Keyboard workstations - mature, obsolete, or just on a plateau

[soundscape]

Originally posted by The Pro:

There are several great posts here like this one which are apparently in support of the workstation concept but actually make the argument against them.

 

By the time it takes to design/develop and bring workstations to market they are old when they hit the shelf, the Motif ES being the case in point. Even today the street price on a bare Motif ES 8 is about $2800 and the memory and obsolete smart media cards and plug-in sound boards can easily raise the investment by hundreds more, which could buy a LOT of quality up-to-date computing power and software if spent elsewhere. You can buy a nice piano softsynth today that will blow away anything made for the Motif past present or future, but some people still hang on the words of Yamaha reps hoping for a hint of better things to come for their rapidly aging workstation.

As I've said in other posts, there are pros and cons to both approaches. The workstations are becoming more "software-based" as we can see with OASYS, so some of these cons may be obviate in time.

 

The point is that while the basic technology may be "out of date," what's important is not the basic technology but the implementation. Very often people will look at technology in terms of raw figures (such as CPU and bus speed) but what you're really looking at is the "burst" (max. speed) whereas for a musical instrument what's important is consistent performance in terms of latency, polyphony, etc. In general with a fixed platform, there is a good opportunity to optimize for the system. I've come across plug-ins with big sample sizes or well regarded "virtual analog" plug-ins, only to find that everything chokes with more than 10 notes or even half a dozen notes, and the aliasing is quite audible in relatively low registers. This is a sure sign of software that has not been optimized in all respects.

 

There were some great patches even on the old Roland D-50, to this day "Staccato Heaven" ( http://www.synthmania.com/Synthesizers/Roland/D-50/Audio/Preset%20demos/Factory/61%20Staccato%20Heaven.mp3 ) still sounds fantastic to me. And as mentioned, many still use the MPCs for their "tightness." (Although I'd expect a "sample accurate" plug-in to be as good or better? So I wonder what's actually going on here?)

 

Bottom line is, new technology brings new opportunities but does not guarantee a beautiful sounding and playable instrument. Instrument design is "art and science" and the characteristic of art is that it doesn't get better in time, rather we end up with classics throughout the ages along with a lot of mediocrity and outright junk.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by keynote:

The Roland E-80 manual clearly states that the WAV ROM is 1 Giga'bit' not byte. So Roland flubbed up by posting the 1 gigabyte on their web site apparently. I would tend to believe the manual instead of a typo by some careless or un-informed web master.

More than likely whoever wrote the press release screwed up.

 

 

There is a real tendency to treat large companies as monolithic entities that exist for the sole purpose of extracting money and will say and do anything to achieve this goal. In the real world, things don't aren't so smooth! With the Tyros, Yamaha posted the compressed Wave ROM figure (96 Mb.) Then on the "cut down" version of the Tyros, the PSR-3000, they posted the uncompressed figure (100Mb), making it look like the cheaper model had *more* Wave ROM! Oh, except on the Yamaha Europe site it says (PSR-3000 features):

 

"More than 100MB of Wave ROM (in 16bit linear format) with Sweet, Cool and Mega Voices"

 

and...

 

" Further features:

61 keys with touch response

16MB Wave ROM"

 

(!)

 

 

Originally posted by keynote:

I would guess a lot of musicians are not into the technical side of keyboard technology and possibly wouldn't understand a lot of the mumbo-jumbo such as linear vs. compressed or other complex aspects of different keyboard processes.

Well, there is certainly a level of confusion as a result. It's tough, though, because if your competitors are all listing the uncompressed figures, what are you going to state? And what if you have a better compression technology, how are you going to get that point across? Assuming the compression is transparent or near-transparent, it seems to me better to list the uncompressed figures as they better represent the 'true' Wave ROM size.

 

HOWEVER... IMO the bigger problem is these "Wave ROM" and "sample size" crude figure comparisons in the first place! It doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the samples nor of the presets' programming nor of the quality of the synth engine (including filters, etc.) which can enormously affect the sound.

 

It should be remembered that a ROMpler is a "sample AND SYNTHESIS" synth, NOT just a "sample playback machine".

 

Originally posted by keynote:

Now if the WAV ROM of the Tyros2 was "uncompressed" i.e. 300MB uncompressed, you better believe Yamaha would have undoubtedly made every effort to proudly display that fact on their web site. As it stands now they seem to have apparent reservations about posting anything.

The only thing I might guess is that they did not want the MOTIF's 175Mb uncompressed Wave ROM to look bad by comparison. Who knows. The first I heard of the 300Mb figure was when a Yamaha rep. posted on another forum. I don't recall any obfuscation over compressed vs. uncompressed, besides on that forum he was dealing with an informed audience who would for sure ask such questions.

