Parker Nitefly vs. Godin LGX
Terry Babbey
Knowing this group is not shy about sharing opinions.
I would be interested in hearing different opinions about the Parker
Nitefly II
and Godin LGX. I have played a Nitefly and really liked the neck and the
way
it played. I have not played the Godin yet.
Thanks,
Terry
te...@lambton.on.ca
Jim Martin
I opted for the LGX, but there are others around who love their Fly's. Find
a Godin dealer and make the comparison for yourself. Just be sure to use the
same amp...
- Jim
Terry Babbey wrote in message <34BE5191...@lambton.on.ca>...
Lotsatone
>I would be interested in hearing different opinions about the >Parker Nitefly
II and Godin LGX.
I've played 'em both, and IMNSVHO the Godin smokes the Parker. In fact, I
think the Godin smokes the regular Fly Deluxe, and Ultra. I liked the neck
better, the looks better, the tone better....just about everything. And in
comparing the acoustic tone... It was a no brainer. The Parker's piezo's tone
was harsh and brittle, whereas the piezo tone on the Godin was much more lush
and realistic. FWIW, that could very well be attributed to that Parker's using
Fishman's system and Godin's using an L.R. Baggs setup.
Kevin Smith
Palmer College of Chiropractic
THE1234
> I
>think the Godin smokes the regular Fly Deluxe, and Ultra. I liked the neck
>better, the looks better, the tone better....just about everything.
I will second Kevin's opinion. I tried out the LGX against the Fly delux and
chose the LGX. I also believe that the Godin is FAR better at the acoustic tone
and offers more total tonal variety than the Parker.
In favor of the Parker, though, I must admit it gives off more of an "I'm on
the cutting edge" kind of vibe. The LGX just looks like your ordinary,
beautiful flame top guitar (my personal preference).
Later -
Tim Evans
Pensacola, Florida
Killjoy
Terry Babbey wrote:
>
> Knowing this group is not shy about sharing opinions.
> Nitefly II
> way
> it played. I have not played the Godin yet.
On a related note, to me, the most spectacular part of the Parkers is
the composite fretboard with (slightly?) oversized frets on the
ultra-thin neck. Nothing I've found even comes close to the
silky-smooth, "Play me!" feel of this setup. (Yeah, to me, the rest is
really nice too, but this is the feature that kind of blew me away.)
I know that others offer the larger frets on many models. Does anyone
else offer a composite fretboard material like the Parkers? Which maker
offers the thinnest neck that has proven to be free of warpage over
time?
Ultimately, I'd like to buy a bolt on neck like the Parker's to mount on
my own hand-carved body, but I doubt if they're available unless I buy a
NiteFly and take it apart. (Ugh.) Even then, it wouldn't be quite as
smooth and thin, especially down near the pickups. In addition, my
guitar design won't look right without my own custom-carved headstock.
I'd also be willing to make a through-body design for the right neck.
Any suggestions on what other guitars or aftermarket necks I should be
looking into to get a feel similar to the Parkers? (I'm already going
to order a Warmoth "compound radius" neck to try out on my Strat copy.)
--
Best regards,
Michael.
--
ALL UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL IS UNWELCOME.
My correct email address is killjoy (at) norden1 (dot) com.
No email containing HTML, please.
Hate SPAM? Join the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commerical E-Mail.
Stop SPAM! Point your browser to http://www.cauce.org now!
Rob Martino
Terry Babbey wrote:
>
> Knowing this group is not shy about sharing opinions.
> I would be interested in hearing different opinions about the Parker Nitefly II
> and Godin LGX. I have played a Nitefly and really liked the neck and the way
> it played. I have not played the Godin yet.
> Terry
> te...@lambton.on.ca
I just got a Godin LGX and love it, I hardly ever want to put it down.
I also like the Parker Fly, but I only tried the classic model. I don't
like the looks of the pickguard on the NiteFly, but the transparent cherry
Classic model is very nice. I do guitar synth stuff so the Godin has the
advantage there (GK-2A output option), and I love the looks of it. An
advantage of the Parker is definately the state-of-the-art technology, I
would guess the very light weight, precision fret placing and innovative use
of materials might make the guitar a bit more playable, but I'm not sure
how much the lower priced NiteFly benefits from this. The Godin LGX does
not have a tremolo bar if that's important, but Godin is going to release
a trem version (but without the figured top).
I'd definately recommend playing both if you can. It comes down
to personal perference for sound and looks, both are quality guitars.
