Rhodes, Wurlitzer, Clavinet - All in one

[musicman1ovation.net]

I've been getting keyboards since 1970. At one time or the other, I've either owned or had access to everything from the Rhodes, Wurlitzer & Clavinet, to several one note analog synths, to the WONDERFUL Yamaha CS-80, to Sequential's Prophet 600, DX-7, Proteus, JD-990, drum modules... well you get the idea.

 

When MIDI came along with synths that could have anywhere from 32 to hundreds of patches, I gradually traded in or sold my Rhodes, Wurly & Clav. After all, all those new 'boards had patches called "RhodesHevn" or "WurlyWondr" or "Clavi-nice", right? I've really liked the new synths, but I'm still not playing a nice Clavinet or wonderful Wurlitzer in Rhodes heaven.

 

Now, obviously, these instruments all had very specific keyboard feels, and while that figured into the equation, between my current MIDI keys, weighted, semi-weighted, or synth/organ feel, I'm pleased enough with that. actually, I'm quite pleased with my digital acoustic piano possibilities and I really LOVE the Hammond XK-2; not only for the sound (which works great for me when recorded, and that's all I'm looking for, really), but for the waterfall keys that make the playing natural.

 

But I am still looking for the device (whether it has keys or not... but if it does, I'd rather it be a nice weighted feel) that can get me the closest to a great Rhodes, Wurly & Clav.

 

Some of the element that I think are necessary to that end are (1) the ability to keep the sound from being perfectly in tune, since those old keyboards generally had a slight imperfection in that area that was perfect (2) something that causes the velocity to not only increase volume, but to add realistic tone changes and distortion that occurs when they are driven (3) and in the case of the Rhodes/Wurlitzer, there might even be the issue of sympathetic resonance when the sustain pedal is activated.

 

Frankly, I don't care HOW it is achieved, whether some modeling is involved or multi-samples or filters or whatever... I am just looking for the BEST playing experience from those three vintage sounds from one unit.

 

Now, I realize that Nord is supposed to be coming out with the "Electro", which is aimed at reproducing the sound of electro-mechanical keyboards. And it might would do the trick. Actually, I'd have preferred it if they'd stuck to reproducing the ones I've named, and left out the B-3, simply because everyone and their brother has a B-3 now, and several of them are VERY good.

 

Really, the unit I am looking for doesn't have to only focus on those sounds. The fact is, it will probably have all sorts of other things which I'm not particularly looking for, but that would be OK if it would just give me the real deal on those three vintage staples.

 

Please give me your ideas on what's out there now that you think will fill the ticket. Naturally, I'd prefer hearing from people that have actually played Rhodes, Wurlitzer & Clav, but any considered opinions would be a great help. Whether it is a new model or from the more or less not too distant past, tell me what you think can cover those three bases the best. Once that happens, all I have to do is make a mad dash for HOME! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gifOh, mercy... a pun. THANKS!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Steve44]

I agree with you on the Electro, and furthermore it's a true shame that they use modeling for the B-3 but not for the E.P.'s!

 

The only synth that really focuses on Electric Pianos is a new piece of software by Emagic, the EVP-88. It doesn't do the Clav, but it does the Hohner Electra-Piano. It is the first product of any kind to use modeling for E.P.'s other than the tiny part of Korg's MOSS model for the Z1. Apparently Herbie likes it, and Emagic's site has a nice picture of David Foster playing it.. Here's a link to Harmony Central's Press Release .

 

The only problem is that you've gotta have Logic Audio (and a computer) to play it. However, it supports MicroLogic which is only 80 bucks, so you could have the EVP88 and its player for under $300.

 

There is also the Keyboards expander board for the Korg Triton/TritonRack/Karma, and I did like its sounds quite a bit however I've never played the original. If you can convince a store of your interest, you can get them to install an EXB board into a Triton so you can try it out.

[musicman1ovation.net]

Steve,

 

I just checked out the eMagic site and the XVP88. It really does sounds great on paper, and considering the descriptive praise from Hancock, Foster & Grusin, it must be something else! But shoot, I don't even know what a Hohner Electra Piano is. When I think Hohner and piano, I think Pianet. I guess I should go to a vintage keyboard site and see what gives. And it really beats me how they could include an electro-mechanical Hohner *anything* without including the Clavinet, which just BEGS to be given this kind of treatment.