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

For me, it wouldn't matter when the next Oasys-buster keyboard gets released. I'm happy with my Oasys and K2600, and that's all that matters.

How do you find the OASYS' sound compares with the Kurzweil?

Honestly, I think they both sound really good. Lately, I've primarily worked with a piano (digital and accoustic), a electric piano, and a few organ patches.

 

I prefer the sound of the stock accoustic piano patches on the Oasys, but the one on the Kurzweil isn't bad. (I use a Steinway 7' grand as my reference point for sound and feel.)

 

They're sound pretty much equal on their digital piano patches. Without using any effects, they sound pretty much equal also on the organ patches I used. However, if used with effects, then I'd give a slight nod to the Oasys.

 

As a brass player, I don't think either of their brass patches--at least the stock ones--are accurate, but they both sound pretty good (and the Oasys defintely has more of an edge here).

 

I like both the bass patches on both. Although they don't sound exactly the same, I think I'd use them differently depending on what concept I have in mind. Right now, I think the stock analog bass patches sound a little better though on the Oasys; however, they can be tweaked a little on the Kurzweil to sound just as nice IMHO.

 

Now, this might (or might not) come as a shock: right now, I prefer the feel of the key action on my Kurzweil to that of the Oasys. Perhaps, that might also be due to the fact that I've had my K2600 for a little over a year, and I've barely had my Oasys for a month. I actually prefer the look and feel of my K2600, but at least the feel--not the look--of the Oasys is starting to grow on me. I don't like the dials and joysticks. I prefer my ribbon, but the velocity sensitive buttons are starting to grow on me--especially after having checked out a few Stephen Kay videos.

 

The setups look more intuitive--at least by design--and feel a bit more natural to me on the Oasys.

[JeffLearman]

Pretty much every argument for a workstation can be met or exceeded with a laptop and controller combo, but very few arguments for a laptop can be filled with a workstation... unless it's one of those nEko's that can do email also, but a nEko won't fit in my carry-on.

Hmm, tried playing a tune on a laptop lately? The keys are too small, arranged poorly, and not dynamic (and forget weighted!)

 

Frankly, I no longer have any use for a keyboard workstation. I only use my PC DAW for that, since it's hundreds of times better in virtually every way. However, I agree with Tusker that the market for them will continue, though dwindled.

 

Eventually, the obvious distinction between a workstation keyboard and a computer will disappear. I look forward to the days when we'll have a number of different motherboards to choose from to plug into our MIDI keyboards to generate on-board sounds. The motherboard can run Windows, MacOS, Linux, or whatever, and the keyboard comes with drivers and software for each. There's one or more monitor output connectors for when we have the big screen(s), and an ergonomic flat panel display built in for when we don't.

 

OK, I guess I can wake up now, but I do think it's possible for something like that to happen. It probably will when the cost of the sound-generating hardware for synths exceeds the cost for small form-factor motherboards with equivalent capabilities.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by dp2:

Originally posted by soundscape:

How do you find the OASYS' sound compares with the Kurzweil?

Honestly, I think they both sound really good.

Very interesting. I haven't had a chance to play on an OASYS yet but the one thing about Kurzweils is they seem to have "that" sort of "magic ingredient" and sparkle to the sound. I wish I could define it technically, and I'm sure it can be (although it's probably lots of factors) but you know it when you hear it. Going by the demos I'm not sure the OASYS has it so much, although it certainly sounds good.

 

How do you find the OASYS' user interface compares to a desktop computer?

[dp2]

Originally posted by soundscape:

Originally posted by dp2:

Originally posted by soundscape:

How do you find the OASYS' sound compares with the Kurzweil?

Honestly, I think they both sound really good.

Very interesting. I haven't had a chance to play on an OASYS yet but the one thing about Kurzweils is they seem to have "that" sort of "magic ingredient" and sparkle to the sound. I wish I could define it technically, and I'm sure it can be (although it's probably lots of factors) but you know it when you hear it. Going by the demos I'm not sure the OASYS has it so much, although it certainly sounds good.

 

How do you find the OASYS' user interface compares to a desktop computer?

I'll have to get back with you on that one. I haven't spent as much time focusing on the user experience with the UI. Right now, my primary concern is how do I get the sounds I want.

 

I've only touched on some of the simpler setups on both. I think when I get to doing more sequencing than I'm doing right now, then I'll dig in more deeply into the user experience with the UI issues.

 

For me, there's no dilemma: I choose both. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Besides, having both will enable me to work others in both camps (hence more gigs).

[Ravi Ivan Sharma]

Originally posted by Tusker:

The workstation is like the minivan. It's very practical.

 

Jerry

I love synth-car comparisons! To me the Minimoog is a Porche 911.

 

To me, a cutdown rompler is more like a minivan with the high end workstations like SUVs as an earlier poster opined. Fancy, yet bloated. Yet fancy.