Rob
--
Rob Martino
http://www.cris.com/~rpmtino
Matthew Ivaliotes
Killjoy <not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom> writes:
>Any suggestions on what other guitars or aftermarket necks I should be
>looking into to get a feel similar to the Parkers? (I'm already going
>to order a Warmoth "compound radius" neck to try out on my Strat copy.)
How about the Modulus Graphite bolt-on necks?
Matt I.
Killjoy
All I've found from them is a single model of bass neck at $650.
Although I appreciate the tip, it's not what I'm looking for right now.
In addition, it appears that they use the graphite not for the
fingerboard surface itself, but as a reinforcing rail running through
the neck and body. It's the fingerboard feel that I really want,
although a thin neck is also important to me. Parker guitars have both
of these desirable features.
Does Modulus offer others not listed on their web site?
Thanks.
Matthew Ivaliotes
Killjoy <not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom> writes:
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>> How about the Modulus Graphite bolt-on necks?
>> Matt I.
>All I've found from them is a single model of bass neck at $650.
>Although I appreciate the tip, it's not what I'm looking for right now.
Just checked theri web page, and sure enough, that's it.
>In addition, it appears that they use the graphite not for the
>fingerboard surface itself, but as a reinforcing rail running through
>the neck and body. It's the fingerboard feel that I really want,
>although a thin neck is also important to me. Parker guitars have both
>of these desirable features.
Modulus *used* to make all-graphite replacement necks for guitars and
basses, each with phenolic fretboards. Now they have the Genesis models
which are as you described.
>Does Modulus offer others not listed on their web site?
>Thanks.
Probably not anymore. Kind of depressing. While I like the Genesis
concept, I hadn't expected it would supplant their other guitar model
lines.
Matt I.
Cypher
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:12:33 -0500, Terry Babbey <te...@lambton.on.ca>
wrote:
>Knowing this group is not shy about sharing opinions.
>I would be interested in hearing different opinions about the Parker
>Nitefly II
>and Godin LGX. I have played a Nitefly and really liked the neck and the
>way
>it played. I have not played the Godin yet.
>Thanks,
>Terry
>te...@lambton.on.ca
>
Check out the review on my website:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/1091/
You'll see why I own the LGX after trying the Parker Fly and Nitefly
along with others.
-Cypher
Cypher
You're right! Most of the LGX guitars that I've seen would make most
PRS fanatics look twice. My LGX has the most GORGEOUS deep amber
finish with a perfectly bookmatched flamed maple top that would run
you about $4000 on a Gibson.
The tone on the LGX is simply unmatched. Plus, if you don't like the
tonal variety provided by the stock Tetrad pickups, you can order your
LGX with Seymour Duncan pickups at no extra charge. This is great for
people who prefer a more "traditional" sound.
Godin seems to have thought of everything when they built this guitar.
They started with a great idea, made it functional, made it practical,
made it beautiful, and then they made it affordable.
DAMN! They should pay me for the above line! It's so true, though.
-Cypher
Cypher
On 16 Jan 1998 19:28:07 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Killjoy <not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom> writes:
>
>>Any suggestions on what other guitars or aftermarket necks I should be
>>looking into to get a feel similar to the Parkers? (I'm already going
>>to order a Warmoth "compound radius" neck to try out on my Strat copy.)
>
>How about the Modulus Graphite bolt-on necks?
Nah... I've played these and they feel pretty much like a traditional
guitar neck. One thing that disappointed me about the Modulus guitars
was there cheezy tremelo. I mean.. here's this $2000 guitar that
sounds great and has killer sustain - but it's got a $2 Korean-Strat
tremelo on it!
-Cypher
Cypher
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:09:23 -0500, Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> An
>advantage of the Parker is definately the state-of-the-art technology, I
>would guess the very light weight, precision fret placing and innovative use
>of materials might make the guitar a bit more playable, but I'm not sure
>how much the lower priced NiteFly benefits from this. The Godin LGX does
>not have a tremolo bar if that's important, but Godin is going to release
>a trem version (but without the figured top).
>
>I'd definately recommend playing both if you can. It comes down
>to personal perference for sound and looks, both are quality guitars.
The Parker is definately an innovative guitar and it's very light. One
thing I hate about it, though, is that when you're sitting down and
playing it, the upper shoulder of the guitar digs into your rib cage.
