Mono/stereo piano design suggestion.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Here'e s design suggestion for Yamaha, or whomever:

 

Since some people desire a mono stage piano and others desire stereo, why not make the sample ROM user-replaceable? Then sell both stereo and mono ROM blocks, user can buy which ever one he wants. When buying new piano, user gets to choose which one comes dealer-installed.

 

Potential advantage for manufacturer: make more money by selling additional ROM blocks to users; one block could be all mono piano; one could be all stereo piano; one could be all Rhodes; one could be a mixture of Rhodes & piano, one could be mono+stereo+rhodes. etc. etc. ad $$$-eum.

 

Or, here's another way around it: each instrument could have multiple rom block ports, one for acoustic piano, one for electric piano, perhaps one for organ and other instruments, then the user could choose a set of rom blocks.

 

Some people might buy a bunch of different rom blocks for different circumstances. Perhaps the same ROM blocks could be used in several different instruments, which would make the whole thing more economical for the manufacturer.

 

Maybe they could be opened up to third-party developers ("Buy the new Garriton Bosendorfer mono piano blok for your P12000!")

 

For the mono ROM block, stereo could be simulated to some extent by left-to-right posiitioning of each key sample, and through the use of stereo effects such as reverb. Must be user-cancellable, of course.

 

Also, please include both stereo and mono outputs that can be used *at the same time* and with both responding to volume control. This is needed in case user wants to run stage monitors in stereo, but still send a mono feed to front of house.

 

Come to think of it, a CC-control pedal input would be nice, routable to midi volume or whatever. But, I digress.

 

One advantage for mono: let's say the instrument can address 1 GB of sample ROM memory (can we jump up to at least 1GB? Or would that much ROM still be too expensive?). On a mono block, the mono samples get to use the whole 1 GB, whereas on a stereo block, each half of the stereo image only gets 1/2 a GB. Seems to me the mono block could therefore be more detailed, have more velocity layers, longer loop portions, whatever.

 

Well, it's just a suggestion.

[Bartolomeo]

The chief advantage would be that sample would no longer represent a compromise.

 

Mono outputs on any stereo-sampled instrument suffer from some loss due to phase cancellation. I don't know this for sure, but I imagine that the mic placement is chosen to minimize this to some extent, with a resultant loss of imaging in the stereo sample. Having seperate samples for mono and stereo would remove the need for this.

 

Bartolomeo.

[daBowsa]

I agree with having stereo and mono outs available at the same time, but for both reasons. Sometimes I take my small mono amp and want to send stereo to the house, sometimes I take my larger stereo amp but the house is mono only.

 

Instead of having to choose what you want mono or stereo, how about just including both? I guess it doubles the amount of ROM needed, but we're gigging musicians - every club, stage and soundguy is different in every town. Why not make something that works anywhere and can adapt to any situation.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by dabowsa:

Instead of having to choose what you want mono or stereo, how about just including both? I guess it doubles the amount of ROM needed, but we're gigging musicians - every club, stage and soundguy is different in every town. Why not make something that works anywhere and can adapt to any situation.

That was part of my original suggestion. (EDIT: That is to say, that's what I meant in my original suggestion, even if I didn't explcitly say it!) You could have mono-only block to satisfy the mono-only user, stereo-only block to satifsy the stereo-only user, and mono+stereo block to satisfy the user who wants both.

[Tedly Nightshade]

I really value the way the Kawai MP9000 gives you two sets of outputs, one TS stereo or mono (just plug in left for mono), one XLR stereo without a volume control for the purest signal. Unfortunately the XLR stereo only one is fake balanced which is unnecessary cheap circuitry. If you really want it balanced or to drive a long line you need a DI, like all these other fake balanced outs on all these keyboards... how about some nice transformers, guys? It's ridiculous to put little glowy tubes in there for sex appeal and not have real transformer balanced outputs.

 

It's very common to need a stage amp/monitor feed and a board feed, and both might need a volume control. I like the Kawai compromise because there is a clean unattenuated output, and it does sound significantly better than the one with the volume control. Actually I'm running mine in mono exclusively and summing the stereo L&R out externally in a nice tube mixer. If there was a mono clean unattenuated mono out I would use that, and I would prefer it didn't pretend to be balanced (but it looks so pro! ).

 

It should be standard to put out mono and stereo simultaneously, or two stereo feeds, for monitor/stage amp and board/mains/recording. You shouldn't have to buy anything extra to have stereo and mono work with no compromise for everything.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

I really value the way the Kawai MP9000 gives you two sets of outputs, one TS stereo or mono (just plug in left for mono), one XLR stereo without a volume control for the purest signal.

The P120 has something similar; there's a set of outputs on phone jacks that are attenuated by the volume slider and have a summed mono option, and another set on RCA jacks, that are not attenuated by the slider, and do not have a summed mono option. Not quite as good as your semi-balanced XLR outputs, but it's similar in that it's un-attenuated and has no summed mono option.

 

For me, I'd prefer it if both sets of outputs were identical: i.e., both attenuated by the same volume slider, and both can be used as either stereo or (summed) mono.

 

Although I can also see the value of a clean, unattenuated output.

 

It's hard for the manufacturers to please everyone!

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Correction to my original post: it turns out the P120 does have CC inputs, I had forgotten that. I checked the manual - both pedal inputs are actually CC, not momentary switch-type, although they can work with either continuous or momentary pedals. The AUX pedal input defualts to soft pedal, but you can also set it to do a few other things, such as expression (which I assume is MIDI CC#11, a secondary volume)

 

However, I haven't actually tried hooking a CC pedal up yet, maybe I'll do that later tonight and see what happens.

 

The only drawback is that there are only two pedal inputs, and the logical thing would be to use the main one as a sustain pedal input, and the other one as a soft pedal input. You could use the AUX input with a CC pedal, and control expression if you want, but then you've lost your soft pedal.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

I really value the way the Kawai MP9000 gives you two sets of outputs, one TS stereo or mono (just plug in left for mono), one XLR stereo without a volume control for the purest signal.

The P120 has something similar; there's a set of outputs on phone jacks that are attenuated by the volume slider and have a summed mono option, and another set on RCA jacks, that are not attenuated by the slider, and do not have a summed mono option. Not quite as good as your semi-balanced XLR outputs, but it's similar in that it's un-attenuated and has no summed mono option.

 

For me, I'd prefer it if both sets of outputs were identical: i.e., both attenuated by the same volume slider, and both can be used as either stereo or (summed) mono.

 

Although I can also see the value of a clean, unattenuated output.

 

It's hard for the manufacturers to please everyone!

I think it's valuable to have separate volume controls so you can adjust your monitor volume without messing with the PA or recording feed.

 

XLR is a far better connector than RCA, but the pseudo-balanced bit damages the sound. Unbalanced 1/4" or XLR (yes, there is such a thing as unbalanced XLR! would be best, followed by unbalanced RCA. Pseudo-balancing things is not real desireable.