 

Oddly enough, the closest I've ever come to a decent Clavinet [don't laugh! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif] is my old E!-equipped DX-7. The E! has a way that you can cause very MINOR pitch discrepancies on all notes, including subsequent triggering of the same key. In other words. You could hit a C three times in a row, and have an ever so slight change in pitch. Because of the way the Clav's key-hammer pushes the rubberized tip to hammer-on down on the string [which is already probably going through all sorts of excitations], it was very easy for each playing of a single key to register different pitches. I know this is true because I had a Clavinet [which I traded in like a fool - my penance is that I have to call myself a fool every time I mention that sad truth! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif] and I tested it out with an electronic tuner. So, with the right DX-7 patch, the subtle E! pitch parameter, and passing the signal through my old Boss Touch-Wah... well, it doesn't suck too badly. I think Boss called the Touch-Wah an Auto-Wah later, but it's an envelope follower for that Clav-wah thing, and I used to use it on my actual Clavinet all the time, sometimes with a setting so low as to not actually create the wah, but to just apply a slight filter setting that added a tad of edge.

 

I've definitely heard better raw Clavinet sounds, most if not all of them sample based. I've even got a few at my disposal, but I find that I will go for the DX-7's inferior Clavinet sound just because of that whole pitch thing. When I heard a perfectly tuned Clavinet, my ear wigs out; I know something's afoot. But when I hear that not-quite-a-Clavinet-sound *behaving* correctly, it just feels more natural.

 

I was reading the online .PDF manual of the Yamaha S80, and unless I was reading it wrong, I *think* it has that same type of "random" pitch parameter that the E! for DX-7 has. If that is so, the S-80 has a pretty decent Clavinet and Rhodes according to the MP3 demo I heard on the Internet. Does anyone here know if the S-80 *does* have a setting like I described the E! as having?

 

Back to the XVP88, I would hope that its model takes this pitch thing into consideration, should it ever add Clavinet to its models [in case it is upgradeable]. It is possible that Rhodes could stand a less intense version of random pitch thing, especially if doing a "roll" on a key http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif that pushes the tine into such vibrations that some strikes are not quite in tune. But, for the most part, while I think an absolutely perfectly tuned Rhodes or Wurlitzer was not so likely, unless played immediately after professional tuning in a weather-controlled studio http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif, to be in perfect overall pitch. But one gets the feeling that is what occurred in Steely Dan's newest "Two Against Nature", which has the most perfect, yet real, Clavinet and Rhodes sounds I've heard in a while, but then, what else is new? The credits mention the Rhodes/Clavinet techs, and I have this picture of the keyboards being tuned before every take. But they are still real, and sound awfully good. Out here in there even more real world, one doesn't get their Rhodes or Clavinet or Wurlitzer tuned before project studio sessions. And, hey, you haven't LIVED until you've seen what is involved in tuning a Wurlitzer!! Good thing they hold their tune so well.

 

One more question, then I'll quit going on. If I were to get LogicMicro and the XVP88 on say, the PC, and then went ahead and used my MAC for my usual studio chores, could I play those XVP88 models as if they were hardware, and just play them onto my digital environment. If eMagic would release the XVP88 so it would work with Digital Performer, I might use it more conventionally. I don't know. I lean towards hardware; got an 8-bus Mackie and their UltraMation, so I'm not real into going the whole digital route. I've got outboard gear, etc., and besides... the whole total digital route, when done within the confines of a computer, feels strange to me. It takes me much longer to do the things that used to be a few button pushes, patch-bay patches, and crossed fingers.

[Guest]

Originally posted by musicman1@ovation.net:

I was reading the online .PDF manual of the Yamaha S80, and unless I was reading it wrong, I *think* it has that same type of "random" pitch parameter that the E! for DX-7 has. If that is so, the S-80 has a pretty decent Clavinet and Rhodes according to the MP3 demo I heard on the Internet. Does anyone here know if the S-80 *does* have a setting like I described the E! as having?

 

Yes it does. (I have a cs6x but the synth engine is the same) You can set it individually for each element. Can't tell you if it helps create the 'real' clavinet sound as I've never played one. You can set it in scale of 1-127. If you're curious I can try to check it against a tuner.