This doesn't happen when you're standing up, though. The NiteFly is a
very heavy guitar in comparison to the Fly Deluxe. It's probably
slightly lighter than your everyday strat, though.
Have you played the LGXT yet? I haven't been able to get my hands on
one. There supposedly shipping them, though.
BTW: Great to hear from you, Rob!
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>You're right! Most of the LGX guitars that I've seen would make most
>PRS fanatics look twice. My LGX has the most GORGEOUS deep amber
>finish with a perfectly bookmatched flamed maple top that would run
>you about $4000 on a Gibson.
I saw a Godin with a beautiful top in Chicago this weekend. It really was
pretty. I just don't like the shape of the instrument one bit, and while
it sounds very rich, I wasn't looking for acoustic-electric, and the
sounds it had weren't the ones I wanted. I still recommend people check
them out, though.
>The tone on the LGX is simply unmatched. Plus, if you don't like the
>tonal variety provided by the stock Tetrad pickups, you can order your
>LGX with Seymour Duncan pickups at no extra charge. This is great for
>people who prefer a more "traditional" sound.
Indeed. Like I said, the Tetrads were good, but didn't float my boat.
Haven't played one with the Duncans yet.
>Godin seems to have thought of everything when they built this guitar.
>They started with a great idea, made it functional, made it practical,
>made it beautiful, and then they made it affordable.
>DAMN! They should pay me for the above line! It's so true, though.
Sounds like you're in love, and they truly are good guitars.
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>On 16 Jan 1998 19:28:07 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
>wrote:
>>How about the Modulus Graphite bolt-on necks?
>Nah... I've played these and they feel pretty much like a traditional
>guitar neck. One thing that disappointed me about the Modulus guitars
>was there cheezy tremelo. I mean.. here's this $2000 guitar that
>sounds great and has killer sustain - but it's got a $2 Korean-Strat
>tremelo on it!
Well, to be honest, I only played a Modulus once, and then only briefly.
I only suggested them because they *did* once make graphite necks with
phenolic fretboards as bolt-on replacement necks. I couldn'y say
anything about how good those necks were, but I thought it might be worth
a shot for him.
And if they are indeed as poorly-equipped as you say, that's pretty sad.
Of course, I never buy a guitar with a trem any more anyway, but you get
the point.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <69scih$et7$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>
>>You're right! Most of the LGX guitars that I've seen would make most
>>PRS fanatics look twice.
Well at least we can rule you out as one of the claimaints to the Mullhaupt
heritage. If you put an LGX next to my wife's C22 she
might not even see the LGX. The only Godins either of us have ever
been sonically impressed by were the ST-Signatures which were quite
impressive. The top was slightly over the top finish-wise but otherwise a
really fine Strat-style. We've recently played a couple LGXs. You clearly
don't have the same genes as my wife.
>>My LGX has the most GORGEOUS deep amber
>>finish with a perfectly bookmatched flamed maple top that would run
>>you about $4000 on a Gibson.
No argument about this though; Gibsons are overpriced compared to anything
else. In addition to which we haven't found a Gibson that both played and
sounded the way we wanted. We don't usually bother even looking at Les Pauls
any more.
>I saw a Godin with a beautiful top in Chicago this weekend. It really was
>pretty. I just don't like the shape of the instrument one bit, and while
>it sounds very rich, I wasn't looking for acoustic-electric, and the
>sounds it had weren't the ones I wanted. I still recommend people check
>them out, though.
Me too. They might be looking for the same sounds as Cypher and in that case
I doubt anything other than a Godin will do. They are certainly quality
made, and good value for money. They never look bad, and sometimes look
really good. If they have your sound, I wouldn't be too bothered about
owning one when for $X thousand more you could have something else. Godin
will certainly make a _lot_ of people _very_ happy.
>>The tone on the LGX is simply unmatched. Plus, if you don't like the
>>tonal variety provided by the stock Tetrad pickups, you can order your
>>LGX with Seymour Duncan pickups at no extra charge. This is great for
>>people who prefer a more "traditional" sound.
>
>Indeed. Like I said, the Tetrads were good, but didn't float my boat.
>Haven't played one with the Duncans yet.
A very good point. However I liked the playability of the Fly Deluxe a lot
better than the LGX. But not having played one with the Duncans I'll reserve
judgement on the sound. I think I'd go for Dragons or something like
Andersons if I was swapping the pickups.
>>Godin seems to have thought of everything when they built this guitar.
