general purpose piano, and resist the temptation to EQ and adjust FX and otherwise optimize.  Those companies, like Yamaha, that are good at making their presets sing, would of course have the advantage.

 

Among keyboards I'm familiar with, having SIXTEEN unique pianos in the Numa X is 3 times more than most keyboards!  I wonder though if the Pop / Rock / Vintage / Saloon pianos are based on samples from another piano, but eq'ed and optimized for a different sound.  That's what other manufacturers typically do, but they show up as one of many presets that are variations on the original sample.

 

 

That's awesome that their compression scheme is so effective.  I look forward to receiving more samples from their growing library, and at around 100mb per piano, that's a good indication of how much room there is to grow- with all the available samples installed, I've still got 56% sample memory left!!!!  It's like being given 2GB of user memory instead of 1 (from what I was used to with my NS Classic).

 

[RandyFF]

I received the FP/50 expression pedal yesterday!  What a large pedal!!  It looks twice the size of the Moog EP-3 I also received yesterday.

 

It has quite the sweep range, I have to sit back from the keyboard to keep my knees from hitting the board!

 

So far so good.  I'm seeing now the value of having less of a sweep range for some things- for the wah effect it takes too much travel to make it work well. But it's very smooth, and unlike some pedals I've had, it works well as a Volume/Expression pedal.

 

Anyone use the Moog EP-3 with the Numa?  So far I haven't gotten it to work- [Note: I got it to work. Using the per sound settings it didn't work, but going to the Global settings for the pedals it works now!]

[AnotherScott]

On 8/22/2023 at 12:11 PM, HammondDave said:

Korg and Yamaha sustain pedals work fine. 

 

For switch (on/off) style sustain pedals, if Korg and Yamaha work fine, I guess it must be auto-sensing at startup? (Because they are of opposite design, NC vs NO.) In which case, *any* switch-style sustain pedal should work. WHich leaves me surprised at RandyFF's comment that "a M-Audio sustain didn't work at all." (As for continuous damper pedals, Korg, Yamaha, and Roland all seem different from each other, IIRC...?)

 

On 9/1/2023 at 8:45 PM, kenheeter said:

I have used a Yamaha FC7 and a Roland EV30 successfully.

For expression pedals, Yamaha and Roland do not work interchangeably... so maybe the "Continuous 1" setting was right for one of them and the "Continuous 2" setting was right for the other?

 

On 9/8/2023 at 3:08 AM, RandyFF said:

Setting the velocity sensitivity to suit the player is absolutely required, it can change the feel considerably. For example, with the Numa X Piano, besides the usual velocity setting there's also a second setting, Keyboard Sensitivity. Mike remarked that the sounds sometimes jumped out at him uncontrollably on that board, hence the need to dial in both of those setting. People who've reviewed this board have remarked at how fluid and absolutely expressive this new keybed is, but first they found the sensitivity that worked for them.

I don't know about this. I have sometimes found that tweaking the velocity settings can create a significant improvement (like on the CP73/YC73), but to me, while it can take something unacceptable and make it quite acceptable, it never yields anything really great. Instead, I think that any necessary expressivity added somewhere through those kinds of fine adjustments comes at the expense of expressivity somewhere else. The boards I've enjoyed most required no velocity adjustment at all. As soon as I need to use the velocity adjustments, my feeling is that I've been reduced to finding an acceptable compromise. Which is not to say it's not worthwhile, only that, IME, it's never ideal. (Or maybe these settings just need more skill to dial in optimally than I possess?)

 

So IMO,  these settings are not absolutely required... and a truly successful design should not require such velocity tweaking, at least by people who are comfortable walking up to any reasonably maintained acoustic piano and playing it.

[RandyFF]

19 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

For expression pedals, Yamaha and Roland do not work interchangeably... so maybe the "Continuous 1" setting was right for one of them and the "Continuous 2" setting was right for the other?

 

Hmmmmm… still haven’t figured this one out.  I’ve got a new SL FP/50 Sweep pedal, as well as a Moog EP-3 Sweep Pedal, and they both work well.

 

So…. There’s the Global settings and the individual Program settings.  Programs can have all 4 of the sounds respond to the pedals differently.

 

To keep things simple, I’ve opened a Program, made sure the Pedals were set to Global, and then worked with the settings in Global.

 

So far it seems that setting the pedals in Global, the only place you see Continuous A/B, that these pedals don’t work unless they’re set to B.

[RandyFF]

20 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I said in the comments section of an Andersons blind-folded shootout:

 

”Setting the velocity sensitivity to suit the player is absolutely required, it can change the feel considerably. For example, with the Numa X Piano, besides the usual velocity setting there's also a second setting, Keyboard Sensitivity. Mike remarked that the sounds sometimes jumped out at him uncontrollably on that board, hence the need to dial in both of those setting. People who've reviewed this board have remarked at how fluid and absolutely expressive this new keybed is, but first they found the sensitivity that worked for them.

 

20 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I don't know about this. I have sometimes found that tweaking the velocity settings can create a significant improvement (like on the CP73/YC73), but to me, while it can take something unacceptable and make it quite acceptable, it never yields anything really great. Instead, I think that any necessary expressivity added somewhere through those kinds of fine adjustments comes at the expense of expressivity somewhere else. The boards I've enjoyed most required no velocity adjustment at all. As soon as I need to use the velocity adjustments, my feeling is that I've been reduced to finding an acceptable compromise. Which is not to say it's not worthwhile, only that, IME, it's never ideal. (Or maybe these settings just need more skill to dial in optimally than I possess?)