 

Interestingly enough, the 2 preset clavi patches (again, in the cs6x) do not use that feature ;-) But I do like the sound. There's a clav wah patch that's pretty cool...

 

Rod

[Steve44]

Musicman,

 

I was just checking out Korg's website and found some more info on their EP model which is in both the Z1 and the Oasys PCI. You can get Z1's now for $999 or less, the only problem with them is they have a klunky OS that takes like 2 seconds to switch between patches. The OASYS is only $1300 and gives you tons and tons of stuff... scroll down on this page to see info about the model:

http://www.korg.com/oasyspci_synths2.htm

 

Regarding the EVP88, I agree it's a shame that it's Logic-only, but if you have a PC that's separate from your main Mac that does soundn like a good setup.. that way you don't have to worry about how to loopback the audio from Logic to DP. If you don't have that other PC I'm sure there is a way to do it, though...

 

I just thought of one other modeling program, it's called Tassman and it was given good reviews by EMusician but I can't tell if it does EP's or not.. anyhow you can download the demo at:

http://applied-acoustics.com/download.htm

 

 

For non-modeling EP's I would say the best keyboards are the PC2 and the S80. There's a rackmount of the PC2 coming out and plenty of demos on kurzweil's site. I've heard great things about the S80 but have not heard it myself. I also like the sounds in the Roland RD600 and its effect processor has both a great Wah and a fat overdrive & distortion for dirtying up those sounds. Those three keyboards are all pretty comparable and definitely let you avoid the software issue.

 

Good luck, and tell me which one you find most authentic in the end..

[Stephen Fortner]

As an S-80 owner I can vouch for their electric piano samples. They have the Steely Dan thing nailed, and I can't say that about any other ROM-based synth. "Herb Roadz" (presumably an allusion to Mr Hancock?) is very realistic, though the L-R panning is a bit exaggerated. Good thing it can be turned down. The Wurlies could be better. I find that on all the E.P. sounds on the S-80, it's useful to take down the effect sends a bit, as they're all a bit wet out of the box, and tighten up both the attack and release times.

I too am anxious to audition the Emagic EVP-88 model. I've heard the Korg Oasys and have to say I was underwhelmed.

[musicman1ovation.net]

Rod, thanks for that S-80 confirmation. I thought that was what that .PDF manual was getting at, but still, it would be interesting to know if subsequent plays of the same key change in a random way. You mentioned that scale of 1 to 127. It would be good to know what that scale is referenced to; I mean is 127 so many cents? Hmmm... Having heard the online MP3's, I really thought that Clav sounded good, so considering the S-80's filters and that tuning thing, it seems like it could be a natural. I am very surprised that they didn't put that pitch randomness (in a very minimal setting) as a part of the Clavinet patch, but as you said, you generally have to tweak the factory patches. [More on that.]

 

Steve, I went to check out the Tassman. They had an online MP3 of the Clavinet sound. Unfortunately, it had an utterly ridiculous slow LFO-ed filter sweep as the wah on the sound, so that took away from the experience of hearing what the raw sound is like. Furthermore, with Clavinets, the wah sound was generally either am envelope follower or a wah played in rhythm to the playing... I don't EVER recall hearing just an LFO generated wah with no relationship to the tempo and playing. But underneath that bit o' goofiness http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I thought I heard something that sounded mighty like a real string. Very promising. I don't think they addressed the pitch issue, though. Sure would be easy, though.

 

One thing that a modeler or sound programmer would need to watch out for is how they implement this pitch alteration. It isn't that the pitch changes as the note sustains. It is that each hammer-on initiates a note that has a slight plus or minus to the actual pitch. Actually, I imagine it is more plus than minus, because hammering on can't make the string shorter. But it can, by being hammered a little to the left or right of directly on top, make the note slightly sharp. So, to do an accurate model, that has to be taken in to consideration. Nevertheless, when I used the E! on the DX-7 to achieve it, it sounded very natural. It made a LOT of difference in the basic DX-7 Clavinet patch, and in that case, each note initiation was either dead on, slightly flat or slightly sharp.

 

With Clavinets, there is no sustain pedal, so one needn't deal with hardly any (if any) sympathetic resonance type issues. But with a Rhodes, if you were to hold down the sustain pedal and do a building "roll" on one note, that tine is just going to start going nuts, and I'm certain a pitch issue would result. Beyond getting a good sample or model, these are the elements that make the whole thing real.