>>They started with a great idea, made it functional, made it practical,
>>made it beautiful, and then they made it affordable.
>>DAMN! They should pay me for the above line! It's so true, though.
>
>Sounds like you're in love, and they truly are good guitars.
He is. But just the same the Godins are not to be ignored. I've seen two
sweet ones (ST-Signatures) and for that price you might not be able to beat
them although G&L, serious Fenders, and Schecter, are in the hunt at that
point.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
David Covell - MPG DA
Cypher wrote:
>
> On 16 Jan 1998 14:42:26 GMT, the...@aol.com (THE1234) wrote:
>
> >> I
> >>think the Godin smokes the regular Fly Deluxe, and Ultra. I liked the neck
> >>better, the looks better, the tone better....just about everything.
> >
>
were a nice comprimise between my LP and strat, I was disappointed with
the MIDI response. I have a GK-2A on my strat and drive a GR-30 plus
external MIDI modules ,and I A/B'ed the responses. The GK-2A tracked
much cleaner, with less glitches and only a little less sensitivity.
No dount heavier strings and higher action would have improved the MIDI
response on the LGX but I don't think it would be much better.
I'm told that the *best* MIDI response is from the RMC. That leaves
Godin out of the picture since I usually mix the MIDI tones with the
strat tones (solves the tracking delay problem and makes some nice jazzy
strat-plus-B3 things happen). I don't want to use a Multiac just to get
an RMC.
I understand that an installed RMC plus electronics will set me back
$900. That's less than an LGX but I don't get the new tones *AND* I
can't try before buying. I'd hate to spend $900 and have my strat routed
and then find the improvement to be subtle. I'm not looking for faster
tracking (I mostly do legato stuff). Rather I want more expressive and
sensitive response to velocity. I'm trying to emulate winds and strings
and it's just not happening for me.
I'd love to hear from anyone with an RMC retrofit.
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
# DAVID COVELL - Design Automation Engineering -
dco...@eng.fm.intel.com
# Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA (916) 356-2881 - Fax: (916) 356-7874
# ( Non-standard disclaimer: I neither speak nor play guitar for Intel )
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cypher wrote in message <34c7c0dc...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:59:41 -0500, "Andrew P. Mullhaupt"
><amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Although, myself and your wife
>tend to agree on the incredible sound of a Schecter.... hmmm....
I've got one too now.
>>
>>A very good point. However I liked the playability of the Fly Deluxe a lot
>>better than the LGX. But not having played one with the Duncans I'll
reserve
>>judgement on the sound. I think I'd go for Dragons or something like
>>Andersons if I was swapping the pickups.
>
>The shoulder of the Fly deluxe doesn't jab you in the rib cage? :)
Yeah but when I remember, I just put some sort of pad there; but the neck is
wonderfully easy to play and I like those glued on frets, too.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Asad Aboobaker
Killjoy <not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom> wrote:
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>> How about the Modulus Graphite bolt-on necks?
>>
>> Matt I.
>
>All I've found from them is a single model of bass neck at $650.
>Although I appreciate the tip, it's not what I'm looking for right now.
You might want to check out Moses Graphite, but I'm not sure if their
necks have phenolic/graphite or wood fingerboards...And I forgot the
URL to boot :|
Asad
remove "!"s to mail
Asad Aboobaker
Cypher
On 18 Jan 1998 07:58:30 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Well, to be honest, I only played a Modulus once, and then only briefly.
>I only suggested them because they *did* once make graphite necks with
>phenolic fretboards as bolt-on replacement necks. I couldn'y say
>anything about how good those necks were, but I thought it might be worth
>a shot for him.
>
>And if they are indeed as poorly-equipped as you say, that's pretty sad.
>Of course, I never buy a guitar with a trem any more anyway, but you get
>the point.
Their guitars do sound and play good, but they don't seem "special"
enough to me to justify the price.
I'm not too fond of trem guitars, either. I always disable the trem on
my strats. I'm a tune-o-matic fanatic. hehehe
-Cypher
Cypher
>I understand that an installed RMC plus electronics will set me back
>$900. That's less than an LGX but I don't get the new tones *AND* I
>can't try before buying. I'd hate to spend $900 and have my strat routed
>and then find the improvement to be subtle. I'm not looking for faster
>tracking (I mostly do legato stuff). Rather I want more expressive and
>sensitive response to velocity. I'm trying to emulate winds and strings
>and it's just not happening for me.
