alby Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Man, I bought a Yamaha P90 largely on the posts by Petros, now everyone is saying that he is a lunatic? I should have listened to the Keyboard Sales guy and bought the Roland RD170. Damm, I knew it. Or maybe the Casio thing I saw in Tandy's. I hope he is a real guy with a P90, P120 and a P250. Alby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analogaddict Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by alby: Man, I bought a Yamaha P90 largely on the posts by Petros, now everyone is saying that he is a lunatic? I should have listened to the Keyboard Sales guy and bought the Roland RD170. Damm, I knew it. Or maybe the Casio thing I saw in Tandy's. I hope he is a real guy with a P90, P120 and a P250. AlbyDon´t worry about it, the P90 kicks ass! IMO, there´s nothing better than the P:s when it comes to digital pianos right now! /J nas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Horne Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by alby: Man, I bought a Yamaha P90 largely on the posts by Petros, now everyone is saying that he is a lunatic? I should have listened to the Keyboard Sales guy and bought the Roland RD170. Damm, I knew it. Or maybe the Casio thing I saw in Tandy's. I hope he is a real guy with a P90, P120 and a P250. AlbyThings might be getting a tad overblown. Everyone is not calling Petros a lunatic - I think we can accurately say that he has a one track mind re the mono output of the P-250. I personally believe he is very upset that his purchase didn't live up to his expectations (using a mono amp). (I have a one track mind when it comes to correctly labeling altered scales, but that does not make me a lunatic or a troll.) I really wish Petros would return and make a statement - either an apology or just a general statement. I think it's a bit too soon to schedule a lynching. No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message. In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo schultz Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 I'm with Dave on this. It's easy to get a little carried away when you're writing a letter or a post, the trouble is it's too easy to send it with a click of the mouse. As Ann Landers says, go ahead and lose your temper and write whatever the hell you want, just when you're finished tear it up and throw it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bryce Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Dave Horne: I really wish Petros would return and make a statement - either an apology or just a general statement. I think it's a bit too soon to schedule a lynching. Fully agreed. dB ==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 You know what? The whole stereo/mono thing deserves more serious discussion, but that won't happen now because petros went and got hysterical about it. Therefore... STRING 'EM UP! How about a good mono sample played thru a mono-yet-omni projector such as the Bose Stick? I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guestuserguestuser.com Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by coyote: You know what? The whole stereo/mono thing deserves more serious discussion, but that won't happen now because petros went and got hysterical about it. Therefore... STRING 'EM UP! How about a good mono sample played thru a mono-yet-omni projector such as the Bose Stick?Yes, I agree. For instance, it's my opinion that the acoustic piano (the real one, I mean) is a mono instrument. Others here (DB for instance) say it's a stereo instrument. I think it would be interesting to discuss that (without getting hysterical!) Ok, I know it's not regular mono instrument, since it has a lot of strings, and is big and everything. But it's not really stereo either, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABid Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 For the most part, it is only stereo for the person sitting at the piano. I say this even though I hate to once again bump a thread that probably should be dead and burried. Robert This post edited for speling. My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Horne Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Rabid: For the most part, it is only stereo for the person sitting at the piano. RobertPerhaps not for van Gogh. No guitarists were harmed during the making of this message. In general, harmonic complexity is inversely proportional to the ratio between chording and non-chording instruments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP3 Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by Guest User: For instance, it's my opinion that the acoustic piano (the real one, I mean) is a mono instrument. Others here (DB for instance) say it's a stereo instrument. I think it would be interesting to discuss that (without getting hysterical!) Ok, I know it's not regular mono instrument, since it has a lot of strings, and is big and everything. But it's not really stereo either, IMO.It's really more than stereo, if you define stereo as sound coming from two points. A piano is difficult to record well and even more difficult to emulate from a group of samples. The interaction