 

Back to the S-80, SteveFortner. I've only played the P-80 and P-200. I liked the feel of the P-80 better. I talked to Yamaha on the phone to find out what was up, and they said (1) it *IS* the same mechanism, and (2) the keyboard bed is different on those two instruments, and that accounts for that difference. The S-80 is another action assembly, but the fellow talked to said some people like it better. Personal taste naturally plays the big role. But just from reading about both the P-200 and S-80 (and having played the P-200 briefly), I think the S-80 would be the ticket for me by a long shot. I can't quite click on order, though; not till I hands-on. Also, if I did go with the S-80, I'd go ahead and go for the PLG acoustic model. I'm also interested in the analog model and the DX/TX board, whose filter enhancements seem great to me. Do you know if the piano PLG adds anything of value to the Rhodes, Wurlitzer & Clavinet departments. I assume it does something for the acoustic piano, but not sure about those others. I would truly LOVE a GREAT Wurlitzer as well. They were such fun to play, and even though they can be all sweet and Carpenters-like, when they get down with something like "The Logical Song", it is drawbars out rock to the metal.

[marino]

I'm afraid I'm old enough to have played the original version of all these instruments... Of course you could find many different Clavinets and Rhodes, there's no "standard".

But I do have a suggestion.

I recently bought a sample CD for my Kurzweil called "Real Rhodes". It is from Pyramid Sounds, and it has samples of several different Rhodes models (five or six), plus Wurlitzers and Clavinets. Nothing else.

They are for sure the most authentic renditions of these sounds I've heard coming out from any keyboard or sampler.

It's almost painful after hearing all those overprocessed synth versions, to remember how the original sounds were, raw, powerful, and a bit crude. They are beautifully velocity-switched, and of course you can process them with the synth engine and effects on the Kurzweil (There are a few "processed" programs already).

It is only in Kurzweil format I think, but if you really want those sounds, maybe you could even consider to buy an used K2000R or something (they are going very cheap these days). You don't need the sampling option, only sample RAM in order to load, and of course a CD-ROM reader. (And it doesn't hurt that you'll end up with a very powerful synth)

Check the Pyramid site at www.pyramid-sound.com They have online demos too, but in my opinion, they don't give a realistic idea of all the things that are on the disk.

 

Hope this helps

 

marino

[Tusker]

Originally posted by musicman1@ovation.net:

 

One thing that a modeler or sound programmer would need to watch out for is how they implement this pitch alteration. It isn't that the pitch changes as the note sustains. It is that each hammer-on initiates a note that has a slight plus or minus to the actual pitch.

 

 

I was wondering if you could clarify one aspect of this. I am emulating clav and b3 sounds on my synthesizers, and I am more interested in it being musically correct, than tonally correct. (i.e. does it play musically)

 

I would think there is a base level of randomness, as well as a degree of sharpening if you hit it harder. Is this what you mean?

 

The Roland romplers ( and I am pretty sure the s80 family as well) have a velocity sensitive pitch envelope, as well as a pitch randomizer (for each attacked-note). So they can create this musical effect. However I don't see it programmed into the factory patches, typically.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

 

www.tuskerfort.com

[Stephen Fortner]

A couple of problems with the PLG-150PF piano board for the S-80, which caused me to save my bucks for something else, are

 

1) A very Trinity-esque program change latency. This seems to be the case with all the expansion boards for the Yamaha S-80 / CS6x. It does not happen with the keyboard's internal sounds.

 

2) Worse, there is a perceptible note-on latency. When one is playing two-handed block chords, for example, there is an audible "flam" between notes that should all be sounding at the same time. Once you've experienced this, you tend to hear it a little bit with less dense chords as well. It would appear the S-80 addresses its internal ROM faster than it does the expansion board, because I have not been able to make this happen with the internal piano sounds.

 

A shame really, because the pianos on that PLG board are nice, and have a less "sampled" quality. Are you listening, Yamaha?

[Guest]

It's interesting you should bring this up since I own a cs6x and am considering purchasing a plg board in the next few months... I'm torn between the pf,an and dx cards.

 

This is the 1st time I'm hearing about this. A couple of the guys in the cs6x forum (which seems to be dead now for some reason) have the an board and I've yet to see anyone mentioning this. My guess is it becomes less obvious when you're playing leads or chords that have slower attacks than a piano. At the s80 site this guy did a fairly thorough a/b of the pf card vs the piano stock sounds and did not mention anything, as far as I can recall.