I think that there's enough people out there who are happy with the
LGX-SA to warrant taking another look at them. It's a possibility that
the one you tried was set up wrong or not working properly for some
reason. The one LGX-SA that I played awhile back tracked better than
any GK-2A equipped strat I've ever played. It still wasn't perfect,
but I think that it was pretty darn close.
-Cypher
Cypher
>Well at least we can rule you out as one of the claimaints to the Mullhaupt
>heritage. If you put an LGX next to my wife's C22 she
>might not even see the LGX. The only Godins either of us have ever
>been sonically impressed by were the ST-Signatures which were quite
>impressive. The top was slightly over the top finish-wise but otherwise a
>really fine Strat-style. We've recently played a couple LGXs. You clearly
>don't have the same genes as my wife.
Yeah... If everyone had the same taste in tone, we wouldn't need all
these different guitars, now would we? Although, myself and your wife
tend to agree on the incredible sound of a Schecter.... hmmm....
>No argument about this though; Gibsons are overpriced compared to anything
>else. In addition to which we haven't found a Gibson that both played and
>sounded the way we wanted. We don't usually bother even looking at Les Pauls
>any more.
I played a Les Paul recently that I was impressed with, both sonically
and physically. This was a Les Paul Catalina model. It was quite a bit
lighter than most Les Pauls I've played, and the sound was warmer. I
found out later that this guitar has a hollowed-out mahogany body, so
this probably was the cause. In either case, the guitar was something
like $2500 - and it was a solid-finish guitar, though gorgeous. Sure,
it played and sounded good... but Hell... Is this not a perfect
example of Gibson bilking people because of their name? This was one
of the more conservatively priced Les Pauls I played that day. Funny
thing is... people are willing to pay these prices.
>A very good point. However I liked the playability of the Fly Deluxe a lot
>better than the LGX. But not having played one with the Duncans I'll reserve
>judgement on the sound. I think I'd go for Dragons or something like
>Andersons if I was swapping the pickups.
The shoulder of the Fly deluxe doesn't jab you in the rib cage? :)
>He is. But just the same the Godins are not to be ignored. I've seen two
>sweet ones (ST-Signatures) and for that price you might not be able to beat
>them although G&L, serious Fenders, and Schecter, are in the hunt at that
>point.
Sorry... I go a little overboard, sometimes. I'm just really in love
with my LGX. To me, it's my dream guitar. To others.....?
Cheers!
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>Their guitars do sound and play good, but they don't seem "special"
>enough to me to justify the price.
Yeah, very true. They're quite expensive indeed. I haven't played one of
the new Genesis models, though, and a guitar with a spruce neck sounds at
least vaguely interesting.
>I'm not too fond of trem guitars, either. I always disable the trem on
>my strats. I'm a tune-o-matic fanatic. hehehe
Plain stop tailpieces or fixed 6-saddle bridges for me. Although I admit
that for people who love really heavy guage strings, the PRS stop tail
is wholly inadequate.
Matt I.
Killjoy
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>
> Plain stop tailpieces or fixed 6-saddle bridges for me. Although I admit
> that for people who love really heavy guage strings, the PRS stop tail
> is wholly inadequate.
>
> Matt I.
I'm in the process of choosing equipment for two different guitars that
I'm busy building. Instead of spending a fortune figuring out problems
like this on my own, I'd like some opinions from more experienced
players about some of the parts I'll be using.
At least one of these guitars will be a stop tail, the other will
probably be a fixed bridge. Can you please explain why the you think
the PRS stop tail is inadequate for heavier guage strings, and what you
think is a better example of an adequate one?
Matthew Ivaliotes
c.edu> <69v08i$l25$0...@192.153.35.111>
Killjoy <not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom> writes:
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>> Plain stop tailpieces or fixed 6-saddle bridges for me. Although I admit
>> that for people who love really heavy guage strings, the PRS stop tail
>> is wholly inadequate.
>At least one of these guitars will be a stop tail, the other will
>probably be a fixed bridge. Can you please explain why the you think
>the PRS stop tail is inadequate for heavier guage strings, and what you
>think is a better example of an adequate one?
Michael,
The biggest reason I say this is that very heavy strings often come with a
wound third. Since string height is not individually adjustable on the
PRS stop tail, it wouldn't be able to do the job on a wound third.