[JeffLearman]

I usually use Mb to mean Megabytes, and Mbits to mean Megabits.

FYI, Soundscape, in the computer and communications industries, we use "Mb" for "megabit" and MB for "megabyte". Mbit and Mbyte would be less ambiguous to those who aren't familiar with this convention, of course.

 

The French dislike the vulgar Americanism "byte", and prefer "octet", thus the use of that term in all ISO standards (ISO being a division of the UN). But I've never seen anyone use "Mo".

 

The French also dislike the American term "decrypt", since in their language it sounds like "disinter". Language is funny.

[Dave Pierce]

Originally posted by learjeff:

I usually use Mb to mean Megabytes, and Mbits to mean Megabits.

FYI, Soundscape, in the computer and communications industries, we use "Mb" for "megabit" and MB for "megabyte".

Completely true. Using Mb for megabytes will be confusing to anyone who works in the industry, for sure.

 

We also tend to use "bits" to measure bandwidth and communications, and "bytes" to measure disk space and file size. It would be quite unusual to hear a T1 line referred to as a 193KB connection, although it would be accurate. It would also be unusual to say a TB filesystem had 8Tb of space, although that would also be accurate.

 

--Dave

[soundscape]

In most of the telecommunications literature I've seen, bit/s (kbit/s, etc. ) or bps (kbps) is the standard.

 

Otherwise, I'm astonished to hear of any such "consistency"... sometimes terms are used rather sloppily such as baud (i.e., the signaling rate) conflated with bit/s. Taking a quick look around it appears that MB is the standard for Megabytes, I guess I simply hadn't noticed; I'll be sure to use it from now on. However, I think using capitalization to differentiate between "byte" and "bit" is bound to result in error and confusion, so I'll continue to use Mbits rather than use Mb for Megabits.

 

Thanks for the info on Octet, I wondered where that came from. (I suppose at least it's fairly obvious what it means.)

 

 

On the topic of file systems, since disks are usually measured in terms of kilo=1000 and not 1024, it seems an ISO standard now defines a whole load of new terms such as Mebibyte... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte )

[MikeT156]

Quote by The PRO:

-------------------------------

We agree a lot on many issues, and perhaps on this one but on different levels

-------------------------------

Yep, we have mostly agreed on many subjects since I've been on this site and "the other site". But still, despite the crappy UI on the Motif ES8, I really only have to carry ONE KB to do my show. I choose to bring along an Alesis ION for "rock" gigs, but the typical club I play requires more laid back music, so I don't need the ION for that.

 

Another quote by "the Pro":

---------------------------------------

You're quite right that I found the Motif ES 8 UI and OS to be a hinderance to my music making but isn't that the point?

---------------------------------------

Jim, no question that Yamaha needs to improve their UI for musicians. Most of us just want to play, and don't want to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out how to do basic things we did on other workstations. My old Ensoniq TS10 was about as easy as it gets to operate. But it's a 1990's system, and the Motif ES8 sounds are so much better because it's up-to-date.

 

Another quote by "the Pro":

---------------------------------------

I too am a OMB with sequenced backing and have been very frustrated by convoluted workstations as well as polyphony limitations and sound options.

---------------------------------------

Jim:

 

The Motif ES8, as well as most newer workstations have 128 note polyphony. I run my sequences, play it live, and have never had any note stealing on any of my gigs. Granted, I'm not doing the Boston Pops, I'm playing classic rock.

 

I use to use a digital piano and a 61 key workstation that had 32 note polyphony. So I had to carry two fairly heavy KB's to do a gig. The piano became obsolete, the newer KB's out there are so much better sounding than my old digital piano, so I replaced it. The thing about the Motif ES8 (and other worksations) is that its expandable. I'm not ready to run out and buy a piano voice card for my ES8, the acoustic piano sound is very good. What's more, I have edited some of the piano samples and saved them as user patches. I have what I need, and then some.

 

Something else happened that I wasn't expecting when I bought the ES8. The OTHER sounds on it are so good that I don't use an acoustic piano sound on it for live use 75% of the time like I did on the digital piano I had. There are tons of great Rhodes, a few good Wurly sounds, as well as repectable Hammond sounds that I use now.

 

The Motif ES8 won't really need to be replaced any time soon as far as I'm concerned. I can get a new piano sample sound for less than 300 bucks without replacing the ES8. There's also a Vocal Harmony card available, as well as a lot of different samples on Motifcator.com I can get if I want too some time down the road. Again, no burning desire to do so, but that option is available to me.

 

Yamaha needs to make their instruments easier to use, that's the only major beef I have with the Motif ES. Yamaha needs to write more "step by step" based manuals, rather than reference manuals that tell you what something is and not how to use it. Yamaha, are you listening?

 

 

Mike T.