 

I'm interested to see if other people have had the same experience.

 

Rod

[Steve44]

Originally posted by rsaboiasilva@hotmail.com:

It's interesting you should bring this up since I own a cs6x and am considering purchasing a plg board in the next few months... I'm torn between the pf,an and dx cards.

 

Be torn no more! I don't think it was announced at NAMM but I ran into an interesting link for a device called the Kenton Plugstation by Kenton Electronics . It allows you to go from one slot to four slots, or to use the plugins as a rack-mount stand alone synth without the host at all! When use it with the host, it's like an expansion chasis so you can control all four boards from the host keyboard. Pretty cool! No pricing info yet, but I'm excited at the prospect of using it for the VL cards which are so cheap in comparison to a VL-70 and then lets you have 4 voices.. or to put in an AN card too for what they claim is a near-identical Prophet-5.

[rdtmusix]

For anyone who's interested, "Harmony Central" has a huge database of user comments with regards to tons of products, including the e-mu line of vintage keys modules:

 

http://www.harmony-central.com/Synth/Data/E-mu/

 

People seems to generally give good reviews to the e-mu classic keys and vintage keys+ models. They find them easy to use and the sounds are generally convincing. But you can read more for yourself at the link above.

 

Hope this helps.

[Dave Bryce]

Be torn no more! I don't think it was announced at NAMM but I ran into an interesting link for a device called the Kenton Plugstation by Kenton Electronics . It allows you to go from one slot to four slots, or to use the plugins as a rack-mount stand alone synth without the host at all!

Very cool looking box - I wonder if the latency thing that the others have been asking about will be an issue...does anyone know if any of the PLG boards other than the 150PF exhibit this problem?

 

BTW, I sent an email to Yamaha asking for an "official" response on this question. I'll keep you posted.

 

dB

[Guest]

Originally posted by Steve44:

Be torn no more! I don't think it was announced at NAMM but I ran into an interesting link for a device called the Kenton Plugstation by Kenton Electronics . It allows you to go from one slot to four slots, or to use the plugins as a rack-mount stand alone synth without the host at all! When use it with the host, it's like an expansion chasis so you can control all four boards from the host keyboard. Pretty cool! No pricing info yet, but I'm excited at the prospect of using it for the VL cards which are so cheap in comparison to a VL-70 and then lets you have 4 voices.. or to put in an AN card too for what they claim is a near-identical Prophet-5.

 

 

Old news buddy ;-)

 

We've been talking about that on the cs6x forum for awhile. I'm waiting for someone to get it.

 

Actually if you're controlling from the yammy you can only put 3 cards on the chassis, if I remember correctly, since one of the slots gets eaten up by the daughtercard that feeds the yamaha. Actually, it's a pain in the ass as it is to use 2 of the plug in cards at the same time because of the convoluted OS, so I'm waiting it out to see how this works.

 

The an card is pretty sweet, and that's what I have my eyes on.

 

Dave- keep me posted in what yamaha says. I'm curious. Thanks

 

Rod

[Graham English]

I play the Clav and Wurlitzer live and would never use a fake one. Especially the Clav! You just can't mimmick it's funk! It's unique and always will be.

[musicman1ovation.net]

transrational - I can't disagree with that... I had a Clavinet, Wurlitzer and Rhodes right before the MIDI era. And THAT is why I'm looking. I truly loved the fact that the Clavinet had such a short throw before whomping down string upon the anvil, directly under the key. If is a very fast, raw action. And, really, were I to play live (and had a roadie or two to handle keys while I limousined my way to the venue... 'xcuse me, I drifted a moment), I'd have to have the real deal on any and all keyboards. But recording, like magic, are actually about creating illusions. I think most engineers would agree with that. I mean, the recording is about creating a listenable piece of music... possibly to emulate a live gig (or not)... definitely to bring the music alive, complete with images of instrumentation and Chuck Berry's "guitar scissor dance" dancing in people's heads. So, whether or not one enjoys the vintage feeling and live sound of not, if one can translate that to the recording, the job is done. Actually, I've heard SOME recordings of Clavinet (real ones) that were so awful, that the experience of Clavinet-ness didn't even make it to the recording. That being said, what I am after (because of space, funds, and a deep desire to draw a picture of a Clavinet... a Rhodes... a Wurlitzer on recordings), is something that lets that happen. Can it? Absolutely. Does that mean we no longer need those keyboards? Not on your life. Without them we'd have no inspiration as to where to steer the illusion. Even WITH those instruments, the job would STILL be to create the illusion on the recording.