of the strings, soundboard, pedals and hammers all so variable that the real thing is likely to nerver be captured 100%. Mono, it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Mr. Bryce and I had a discussion on this board a couple years ago pertaining to this topic. I kept finding the Alesis stereo samples somewhat 'fizzy', especially on my old NanoPiano. While I do often practice using the Rhodes MK80 to trigger the QS71 stereo grand thru headphones, for live performance my ultimate solution has been the grand piano model in the MK80. It has more upfront 'presence' in both its attack and decay than the sampled pianos, and of course no velo-switching. And the lack of polyphony has rarely been a problem; for those tunes where I require many sustained tones I can layer the QS piano With careful EQing the MK80 sounds very good in a live context. I've wondered about this. Good as the various sampled pianos are (and most of 'em sound pretty damn good) that 'presence' I referred to above seems lacking in all rompler samples that I've heard. I don't even know exactly how to describe it except to say that the samples have a 'distance' component in their sound. Who knows - maybe the solution to Petros' problem as a Roland MKS20? (Yeah I know the MK80 is 15 year old technology. Maybe I'm just an idiot lol) I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABid Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by TinderArts: It's really more than stereo, if you define stereo as sound coming from two points....The same could be said about a choir, a drum set, a guitar, the sound of someone walking across the floor, etc. Stereo is not defined as a sound source coming only from two points, but is a representation of the spread of sound across a one dimensional line. Originally posted by TinderArts: A piano is difficult to record well and even more difficult to emulate from a group of samples. The interaction of the strings, soundboard, pedals and hammers all so variable that the real thing is likely to nerver be captured 100%. Mono, it is not.This has nothing to do with it being stereo or mono. A piano is much easier to capture in samples than an electric guitar, saxophone, or even a drum set. The playing variables of a piano are which notes are hit, the velocity of those notes, and symphonic resonance from either held notes or pedal. This resonance is the hardest thing to get right in an electronic representation. A drum set is even more complicated. You have resonance from drums and cymbals. Velocity can affect the initial pitch when striking a drum, the location of the stick on the head affects the tone and decay, and while you don't quickly change the mallet or felt on a piano, you can change sticks easily on a drum set and thus ad another variable. And yet I would rather play a drum part from samples than a sax part. But I also prefer the sax to be mono while I want the drums panned. Robert This post edited for speling. My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bryce Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Dave Horne: Originally posted by Rabid: For the most part, it is only stereo for the person sitting at the piano. RobertPerhaps not for van Gogh. Originally posted by TinderArts: It's really more than stereo, if you define stereo as sound coming from two points. A piano is difficult to record well and even more difficult to emulate from a group of samples. The interaction of the strings, soundboard, pedals and hammers all so variable that the real thing is likely to nerver be captured 100%. Mono, it is not.That's pretty much the way I look at it. You can't really isolate an acoustic piano as a single point source, as is possible with an electronic instrument with a single output. Originally posted by Rabid: A piano is much easier to capture in samples than an electric guitar, saxophone, or even a drum set. The playing variables of a piano are which notes are hit, the velocity of those notes, and symphonic resonance from either held notes or pedal. This resonance is the hardest thing to get right in an electronic representation. I'm confused, Rab - your statement seems to be contradicted by the example you give...am I missing something? The sympathetic resonances of notes being held, the ringing of the harp when the damper pedal is down, and the way that the multiple notes interact with each other at many different velocities make the piano more difficult to reproduce with samples of single keys than, say, a sax or drum set, don't they? dB ==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITGITC Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Well, I had a discussion with Lee Flier about this topic and the new BOSE speakers a while back. She was pretty adamant about her opinion as I was about mine. And I'd like to apologize to Lee Flier if she thought I was rude to her. We're both pretty hard-headed and passionate about our sound. And when it comes down to it, that's a good thing! With that said, I think the piano samples from my Kurzweil PC2X sound great in stereo. That's how I would like the audience to hear my sound. But, I have to agree with Lee - that may not be how they actually HEAR my