 

So IMO,  these settings are not absolutely required... and a truly successful design should not require such velocity tweaking, at least by people who are comfortable walking up to any reasonably maintained acoustic piano and playing it.

Hmmmmm….. 

 

IME, and what I’ve read in every post I’ve ever seen about setting the Velocity, usually hard/medium/soft, it’s an important first step in order for them/me to feel comfortable with any given keybed.

 

Talking for myself, I consistently set the Velocity to light, which suits my hands very well.  If I have to endure even medium on most boards, and of course esp hard, it becomes very tiring and even hard on my hands, which are on the stiff side.  However there is one board where I had to set it to medium, given the lack of velocity layers, causing it to jump to the Fortissimo sound of the piano way too quickly and uncontrollably.

 

I would imagine that someone who sets the Velocity to medium/normal or to hard, would not have as big an issue with this as myself.

 

In the shootout Mike Patrick remarked that the sound would jump out to quickly, like he didn’t have the kind of control he looks for.  For him, I imagine he needs a medium or hard Velocity setting.  This problem significantly altered his experience of the Numa Piano GT, which if I remember correctly, was the least favorite for him of the 4 boards.

 

Another wrinkle here is the Keyboard Sensitivity setting.  Do you have a Numa X piano?  AFAIK this is unique to the Numa X pianos, I’ve never seen a second way of dialing in the responsiveness of the action, which is what the Keyboard Sensitivy setting gives you.  As you can imagine, I’ve got mine dialed all the way up, +25%.

 

From several reviews I’ve read/watched about the GT, the overall reaction was that it was up there with the best actions of any DP they’ve ever played.  One reviewer in particular waxed poetic about how incredibly nimble the response was, esp at lower volumes.  Their descriptions of the action of the Numa GT reminded me a lot of my own reactions to the Kawai ES110 that I had- never have I ever experienced an action that allowed me to fly on the keyboard with such fluidity and total dynamic expressiveness and control.  I know however it was not for everyone, and I imagine the first thing they’d change on this overall light touch keybed was the velocity response.

 

Sometimes that responsiveness can be a hindrance to a player with a firmer touch, hence the absolute need to set both of those settings.  

 

But people differ- some absolutely have a narrow criteria for keybed action that works for them, others get on with most boards.  So it’s personal, but the likelihood of it changing your perception of the action and finger to ear connection is very high, and Mike Patrick said it clearly, he didn’t have the kind of control he wanted, which means he needed to dial in both of the Velocity settings, probably to hard and -25%.

 

You said:

 

“I have sometimes found that tweaking the velocity settings can create a significant improvement (like on the CP73/YC73), but to me, while it can take something unacceptable and make it quite acceptable, it never yields anything really great. Instead, I think that any necessary expressivity added somewhere through those kinds of fine adjustments comes at the expense of expressivity somewhere else”

 

Would you elaborate? …. “At the expense of expressivity somewhere else?”

 

Have to admit I know little about how these curves are created.  I remember reading about how Dave Weiser spent considerable time mapping out the velocity curve on various Kurzweils, looking for that elusive finger-to-sound connection.  What was he doing?  Mapping velocities for individual notes or note ranges?

[DeltaJockey]

On the subject of pedals, having the pedal config setting in the Numa is great, and I'm not sure what parameters are different between A and B, but it surely has to be more than polarity. Pedal compatibility has been a real beef of mine, as I have so many pedals in my drawer, and always seem to not be able to match what I want to a particular board. Yamaha to me, is the worst offender, not even having polarity sensing. I was recently wanting another half pedal sustain for my Montage, as I don't have a Yamaha branded one, but have many others. I managed to get the Roland DP10 to work in switch mode, and have a couple of Korg DS1H's, as well as a Casio.

 

So I decided to pull them all apart and draw schematics with the intent of rewiring one to suit the Yamaha, as getting the wiring info is all but impossible anyway.

Cutting a long story short, every manufacturer uses custom made components for their half damper pedals, not off the shelf stuff. Korg use a 50k pot, and only use 25k range in the opposite direction to Roland, which is a range of 10K. I thought I might modify the Casio switch damper, as it is the opposite polarity to Yamaha. But no, the switch is a 2 contact normally open, rather than a changeover, so couldn't even swap the open to closed contacts. I'm stopping short of buying the pot or switch I need, and replacing it. I might as well just spend the money toward a Yamaha pedal! I've shortened the story somewhat as why I'm needing to do this, but suffice to say, I don't want thousands of dollars worth of pedals sitting in my drawers, when a particular keyboard is long gone.

[kanefsky]

MIDI Expression will work with almost any pedal that uses 1/4" connectors.  It gets more complicated if you're talking about triple-pedal units that use a single connector.