 

How can I say that? Well, for one thing, I've seen a situation where there was a choice between recording a Hammond XK-2, and recording a Hammond C-3 w/Leslie (virtually a B), and although the C-3/Leslie sounded better in the room, by the time it had been flattened into stereo, the XK-2 w/its built in Leslie simulation and its built in B-3 simulation created the illusion better. In the room you benefit from a Leslie sending the sound around the four walls, bouncing off furniture, streaking the perimeter like police lights. It is all so 3-D. But once you turn it into two channels of audio that will be heard from speakers (L)eft and ®ight, the question becomes... which experience comes closest to making you believe? Live, play the real deal. Recording? Maybe play the real deal. Play the thing that makes you believe.

 

If I still had the doggoned Clav, Wurly & Rhodes, all this would be academic. But as it is, the quest remains. And the prize is one thing: people hear it and it they see Clav, or Wurly or Rhodes in their mind's eye.

 

I know you don't need to hear this, but I wish someone had told me in no uncertain terms. Don't ever let your Clav and Wurly go. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif For me, I gotta find the right dust to sprinkle.

[Graham English]

Yeah, sorry to hear you got rid of those keys. I looked for a Clav for years and became Enlightened and was immediately transported into a new plane of existence when I first plugged it into my Fender Twin with a Vox wah-wah and let her rip http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I'm in a delimma because I have NI's B4 and I also own a XB-2 w/ a real Leslie 122. What do I use for recording? The B4 sounds so real! But I always go for the real Leslie. The air moving my pant leg as I play puts me in the place where I'll produce the more realistic experience. But it's all real even if it ain't. So I can dig the need for a more manageable rig.

Hell, I had to get a membership to a gym just to be strong enough to carry my Leslie, XB-2, Clav (it's damn heavy in the case!), Fender Twin, Wurlitzer, Trinity, and the absolute motha of a piano- the CP-70. Am I nuts?

Maybe, but I swear it's worth it......and all the gear looks cool on stage http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by transrational:

I'm in a delimma because I have NI's B4 and I also own a XB-2 w/ a real Leslie 122. What do I use for recording? The B4 sounds so real! But I always go for the real Leslie. The air moving my pant leg as I play puts me in the place where I'll produce the more realistic experience.

 

Oh, you've gotta try the B4 - I'm using it on this project that I'm doing right now, and it sits in a track like nothing else that I've ever used except for the Real Actual Thing. It's not the same physical experience - it's more like getting to play the sounds like they are right off of the record...that's the beauty of B4. From the time you think about adding Hammond until the time that it's in the can is basically just as long as it takes you to play the part - no muss, no fuss, no messy cleanup. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

YMMV, of course, but I'm still so tickled by the fact that this awesome sound is coming out of my Mac that I had no problem going right to the happy place, if yaknowwhutahmean.

 

Others of you must have tried recording with B4 at this point - what do you think?

 

dB

[Guest]

Guess if you were really really keen, you could try and get hold of one of the new Major Key rhodes which are remakes of the old rhodes

 

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/loughran/newrhodes.jpg

 

Yep thats right its a new 54 key!!!! DOn't know when its officially out though and oh the rhodes badge was just put there for that pic.. it won't be the one in the production. They plan to amke 73 and 88s to with and without MIDI. They'll be dear... but like you say you can't beat a real rhodes.

 

Believe me it isn't a wind up, it really is the real deal. Check out the rhodes list at egroups for more info.

 

Peace

Neil

[Guest]

Sorry... didn't show

 

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/loughran/newrhodes.jpg

[murph]

Dave, how do you get by with no control on the B-4? I agree that the sounds are there, providing you don't need to change them. I would think that the lack of drawbar control would drive you insane!

[Guest]

Heres the link to the new 54

 

http://www.fenderrhodes.org/rhodes/supersite/articles/MK54/index.html

[Guest]

Heres the link to the new 54

 

http://www.fenderrhodes.org/rhodes/supersite/articles/MK54/index.html

 

Enjoy!