sound from where they sit in the audience. In my discussion with Lee I said that I would want to purchase TWO BOSE sticks and their subwoofers, but at $4,000 that was expensive. She proclaimed that I really only needed one and that I should be playing in MONO because people in the audience couldn't hear the stereo effect anyway. Given the example of a conventional PA system in a large venue it probably is better to run in mono than stereo. But I still think that using the BOSE speakers in a smaller setting, I'd get a better sound from my Kurz with TWO sticks and subs running in stereo than just ONE with my output in MONO. And, in that smaller setting, there is a good chance that at least SOME of that stereo image could be heard by members of the audience. Yes? No? What do you think? Anyway, I'd like to go on record that whatever ultimately sounds best to me, the band, AND the audience is what matters the most. As for Petros, well, I'm glad he brought this up. Manufacturers do indeed put STEREO outputs on their keyboards. You would think that they should be played in stereo. It's a shame that stereo samples don't sound as good in mono, but what can you do? It's a phase thing, right? We'll just have to deal with it. It's a shame that musicians put a lot of money into great-sounding keyboards, yet many end up performing with crappy amps/speakers. I can't blame Petros for trying to get everyone's opinions on which speakers on the market today are going to be the best for this application. It's a serious decision and makes all the difference in the world to the final product. Life is short. I'm through arguing. And we've exhausted this topic - for now. It's getting late. I think I'll go back to my Kurz, put on my headphones, and practice some more... (in stereo!) Is There Gas In The Car? "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RABid Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I probably did not go into enough detail. Resonance on a piano is a factor. But on sax you have many factors that affect sound. Pressure of the lips on the reed, how you blow and how hard you blow, tounging a note, easing off of a pad to let just a bit of air slip through. There is also the ability to affect changes within a single note. Let me ask you Dave, which is easier to convincingly cover on a ROMpler, the piano part in The Way it Is, the guitar part in Panama, or the sax solo in Money? There is a dimension there that cannot be captured and replicated in a sample set as they are recorded and played today. One more thing. Going back to my statement that a piano is only really stereo to the person setting at the piano. Consider that if the listener sits right in front of the stage, on the side with a piano, then the piano still has a bit of spread in the sound field. As the listener moves back, deeper into the crowd and away from the stage, that natural field narrows and the piano becomes as much of a mono instrument as a guitar or saxophone. Only in an electronic media is the 6 foot wide image of a piano spread across a 30 foot stage. So in your mix you have to decide, do you spread every thing to full width, or do you choose a more natural, acoustic spread in which a real piano is limited to one spot? Robert This post edited for speling. My Sweetwater Gear Exchange Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg1155 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 As long as you have two ears, everything is stereo. I'm willing to admit that some things may be more than stereo, but for sure nothing is mono (in its natural state that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bryce Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Rabid: I probably did not go into enough detail. Resonance on a piano is a factor. But on sax you have many factors that affect sound. Pressure of the lips on the reed, how you blow and how hard you blow, tounging a note, easing off of a pad to let just a bit of air slip through. There is also the ability to affect changes within a single note.Agreed and understood. I might argue that many of these facets of the sax can be duplicated with good programming and tasteful use of continuous controllers, though...ask Bill Busch - the man does wonders with synthesized sax. Phil Clendennin of Yamaha is equally adept. Let me ask you Dave, which is easier to convincingly cover on a ROMpler, the piano part in The Way it Is, the guitar part in Panama, or the sax solo in Money? There is a dimension there that cannot be captured and replicated in a sample set as they are recorded and played today.Once again, understood. ...and, once again, I would say that I have heard all three instruments replicated pretty convincingly and all three replicated poorly. Depends on the sample (set), the synth engine, the player, and the tune. One more thing. Going back to my statement that a piano is only really stereo to the person setting at the piano. Consider that if the listener sits right in front of the stage, on the side with a piano, then the piano still has a bit of spread in the sound field. As the listener moves back, deeper into the crowd and away from the stage, that natural field narrows and the piano becomes