 

[RandyFF]

6 hours ago, DeltaJockey said:

On the subject of pedals, having the pedal config setting in the Numa is great, and I'm not sure what parameters are different between A and B, but it surely has to be more than polarity. Pedal compatibility has been a real beef of mine, as I have so many pedals in my drawer, and always seem to not be able to match what I want to a particular board. Yamaha to me, is the worst offender, not even having polarity sensing. I was recently wanting another half pedal sustain for my Montage, as I don't have a Yamaha branded one, but have many others. I managed to get the Roland DP10 to work in switch mode, and have a couple of Korg DS1H's, as well as a Casio.

 

So I decided to pull them all apart and draw schematics with the intent of rewiring one to suit the Yamaha, as getting the wiring info is all but impossible anyway.

Cutting a long story short, every manufacturer uses custom made components for their half damper pedals, not off the shelf stuff. Korg use a 50k pot, and only use 25k range in the opposite direction to Roland, which is a range of 10K. I thought I might modify the Casio switch damper, as it is the opposite polarity to Yamaha. But no, the switch is a 2 contact normally open, rather than a changeover, so couldn't even swap the open to closed contacts. I'm stopping short of buying the pot or switch I need, and replacing it. I might as well just spend the money toward a Yamaha pedal! I've shortened the story somewhat as why I'm needing to do this, but suffice to say, I don't want thousands of dollars worth of pedals sitting in my drawers, when a particular keyboard is long gone.

Speaking of sustain pedals, I like the one they supplied with the Numa X 73/88. It’s only a switch, but it gets the job done and it’s much easier to press down than the similar Kawai pedal.  I guess those were designed for people in hard shoes to be able to rest the soles of their feet on.

 

Both the SL FP/50 and the Moog EP-3 are sweep pedals, and they both work really well.  Both of them are capable of fading/controlling the volume/expression thru the full sweep of the pedal.  I haven’t experienced any particular weirdness with them.

 

And talk about a half-damper pedal!  Try controlling half-damper with a sweep pedal, it’s a whole new ball game, makes it possible to dial in the amount of damper, in all it’s tiny increments, just like a real half-damper pedal, but with the big advantage of having a much wider sweep range to play with, allowing you to dial in just the amount of damper that suits your need for sustain.  It’s wonderful- it becomes a kind of effect that helps those of us who love a good bit of sustain but not too much- and with practice, and particularly with slower solo piano playing, you can dial it in and out beautifully-

[RandyFF]

@ DeltaJockey,

I’m still hoping you’ll give a more in-depth review of your playing experience with the GT.  I asked you for more input a few pages back, you seemed to be saying much the same as a post from PianoWorld I had shared, but you never confirmed or elaborated.

 

And, apropos the discussion on this page, what would you say about the importance of setting the Velocity and Sensitivity on the GT- did you find that made a big difference in its playability?  I’d love to play a GT!  

 

I love my X 73 so much I want to upgrade to the X 88- I keep on reaching for notes that aren’t there!  A good problem to have, it means I’m really digging into the board.  Unfortunately the weight of the GT makes it out of the question, no matter how good the keybed-

[DeltaJockey]

4 hours ago, RandyFF said:

@ DeltaJockey,

I’m still hoping you’ll give a more in-depth review of your playing experience with the GT.  I asked you for more input a few pages back, you seemed to be saying much the same as a post from PianoWorld I had shared, but you never confirmed or elaborated.

 

And, apropos the discussion on this page, what would you say about the importance of setting the Velocity and Sensitivity on the GT- did you find that made a big difference in its playability?  I’d love to play a GT!  

 

I love my X 73 so much I want to upgrade to the X 88- I keep on reaching for notes that aren’t there!  A good problem to have, it means I’m really digging into the board.  Unfortunately the weight of the GT makes it out of the question, no matter how good the keybed-

Sorry, I was away for a bit then forgot your request in all the traffic on this thread😶

I haven't played the TP110 in the Numa X's, so I can't make a direct comparison with my GT. What I can say, is that I agree with the positive reviews. I find it one of the most enjoyable and least tiring actions to play for longer than many of my others. It is fast and nimble, the key's static down weight is on the lighter side, but has decent dynamic mass behind it, with a feeling of substantial solidness within the keys. (not unlike blocks of wood).

Yes, it does feel a little different to most other actions at first, but I think, in a good way. It is not really anything like my acoustic grand, and less so than my other digital actions, but I stopped trying to mimic the real acoustic a long time ago. It simply is a pleasure to play, and keeping in mind it has to also have the nimbleness to cope with the entire library of sounds on board, I think it is a good compromise.

I've found the velocity settings to be just perfect on the default normal setting with no offset. It is so responsive that to go for a lighter touch would make it too sensitive for my playing. The harder setting is unresponsive for me however, and the resulting strike from my fingers causes the bottoming thud to be more noticeable.

 

I tend to regularly play a number of different actions, as it exercises a range of muscle variation for me, so I don't find any of my keys to be a problem with the normal velocity settings. I just think there is no point of reference for this in my application, as I spend a lot of time using the action on vst's which are about as consistent as  a road full of pot holes, when it comes to standardising velocity response.

 

I don't gig with my gear, but it is quite heavy for it's size, so I don't plan on traveling much with it, despite some original plans to do so. I like that it's solid though.

After many months of owning it, I am still very much in positive territory overall.

 

 

[DeltaJockey]

20 hours ago, kanefsky said:

MIDI Expression will work with almost any pedal that uses 1/4" connectors.  It gets more complicated if you're talking about triple-pedal units that use a single connector.