Also, if you check PRS's Information Center page (at
http://www.prsguitars.com/incenter.htm), you'll see that it only outlines
setups for 9's and '10's and up.' I've only seen someone try to put 11's
on a PRS stop tail once, and when I left his house, he was still having
minor intonation problems.
Now I very well could be wrong. But I get the impression that the PRS
stop tail was designed for 9s or 10s. Unfortunately, to be honest, I
don't know of another stop tailpiece which is in fact designed
specifically for use with heavier strings. Others might be able to think
one up, however.
As far as 6-saddle fixed bridges go, I love the one on my Carvin DC127.
They sell the bridges themselves in the Carvin catalog.
Matt I.
Giri
Killjoy wrote:
> On a related note, to me, the most spectacular part of the Parkers is
> the composite fretboard with (slightly?) oversized frets on the
> ultra-thin neck. Nothing I've found even comes close to the
> silky-smooth, "Play me!" feel of this setup. (Yeah, to me, the rest is
> really nice too, but this is the feature that kind of blew me away.)
Agreed. I think what I, and possibly you, really like about the
frets is that they are *perfectly* arced (semicircular, perhaps?)
thanks to the fact that no filing and crowning is necessary.
> Any suggestions on what other guitars or aftermarket necks I should be
> looking into to get a feel similar to the Parkers? (I'm already going
> to order a Warmoth "compound radius" neck to try out on my Strat copy.)
Those can be very, very nice, indeed. I had one. Get the tall and
narrow frets, not the tall wide ones.
..Giri
--
e-mail: giyengar "at" ford "dot" com
Killjoy
Giri wrote:
>
> Killjoy wrote:
>
> > On a related note, to me, the most spectacular part of the Parkers is
> > the composite fretboard with (slightly?) oversized frets on the
> > ultra-thin neck. Nothing I've found even comes close to the
> > silky-smooth, "Play me!" feel of this setup. (Yeah, to me, the rest is
> > really nice too, but this is the feature that kind of blew me away.)
>
> Agreed. I think what I, and possibly you, really like about the
> frets is that they are *perfectly* arced (semicircular, perhaps?)
> thanks to the fact that no filing and crowning is necessary.
profile, but when bending notes the string doesn't seem to try to bite a
groove into them either. I've felt that biting sensation on several
other guitars, even with light bending pressure. I think there must be
some softer batches of nickel-brass frets out there.
But on the Fly, I don't know if it's the frets, or the buttery smooth
feel of that composite fretboard beneath them. I think the two together
combine to form a better feel.
I have to seek out a Steinberger to compare with. (BTW, they're giving
away a Steinberger soon in a drawing, see their home page for details!
I just found out about it yesterday.)
> > Any suggestions on what other guitars or aftermarket necks I should be
> > looking into to get a feel similar to the Parkers? (I'm already going
> > to order a Warmoth "compound radius" neck to try out on my Strat copy.)
>
> Those can be very, very nice, indeed. I had one. Get the tall and
> narrow frets, not the tall wide ones.
It'll be a month or two, maybe more before I order the Warmoth neck
because I've decided that it's for a very special project I'm working on
which won't be ready sooner. I'll be sure to post here when I get it
all put together.
--
Best regards,
Stevie Michael.
Mick Patterson
In article <6a40b3$ddn$0...@192.153.35.111>,
not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom wrote:
+Giri wrote:
+>
+> Killjoy wrote:
+>
+> > On a related note, to me, the most spectacular part of the Parkers is
+> > the composite fretboard with (slightly?) oversized frets on the
+> > ultra-thin neck. Nothing I've found even comes close to the
+> > silky-smooth, "Play me!" feel of this setup. (Yeah, to me, the rest is
+> > really nice too, but this is the feature that kind of blew me away.)
+>
+> Agreed. I think what I, and possibly you, really like about the
+> frets is that they are *perfectly* arced (semicircular, perhaps?)
+> thanks to the fact that no filing and crowning is necessary.
+
+It's true, the frets are awesome. Not only do they have a great
+profile, but when bending notes the string doesn't seem to try to bite a
+groove into them either. I've felt that biting sensation on several
+other guitars, even with light bending pressure. I think there must be
+some softer batches of nickel-brass frets out there.
Parkers, according to what I sort of remember, do not
use nickel-silver frets like everyone else. Theirs is
a type of stainless steel, and if I remember the first
ads correctly, they said they should play for a decade
without getting any divots in them (!). The fact that
they are harder is probably what accounts for that lack
of "bite" that you're speaking of.
---Mick...