as much of a mono instrument as a guitar or saxophone. Only in an electronic media is the 6 foot wide image of a piano spread across a 30 foot stage. So in your mix you have to decide, do you spread every thing to full width, or do you choose a more natural, acoustic spread in which a real piano is limited to one spot? I'd still contest that the piano is by nature a much wider image than most (if not all) other acoustic instruments. Perhaps the biggest difference in our positions is that I am tending to view it as a performer/recording engineer, not as an audience member. What's more, I'd contend that a piano in a smaller venue will also come across as more of a stereo instrument than almost any other acoustic instrument. Your definition/example is certainly true in larger venues. In my contexts, I believe it is clearly more applicable to view it as being much larger than a mono instrument. dB ==> David Bryce Music • Funky Young Monks <== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dementia13 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Dave Horne: I really wish Petros would return and make a statement - either an apology or just a general statement. I think it's a bit too soon to schedule a lynching. Agreed, and- take this the right way- let's not create a general atmosphere of gossip..."He posted this, he posted that". The general tone of what he wrote really didn't sound right, and it's probably not a good thing for him to be a topic of conversation right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alby Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by dementia13: Originally posted by Dave Horne: I really wish Petros would return and make a statement - either an apology or just a general statement. I think it's a bit too soon to schedule a lynching. Agreed, and- take this the right way- let's not create a general atmosphere of gossip..."He posted this, he posted that". The general tone of what he wrote really didn't sound right, and it's probably not a good thing for him to be a topic of conversation right now.I think that the bottom line is that the Forum is a better place with Petros, than without him (or her?). There have been certainly more rubbish topics posted in forums than Petro's topics. I don't agree with any personal attacks on Mike or Db (or any other members of this forum). I have learnt alot from his postings. And really, he has always pushed the Yamaha P's consistently, so I dont think he is a Yamaha basher. By the way, I love the P90 I bought. It is a great board. Regards Alby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve123 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Wow, I've been watching this littany for a long time. I couldn't figure out this guys beef. If we take him at his word he owned all those Yamaha P-series pianos and a pair of Mackie SRM450s. He opines that digital pianos should be in stereo. Continuosly peppers the forum with messages about comparing other powered speakers presumably because the Mackies are "too heavy." Runs his piano in mono and comes to the conclusion that the Mackies sound bad. Sells the SRM 450s. Then discovers (surprise, suprise)that an electronic instrument doesn't sound as good in mono as stereo. Then bitches at Yamaha about it and accuses our moderator of collusion. Newsflash: the SRM 450s are excellent and are not "heavy" for what they do because you would be hard pressed to find a substitute that was substantially lighter. Also, all things being equal (and I'm not sure if equality has any meaning in this context), stereo generally sounds better than mono. (I'm also coming to appreciate that surround sound may be better than stereo as well, but I'm not going to be using a surround sound rig live any time soon.) Monophonic sound and lighter speakers will entail some compromise. He should have kept the rig he had, got a nice equalizer and got a dolly to roll it around with. Peace, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurrealMcCoyJazz Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I've watched Petros (Rintincop, mreddyson, pianoman) continually repeat his same patterns at Harmony Central. He will take a legitimate issue and "bombard" the same issue with multiple threads until he is either banned or frustrates everyone trying to communicate back. When he finally realizes that he's gone too far. He usually announces that he will be leaving the forum........only to return with a new alias..... I don't believe the guy has a "beef" especially with Yamaha......as he used to constantly complain about his Kurzweil PC2X also........ He doesn't usually respond to any sort of direct confrontation.......so I wouldn't expect any sort of apology to anyone who's been offended. He's a bright, intelligent being who has raised some excellent questions......... It's unfortunate that his obsessive nature seems to get the better of him........ Surreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steadyb Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 So Petros has a problem with the "Official NBA" thread does he... Bring it on P-man... b r i n g - i t - o n ! ! ! p.s. Go Lakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.