 

Thanks for the general info sheet by the way. What I really needed was the actual values of components of specific manufacturers pedals/requirements, and that's what's difficult to come by. Fortunately for me, a screwdriver and multimeter gives me what I want to know anyway. Just a bit of a nuisance to have to do it. I did pull apart the single pedal which comes with the MP7SE. (I had since bought an optical 3 pedal unit for the 7SE, as I grew to like the one that I sold with my MP11SE),  but was heartened to see, while not an optical also, the single did use hall effects switches, rather than mechanical pots, making it more physically reliable in the long term. But of course, it would have been too much mucking around to adapt it to to Yamaha.

[kanefsky]

1 hour ago, DeltaJockey said:

Thanks for the general info sheet by the way. What I really needed was the actual values of components of specific manufacturers pedals/requirements, and that's what's difficult to come by.

 

You can easily calibrate the MIDI Expression to handle the different values and customize the response curve however you like without having to know what the specific values actually are.

 

 

[DeltaJockey]

10 minutes ago, kanefsky said:

 

You can easily calibrate the MIDI Expression to handle the different values and customize the response curve however you like without having to know what the specific values actually are.

 

 

yes, but I don't have a spare expression pedal to do this with. I only have half dampers lying around. I do have a Yamaha expression, which I need for controlling the animation on the Montage. Unless I'm not understanding, the other thing is I am not attracted to using an expression type centre pivot pedal for damper. I prefer the traditional end pivot piano style pedal, like on my acoustic. Otherwise I'm half pedaling with my heel as well. If I was to go out and purchase another expression for this I might as well buy a

Yamaha half damper for less money. If I'm reading your comment correctly.

[kanefsky]

25 minutes ago, DeltaJockey said:

yes, but I don't have a spare expression pedal to do this with. I only have half dampers lying around. I do have a Yamaha expression, which I need for controlling the animation on the Montage. Unless I'm not understanding, the other thing is I am not attracted to using an expression type centre pivot pedal for damper. I prefer the traditional end pivot piano style pedal, like on my acoustic. Otherwise I'm half pedaling with my heel as well. If I was to go out and purchase another expression for this I might as well buy a

Yamaha half damper for less money. If I'm reading your comment correctly.

 

The point of the MIDI Expression is that you can use whatever favorite pedal you might already have, or buy whatever favorite pedal you might want without having to worry about whether the pedal works with your current or any future keyboard.  It also allows far more control over how the pedal responds than you would otherwise have (you can decide exactly where the half-pedal point is, for example).

 

The quad models also allow you to connect up to four pedals at once, which is much more than what most keyboards allow, and any or all of the four can be continuous pedals (either spring-loaded damper type pedals or "stays where you put it" expression type pedals).

 

I use one with my Kawai VPC1 with a Roland RPU-3 triple-pedal unit and a Kawai F-10H connected simultaneously.  This gives me four damper-type pedals with optical sensors that all support the full continous range of MIDI values.  Those pedals would be totally incompatible with the VPC1 without the MIDI Expression. The triple pedal that comes with the VPC1 is kind of junk in comparison and only one of them supports continuous values.

 

 

[DeltaJockey]

3 hours ago, kanefsky said:

 

The point of the MIDI Expression is that you can use whatever favorite pedal you might already have, or buy whatever favorite pedal you might want without having to worry about whether the pedal works with your current or any future keyboard.  It also allows far more control over how the pedal responds than you would otherwise have (you can decide exactly where the half-pedal point is, for example).

 

The quad models also allow you to connect up to four pedals at once, which is much more than what most keyboards allow, and any or all of the four can be continuous pedals (either spring-loaded damper type pedals or "stays where you put it" expression type pedals).

 

I use one with my Kawai VPC1 with a Roland RPU-3 triple-pedal unit and a Kawai F-10H connected simultaneously.  This gives me four damper-type pedals with optical sensors that all support the full continous range of MIDI values.  Those pedals would be totally incompatible with the VPC1 without the MIDI Expression. The triple pedal that comes with the VPC1 is kind of junk in comparison and only one of them supports continuous values.

 

 

Yes, I see what you mean, missed the link to it before. It would be great if I only had a couple of pedals, and needed to use them on several keyboards. But, I have almost everything except a Yamaha half damper. If I could even buy it locally, it would cost me considerably more than one or two Yamaha pedals. The whole point for me is to be able use what I have without spending even more money. I don't need anymore pedals for anything else. I do like the idea of using my Kawai GFP3 on everything. But again, I have so many choices already. Maybe one day, when I get bored with what I have I might look at how I can get hold of one 🤔

[RandyFF]

On 9/12/2023 at 5:10 AM, DeltaJockey said:

Sorry, I was away for a bit then forgot your request in all the traffic on this thread😶

I haven't played the TP110 in the Numa X's, so I can't make a direct comparison with my GT. What I can say, is that I agree with the positive reviews. I find it one of the most enjoyable and least tiring actions to play for longer than many of my others. It is fast and nimble, the key's static down weight is on the lighter side, but has decent dynamic mass behind it, with a feeling of substantial solidness within the keys. (not unlike blocks of wood).