___________________________________________________________
My opinions do not reflect those of anyone else... yet.
Giri
Mick Patterson wrote:
> Parkers, according to what I sort of remember, do not
> use nickel-silver frets like everyone else. Theirs is
> a type of stainless steel, and if I remember the first
> ads correctly, they said they should play for a decade
> without getting any divots in them (!). The fact that
> they are harder is probably what accounts for that lack
> of "bite" that you're speaking of.
Yup, stainless steel, tangless, glued-on. I love them.
Ken Parker has reported examining guitars after a few
years of use, and said he sees no wear whatsoever. Not
"no *significant* wear," but no visible wear. I really
believe their neck is/was a huge advancement in guitar
design, not to mention the other cool designs like
the leaf-spring tremolo.
Matthew Ivaliotes
Giri <bl...@blah.blah> writes:
>Yup, stainless steel, tangless, glued-on. I love them.
>Ken Parker has reported examining guitars after a few
>years of use, and said he sees no wear whatsoever. Not
>"no *significant* wear," but no visible wear. I really
>believe their neck is/was a huge advancement in guitar
>design, not to mention the other cool designs like
>the leaf-spring tremolo.
Now if they could design a top horn that is sit-down playing friendly,
they'd have a winner in my book. I consider that body shape to be the
guitar's biggest liability.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Mick Patterson wrote in message ...
>In article <6a40b3$ddn$0...@192.153.35.111>,
>not-a-webmaster/kil...@norden1SPAM.FREEcom wrote:
>Parkers, according to what I sort of remember, do not
>use nickel-silver frets like everyone else. Theirs is
>a type of stainless steel, and if I remember the first
>ads correctly, they said they should play for a decade
>without getting any divots in them (!).
They basically had to do this; Probably a refret on a Fly is a bad time
since the frets are bonded to the neck.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Cypher
On 19 Jan 1998 05:41:57 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Plain stop tailpieces or fixed 6-saddle bridges for me. Although I admit
>that for people who love really heavy guage strings, the PRS stop tail
>is wholly inadequate.
Actually, you should check out something like the Godin LG or LGX. I
like how they use a tune-o-matic bridge, and then string the strings
thru the body. Gibson should have tried this years ago. Makes for some
killer sustain. (I think the LGX even uses a brass insert to hold the
strings inside the body and enhance resonance.)
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>Actually, you should check out something like the Godin LG or LGX.
I've played a couple of LGs, as I mentioned once before. I don't think
Tune-oMatics are *bad*. I just like the simple effectiveness of a stop
tail.
Matt I.
Giri
Cypher wrote:
> Actually, you should check out something like the Godin LG or LGX. I
> like how they use a tune-o-matic bridge, and then string the strings
> thru the body. Gibson should have tried this years ago. Makes for some
> killer sustain. (I think the LGX even uses a brass insert to hold the
> strings inside the body and enhance resonance.)
Good move on Godin's part. Those brass inserts, called ferrules, have
been used on teles since before the name 'telecaster,' if I'm not
mistaken. The strings going through the body is a factor in the sustain
equation, using brass ferrules really isn't. They do that to prevent
the strings from digging into the wood. Which they would.
Cypher
On 22 Jan 1998 05:34:18 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>
>>Actually, you should check out something like the Godin LG or LGX.
>
>I've played a couple of LGs, as I mentioned once before. I don't think
>Tune-oMatics are *bad*. I just like the simple effectiveness of a stop
>tail.
How do you intonate those PRS's with stop tailpieces only?
-Cypher
Cypher
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:14:55 -0500, Giri <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>Cypher wrote:
>
>> Actually, you should check out something like the Godin LG or LGX. I
>> like how they use a tune-o-matic bridge, and then string the strings
>> thru the body. Gibson should have tried this years ago. Makes for some
>> killer sustain. (I think the LGX even uses a brass insert to hold the
>> strings inside the body and enhance resonance.)
>
>Good move on Godin's part. Those brass inserts, called ferrules, have
>been used on teles since before the name 'telecaster,' if I'm not
>mistaken. The strings going through the body is a factor in the sustain
>equation, using brass ferrules really isn't. They do that to prevent
>the strings from digging into the wood. Which they would.
Acutally, the LGX uses the ferrules where the strings enter the body,
but on the back of the guitar there is an oval shaped hole that is
routed out of the mahogany. In this hole is an oval shaped thick piece
of brass that houses the ball-end of the strings. I've never seen
anything like it on any other guitar.