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by murph:

Dave, how do you get by with no control on the B-4? I agree that the sounds are there, providing you don't need to change them. I would think that the lack of drawbar control would drive you insane!

 

Whaddaya mean, Murph?

 

The drawbars (and all kinds of other controls in B4) respond to cc's, mah brutha...

 

For the bars, they start at cc#12 and go straight up from there. I use the sliders on my QS7.1 for now, but I 've gotta get me one of them there assignable slider boxes...

 

dB

[Steve44]

Originally posted by transrational:

I'm in a delimma because I have NI's B4 and I also own a XB-2 w/ a real Leslie 122. What do I use for recording? The B4 sounds so real! But I always go for the real Leslie. The air moving my pant leg as I play puts me in the place where I'll produce the more realistic experience

 

Maybe you could set up the leslie sim in the B4 so that its slow/fast and accel/decel times were pretty much the same as your 122, but then sort of use the 122 to as a super-realistic monitor speaker. It's kinda like putting reverb through the headphones for vocalists.. you have to have the right experience in the studio to have a good performance. But recording-wise you're likely to get a great sound from just the B4. So set up your XB-2 to be a midi controller for B4, track through B4 straight to disk, but use the XB-2's output and your 122 for monitoring. Heck, you could probably record the 122 miked as well just for comparison's sake. But miking is the hardest part, and the reason to use B4 instead.

 

oops, I think the only glitch would be trying to get your Leslie controls to send MIDI.. doh. Well I guess if you track it side by side you could go in afterwards and do the Leslie.. but that would be dumb. Hmmmm...

Well it was just a thought, anyway...

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by SteveFortner:

A couple of problems with the PLG-150PF piano board for the S-80, which caused me to save my bucks for something else, are

 

1) A very Trinity-esque program change latency. This seems to be the case with all the expansion boards for the Yamaha S-80 / CS6x. It does not happen with the keyboard's internal sounds.

 

2) Worse, there is a perceptible note-on latency. When one is playing two-handed block chords, for example, there is an audible "flam" between notes that should all be sounding at the same time. Once you've experienced this, you tend to hear it a little bit with less dense chords as well. It would appear the S-80 addresses its internal ROM faster than it does the expansion board, because I have not been able to make this happen with the internal piano sounds.

 

A shame really, because the pianos on that PLG board are nice, and have a less "sampled" quality. Are you listening, Yamaha?

 

Yes, they are.

 

I asked Athan Billias, who is the DMI Marketing Manager for Yamaha America if he could respond to these issues, which he was kind enough to do. His response is as follows:

 

Basically you have to remember that the PLB boards are exactly like external MIDI devices. The interface between the Boards and the Host synth is MIDI, Stereo Digital Audio in/out and 5 Volts.

 

On the Host Program , you have offsets for a wide range of parameters some standard ( attack, release, filter, resonance. etc) and some algorithm dependent ( FM mod index, vocal harmony Gender, VL Growl, etc. ) . So in addition to a regular program change message, a great deal of parameter data is also sent which takes longer than a simple program change.

 

Similarly, the host sends standard MIDI baud rate note ons to the PLG card. The fact that MIDI is a serial interface and how much delay is introduced by this is well documented. Other than that there should be no timing differences between the internal voices and those on the card.

 

That would be the official response from the source.

 

dB

[Graham English]

Okay, I'll try the B-4 on a recording. But I need to control the drawbars from my XB-2. And I don't know what controlers the XB-2's drawbars transmit. Can anyone help me with that?

[Jay]

Originally posted by transrational:

I play the Clav and Wurlitzer live and would never use a fake one. Especially the Clav! You just can't mimmick it's funk! It's unique and always will be.

 

Hey--

 

It's POSSIBLE to mimic a clavinet's "funk" on a synth, just not easy. In fact, I'm trying to do exactly that on my Yamaha S80 for a gig this weekend, using the clav patch for Stevie Wonder's "Superstition" on a fully-weighted keyboard. You really have to get the hand action exactly right for that "chuck-a" effect.

 

Great forum guys,

 

Jay

[Graham English]

Oh alright, maybe you can "mimic," but you can't recreate it! Gotta have the real thing or it's like doin' it with a rubber.