Yes, it does feel a little different to most other actions at first, but I think, in a good way. It is not really anything like my acoustic grand, and less so than my other digital actions, but I stopped trying to mimic the real acoustic a long time ago. It simply is a pleasure to play, and keeping in mind it has to also have the nimbleness to cope with the entire library of sounds on board, I think it is a good compromise.

I've found the velocity settings to be just perfect on the default normal setting with no offset. It is so responsive that to go for a lighter touch would make it too sensitive for my playing. The harder setting is unresponsive for me however, and the resulting strike from my fingers causes the bottoming thud to be more noticeable.

 

I tend to regularly play a number of different actions, as it exercises a range of muscle variation for me, so I don't find any of my keys to be a problem with the normal velocity settings. I just think there is no point of reference for this in my application, as I spend a lot of time using the action on vst's which are about as consistent as  a road full of pot holes, when it comes to standardising velocity response.

 

I don't gig with my gear, but it is quite heavy for it's size, so I don't plan on traveling much with it, despite some original plans to do so. I like that it's solid though.

After many months of owning it, I am still very much in positive territory overall.

 

 

Finding the words for how an action feels to oneself is tricky, there's not a lot of objective measurements to refer to, though in this case, having an AP as well as other higher-end DPs gives you quite a bit to compare to.   I thought you did an excellent job.  I liked your personal conclusion that it's simply a pleasure to play and has the nimbleness to do well with the many diverse sounds on board.  I'm surprised though that it's not anything like your acoustic grand. 

 

Thanks!

 

 

[DeltaJockey]

2 hours ago, RandyFF said:

 I'm surprised though that it's not anything like your acoustic grand. 

 

It's not unlike "a piano weighted action",  it just has a different feel to "my" Kawai Millenium III action. The GT has quite a pronounced solid bottoming and a fairly simplistic feeling hinge perception, whereas my acoustic feels like there's a lot going on behind the keys, different little forces feedbacking to my fingers in different areas of the motion.  (I don't know if that makes any sense, it can be misleading to describe). I mean, my acoustic action doesn't feel like other branded acoustics I've played either, so I wouldn't extrapolate my description to the GT relative to all actions. I think too, like all my digital actions, the feeling of simplicity also relates to the fact that my acoustic action allows my fingers to feel the hammers and string vibrations, not just hear them like on a digital. Anyway...that's all been discussed ad nauseam already😑

[RandyFF]

You said,

"Like all my digital actions, the feeling of simplicity also relates to the fact that my acoustic action allows my fingers to feel the hammers and string vibrations, not just hear them like on a digital. Anyway...that's all been discussed ad nauseam already😑"

 

Hmmmm.... sounds like you've been spending too much time at the PianoWorld forum!  Overall, I find this forum to be much friendlier and have fewer of the folks who obsess on some topics!

 

I'm glad you brought it up, that makes a lot of sense about the simplicity of DP actions.  To even come close you'd probably need tuned haptics for each key! But there are DP actions, as you've found, that bring great playing satisfaction and expressivity!  I've played enough lousy AP actions with sound quality that was lacking that I'm mostly content with DPs as a competent and often superior replacement, esp living in a small apartment where even an upright would definitely not work!

 

I look forward to being able to test run a Numa GT!

[DeltaJockey]

3 hours ago, RandyFF said:

Hmmmm.... sounds like you've been spending too much time at the PianoWorld forum!  Overall, I find this forum to be much friendlier and have fewer of the folks who obsess on some topics!

 

Yes, it pains me to hear you say that. I've come away with some pretty awful feelings over some conversations I've had there. My musical world is far broader than just piano, and I find it frustrating banging my head against a wall with obsessed individuals, whom dissect my every sentence. 🫠 Heck, I'm not even a fan of one brand!

 

3 hours ago, RandyFF said:

But there are DP actions, as you've found, that bring great playing satisfaction and expressivity!  I've played enough lousy AP actions with sound quality that was lacking that I'm mostly content with DPs as a competent and often superior replacement, esp living in a small apartment where even an upright would definitely not work!

That's why I say I stopped comparing the DP's with Acoustics. I see them as different and complimentary experiences. Also why I enjoy sitting down at different instruments.

It's horses for courses, and I'm grateful that they do all provide contrasting experiences.

I like the GT, because its feel suits my playing style and muscle tone. But I also like to exercise my hands on my MP7SE until it bugs me, and lately I've got back into playing around with the Montage8 Balanced Hammer Effect. They're all so different, and it's refreshing to my hands to go between them.

 

I hope you like the GT, I'm sure it's not for everyone, but it is the reason I don't miss my MP11SE.

 

[AnotherScott]

On 9/11/2023 at 5:54 PM, RandyFF said:

You said:

 

“I have sometimes found that tweaking the velocity settings can create a significant improvement (like on the CP73/YC73), but to me, while it can take something unacceptable and make it quite acceptable, it never yields anything really great. Instead, I think that any necessary expressivity added somewhere through those kinds of fine adjustments comes at the expense of expressivity somewhere else”

 

Would you elaborate? …. “At the expense of expressivity somewhere else?”

By way of example, on the CP73 I mentioned... Out of the box, it felt kind of "dead" to me. When I would hit the keys harder expecting to get "more" out of it, there wasn't much there. (I think this what someone means when they talk about "digging in" to it?) On an acoustic piano sound, it felt like my high end expressivity just wasn't there... it was kind of like, beyond a certain point, I'd hit a (rubber padded) wall. On an EP, I wouldn't get the "bark" where I expected to. 

 

The basic global touch options (e.g. soft, hard) couldn't get me close enough to what I was after, but once Yamaha introduced the patch-specific depth and offset touch sensitivity options, I was able get a much more satisfying response. But still, by "shifting" the velocity responsiveness to give me more mid-to-high end control, I found I lost low-end (pianissimo) expressivity. For band gigging, that didn't really matter, but in solo playing, it was noticeable... I had gained high velocity dynamics at the expense of low velocity finesse. Basically, instead of not being able to get loud enough, now I couldn't get soft enough! Essentially, it seemed like I was shifting a finite amount of controllability/expressivity, and what I'd gain in one place, I'd lose somewhere else.

 

Before taking this as gospel, I'll repeat, "maybe these settings just need more skill to dial in optimally than I possess." This is only my own experience. Maybe others have been more successful than I have at using these controls to get the improvement they were after without some significant trade-off. Also, maybe some boards offer finer (or different kinds of) controls in this respect which might have made it easier to get what I was after. Though OTOH, many boards offer very little, i.e. nothing beyond a small number of global softer/harder settings, limiting you to essentially a couple of coarse adjustments. Even then, while those can be useful, if you change the setting to get what you feel is a better response at one end of the dynamic extreme, I'd guess you're likely to find some more disappointment at the other. (But also, this may not be an issue depending on what you're after... I suppose it's not impossible than one could actually be aiming for both more control on one end and less on the other.)

 

On 9/11/2023 at 5:54 PM, RandyFF said:

Have to admit I know little about how these curves are created.  I remember reading about how Dave Weiser spent considerable time mapping out the velocity curve on various Kurzweils, looking for that elusive finger-to-sound connection.  What was he doing?  Mapping velocities for individual notes or note ranges?

 

On a deep programming level, much finer control is available... depending on the programming tools available, one could conceivably program each key for which sample should be triggered at which volume, based on how much force the key is struck with (possibly along with settings for other things like sample cross-fading or filters).

 

ETA: Tangentially... The CP88 (or maybe it was a YC88) I played on the showroom floor felt "right" to me out of the box. I've wondered before whether companies may pay little attention to optimizing their sounds for their different actions. Like, maybe Yamaha put the effort in to get great playability out of the flagship 88, and then just put the identically programmed electronics into the 73, with little-to-no re-optimization of the sounds for their playability from a very different action. Realistically, I would not expect a whole different set of key-by-key sample mapping from scratch for every different action, but I would hope there would be more than a little in the way of some kind of deeper global velocity remapping, especially for piano sounds. Even more so in a case like this, where one model has a graded action and the other does not... it seems to me that, by virtue of that alone, you would probably want some substantially different velocity mapping when placing a sample set into one action where the keys change in weight over their span vs. another where they do not. I've wondered in the past whether that's a factor in why people say that the MODX pianos do not sound as good as the sample-identical Montage pianos.

[obxa]

RE: Default Parameters and editing.   Sorry to post this late,  been on the road.    I had a very nice exchange from Gianni from Customer Service (who I hope won't mind me posting....).  Bottom line: they're aware the constant reset is not ideal, but will take some deeper level programming to implement a global setting.  I'm still not sure if I've been editing wrong, and should change the presets the pianos call up.

 

Dear Chris,

Single Sounds were intended to be selected to create Programs and recall them (also thru Favorites) with all related customize settings, Zoom, FX, levels, range etc as the best way to perform.

That's why a new sound also recalls the default ZOOM default, since every sound has its own internal parameters and mid-value 64 has been fixed as the factory default for all, allowing a wide range or control.

That said, we discussed future updates possibly extending the system already applied for other parameters, which can refer to a GLOBAL value or a Local Program setting as you correctly mentioned.

I am not allowed to promise a date for this new feature (sorry) which should be analyzed in all side effects and feasibility, as it would also need a deep user interface redesign.

Zoom parameters also change according to the Sound Bank and we should avoid making the main Settings too complex, but we will surely analyze the matter.

Thanks so far for your kind words about our X Piano which I share with our CEO & Team.

Please say hello to our friends of the MPN forum (BTW also my mother's family was from Sicily 🙂

Thanks so far and best regards, grazie e ciao  !

Gianni Giudici

Studiologic Brand Manager

www.studiologic-music.com/artists/gianni_giudici/
www.giannigiudici-music.com

chris james corso wrote on 30.08.2023 01:19 (GMT +02:00):

COUNTRY: United States

 

 

Hello Gianni, Wanted to tell you first how much I love the NumaX piano! I have a feature request, that has been discussed on the MPN keyboard corner forum : Is there anyway to create a "Global User Default setting" for the Pianos and Ep's? Namely the inner 4 settings of the sounds. Unless I'm missing something, if one changes a piano model (or EP, or synth etc.) within a user preset, the parameters ( e.g. tone, string res, duplex, pedal noise ) always go to a default setting. When programming for a show, it becomes extremely tedious to have to constantly reset those desired settings when testing other pianos, eps, synths etc.. I thank you in advance, and for the wonderful instrument.   BTW: I'm 1st gen- My Dad was from Palermo, Mom -Trieste- Love to see your complex next time I visit. Cheers, and Grazie Molto!

[RandyFF]

On 9/14/2023 at 5:15 AM, AnotherScott said:

By way of example, on the CP73 I mentioned... Out of the box, it felt kind of "dead" to me. When I would hit the keys harder expecting to get "more" out of it, there wasn't much there. (I think this what someone means when they talk about "digging in" to it?) On an acoustic piano sound, it felt like my high end expressivity just wasn't there... it was kind of like, beyond a certain point, I'd hit a (rubber padded) wall. On an EP, I wouldn't get the "bark" where I expected to. 

 

The basic global touch options (e.g. soft, hard) couldn't get me close enough to what I was after, but once Yamaha introduced the patch-specific depth and offset touch sensitivity options, I was able get a much more satisfying response. But still, by "shifting" the velocity responsiveness to give me more mid-to-high end control, I found I lost low-end (pianissimo) expressivity. For band gigging, that didn't really matter, but in solo playing, it was noticeable... I had gained high velocity dynamics at the expense of low velocity finesse. Basically, instead of not being able to get loud enough, now I couldn't get soft enough! Essentially, it seemed like I was shifting a finite amount of controllability/expressivity, and what I'd gain in one place, I'd lose somewhere else.

 

Before taking this as gospel, I'll repeat, "maybe these settings just need more skill to dial in optimally than I possess." This is only my own experience. Maybe others have been more successful than I have at using these controls to get the improvement they were after without some significant trade-off. Also, maybe some boards offer finer (or different kinds of) controls in this respect which might have made it easier to get what I was after. Though OTOH, many boards offer very little, i.e. nothing beyond a small number of global softer/harder settings, limiting you to essentially a couple of coarse adjustments. Even then, while those can be useful, if you change the setting to get what you feel is a better response at one end of the dynamic extreme, I'd guess you're likely to find some more disappointment at the other. (But also, this may not be an issue depending on what you're after... I suppose it's not impossible than one could actually be aiming for both more control on one end and less on the other.)

 

On a deep programming level, much finer control is available... depending on the programming tools available, one could conceivably program each key for which sample should be triggered at which volume, based on how much force the key is struck with (possibly along with settings for other things like sample cross-fading or filters).

 

ETA: Tangentially... The CP88 (or maybe it was a YC88) I played on the showroom floor felt "right" to me out of the box. I've wondered before whether companies may pay little attention to optimizing their sounds for their different actions. Like, maybe Yamaha put the effort in to get great playability out of the flagship 88, and then just put the identically programmed electronics into the 73, with little-to-no re-optimization of the sounds for their playability from a very different action. Realistically, I would not expect a whole different set of key-by-key sample mapping from scratch for every different action, but I would hope there would be more than a little in the way of some kind of deeper global velocity remapping, especially for piano sounds. Even more so in a case like this, where one model has a graded action and the other does not... it seems to me that, by virtue of that alone, you would probably want some substantially different velocity mapping when placing a sample set into one action where the keys change in weight over their span vs. another where they do not. I've wondered in the past whether that's a factor in why people say that the MODX pianos do not sound as good as the sample-identical Montage pianos.

Scott,

Thank you for the well-explained response!  Have to admit I've never heard anyone else talk about this, and from my own experience there's been no diminishment or addition to how the sound is expressed from the lowest to the highest octaves- adjusting velocity from soft/medium/hard has applied the changes equally across the board with no compromises I've noticed.  Have you experienced this with boards other than the CP/YC?

 

Having the Keyboard Sensitivity with the NXP setting in addition to the usual Velocity settings is brand new to me, glad to hear other boards have found ways to give you more control over the feel of the keybed.  But I have to admit I'm not sure what the Keyboard Sensitivity setting on the Numa X Piano does, and haven't listened carefully for the things you've pointed out.  I'm involved in other things at the moment, but will investigate that further at some point.

 

 

While the NXP doesn't give you a separate bank of Sounds from which to build their 4-Part Programs, they do give you the ability to re-order the list of Sounds from which Programs are built, very handy indeed, I can relegate the stinkers to the bottom of the list!

 

> In going thru all the Sounds in the EP bank, I discovered that 2 of the sounds, EP-70s and EP Drive, are actually using the same samples as Mark I and Mark II (at least as far as I can tell) but with the Zoom Controls modified. Every other Sound I've looked at have ALL had the Zoom Controls set at 64.

 

> Which led me to write an email to SL asking if they'd give us end users that same capability.  Not sure if you have a NXP, but it's only the Pianos and EPs that have Zoom Controls, 4, that powerfully change the sound, the other Sound banks only have 4 generic controls for filter and envelope.  

 

> While not a full-fledged separate bank of user-modified Sounds, if they implemented this that'd give us the ability to modify, re-name and then have these User Sounds as Sounds for building Programs.  

 

> A further wish is that the FX would be remembered in these modified User Sounds.  I love the quality of them, and adjusting them is a dream come true, so user friendly!

 

 

[AnotherScott]

14 hours ago, RandyFF said:

from my own experience there's been no diminishment or addition to how the sound is expressed from the lowest to the highest octaves- adjusting velocity from soft/medium/hard has applied the changes equally across the board with no compromises I've noticed.

I didn't mean there was an issue in how sound is expressed from lowest to highest octaves, but rather from lowest to highest velocities.

[RandyFF]

1 hour ago, AnotherScott said:

I didn't mean there was an issue in how sound is expressed from lowest to highest octaves, but rather from lowest to highest velocities.

Thanks for the clarification, that’s an important distinction.

[RandyFF]

Good news from StudioLogic!

 

I wrote:

Hello-

Does EP 70s use the Mark 1 sample?  When I set the EP 70s Contrls to 64, it sounds exactly like the Mark 1.  Same with EP Drive, that's the samples from the Mark 2 with the Zoom Controls modified a bit, right?  

 

Which led me to think about how this board is organized.  Unlike many boards, there is no separate bank of Sounds that can be modified and saved.  Instead any changes you make to an individual Sound becomes part of a Program, with no possibility of changing the name of the Sound to reflect the modifications you've made, and thus no easy way to find it again.  Which takes us back to the bad-old-days of writing down modifications on paper.

 

But what if... just like you did with EP 70s and EP Drive, we could, as individual users, create Sounds that we modified and then renamed and would be included in the list of Sounds we build a Program with?  

 

No idea if this would be easy or impossible on your end to implement, but it would definitely address a major shortcoming in having to start from the beginning each time with any given Sound, given that we're not able to modify, re-name and then save them.

 

Even if the only thing you could modify were the 4 Zoom Controls, this would be very meaningful for Piano and EPs where you can create vastly different sounding instruments.  Of course if being able to save modified Sound included FX settings as well, that would be awesome sauce!

 

I'm absolutely in love with this instrument, you obviously made it for me and the way I like to play! But it's obvious that in the desire to make the UI very simple and fast that some things have had to fall by the wayside, like being able to modify a Sound and being able to re-use it and re-name it.  I don't think this matters as much for the other sounds as the Zoom Controls for them make generic changes, but the Pianos and EPs have the Zoom Controls that really transform them.

 

Thanks!  A large audience at the Keyboard Corner Forum thanks you for your timely and considerate replies!

 

Randy

 

PS I'd read somewhere that down the road you'll be introducing more sound modifications?  One thing I keep reaching for is the Release envelope, which is not available for the Pianos and EPs.  

 

Playing solo piano I'm always looking for ways to have a bit more sustain that's musical and pleasing: like using a sweep pedal for the damper and being able to dial it in, adjusting the release envelope, or adding just a bit of reverb and even delay to create a sound that is a bit larger and fuller.  

 

I look forward to having Sustain as one of the things added to sound modifications for Pianos/EPs!

————————————————

 

He responded:

Hello Randy,

As you correctly wrote, factory Sounds are not modifiable (at least so far) while customized settings can be currently stored in a Program (patch).

 

What also makes our E-PIANO different from others is the use of Physical Modeling with the addition of extra non-harmonic parts of different kinds (Tine).

 

Consequently, sounds sharing the same Tine with just a different settings of other parameters might sound similar, modifying the settings as you mentioned.

 

We have many more internal settings in addition to the today's available four Zooms  and we could add them to the instrument or even create a Computer Editor, much more detailed and complex.

 

Similarities between some E-Piano sound is a natural consequence of the original Rhodes and Wurlitzer architecture partially duplicated on our modelling.

 

Those instruments were theoretically all the same and the difference was mainly made by tuning of the various parameters, mic distance from tines, offset and all available electro-mechanical settings.

 

The only real difference was probably between Mark1 and Mark2 where the hammers, exactly like in our models.

 

The Suitcase (like mine) had also four 12' inches speakers and related case, that makes the playing experience unique and work as a perfect ''monitor'' for the lucky musician playing it (as I do every day :-).

 

Considering that, we are working on ''ampli and speakers'' FX algorithms, another quite interesting evolution for future updates.

 

Also some Wurly could have been different (like my old white one) as some were designed for keyboard classes and it seems to me that they were even more ''mellow'' than all others.

 

That said, I believe that a customized sound should also be able to recall a certain FX  (if preferred) and we have a similar function in our NUMA Compacts (FX Autoset).

 

We will surely add more Zoom parameters in future updates, but I am not able and allowed to mention a date, at least here and now.

 

The feasibility to create and add new ''Sounds'' in a list would need a deep UX redesign and other side-effects to be analyzed.

 

As a possible solution I am thinking at something in between a Sound and a multi-zone Program, keeping the original Factory Sound list protected, but this is just a wish at the moment.

 

Sorry to make it too long, but a clever question deserve a detailed reply :-)

 

To have more sustain on Acoustic Piano sounds, I suggest to increase the Strings Resonance to values over 80 (I often use 96) of even add a FXA Compressor

 

Thanks so far for sharing your thoughts and for your kind words about our X Piano.

 

Best regards also to the Keyboard Corner friends.

 

Ciao !

 

Gianni Giudici

 

Studiologic Brand Manager

www.giannigiudici-music.com <http://www.giannigiudici-music.com> 

www.studiologic-music.com/artists/gianni_giudici/ <http://www.studiologic-music.com/artists/gianni_giudici/> 

 

[kenheeter]

Gianni  is awesome!!

[kenheeter]

Randy, I have wondered about most of the things you asked about but you are much more articulate than I am so I'm quite happy to have you ask the excellent questions and to read Gianni's thoughtful replies. Great work!