Weird, huh?
-Cypher
SEFSTRAT
<<How do you intonate those PRS's with stop tailpieces only?>>
Well, the tailpiece is compensated. IN addition, there are adjustment screws
that allow angling of the taipiece from either side.
Initially, I wasn't optimistic about this system, but my PRS SAS has it, and
the intonation is good.
Steve
SEFSTRAT
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>How do you intonate those PRS's with stop tailpieces only?
Honestly, since I haven't owned one (yet), I haven't faced that challenge.
As far as I can tell, they have a pair of screws that you can use a wide
screwdriver or even a quarter to turn. These adjust the height of the
tailpiece. It is designed (in my opinion) to work with 9's and 10's. I've
never picked up one up that sounded improperly intonated, but a wound
third would be patently impossible.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cypher wrote in message <34d04e68...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
> A few
>millimeters off and you can't intonate the guitar.
I'd expect PRS scraps out anything they drill that far off. Unless the wood
moves a _lot_ (and in seasoned maple that might be not much of a problem)
you can drill to under 0.01 inch tolerance.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Cypher
On 26 Jan 1998 04:20:39 GMT, sefs...@aol.com (SEFSTRAT) wrote:
><<How do you intonate those PRS's with stop tailpieces only?>>
>
>Well, the tailpiece is compensated. IN addition, there are adjustment screws
>that allow angling of the taipiece from either side.
>
>Initially, I wasn't optimistic about this system, but my PRS SAS has it, and
>the intonation is good.
This design scares me a little... However, if PRS builds the guitar
right, there shouldn't be a need to intonate it very much. I'm still
not convinced about this design, though. Do you know how EXACT PRS
would have to drill the holes for the bridge and tuners? A few
millimeters off and you can't intonate the guitar.
-Cypher
Cypher
On 26 Jan 1998 06:30:27 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>
>>How do you intonate those PRS's with stop tailpieces only?
>
>Honestly, since I haven't owned one (yet), I haven't faced that challenge.
>As far as I can tell, they have a pair of screws that you can use a wide
>screwdriver or even a quarter to turn. These adjust the height of the
>tailpiece. It is designed (in my opinion) to work with 9's and 10's. I've
>never picked up one up that sounded improperly intonated, but a wound
>third would be patently impossible.
I'm trying to sell my old laptop right now. I have a little cash saved
up, too. I'm thinking about getting a CE or a Standard. I really like
the solid-mahogany body on both the CE and the standard. The Standard
has some cool finish options, but the CE has the bolt-on neck which is
a "feature" in my opinion. I don't really care too much about the
maple top, as I'm looking for a tone-ful guitar, rather than a
"pretty" guitar. I have "pretty" guitars, already. I'd prefer the
Standard for it's higher resale value, etc..
Decisions, Decisions.
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>I'm trying to sell my old laptop right now. I have a little cash saved
>up, too. I'm thinking about getting a CE or a Standard. I really like
>the solid-mahogany body on both the CE and the standard. The Standard
>has some cool finish options, but the CE has the bolt-on neck which is
>a "feature" in my opinion.
Sounds like we're in a rare state of complete agreement on those two
issues. I like the all-mahogany body sound quite a bit, and much prefer
the bolt-on necks.
>I don't really care too much about the
>maple top, as I'm looking for a tone-ful guitar, rather than a
>"pretty" guitar. I have "pretty" guitars, already. I'd prefer the
>Standard for it's higher resale value, etc..
>Decisions, Decisions.
The Standard has a higher relative resale value? I never knew that. Then
again, I'm admittedly pretty clueless about the resale market, having only
resold some Mexican-made-casters in my past.
Regardless, I *know* I want a CE22...I just can't decide whether or not I
want it *more* than I want to take up keyboard (and an Alesis QS8 and
piano lessons aren't cheap).
Matt I.
Marc Jennings
Cypher wrote:
>
> This design scares me a little... However, if PRS builds the guitar
> right, there shouldn't be a need to intonate it very much. I'm still
> not convinced about this design, though. Do you know how EXACT PRS
> would have to drill the holes for the bridge and tuners? A few
> millimeters off and you can't intonate the guitar.
>
> -Cypher
I have this bridge on my standard 22 and the intonation was spot on
using a tuner when I had it from new fitted with a set of 009s. I
changed to 010s and re-set the intonation with no problems. There is
really quite a lot of scope for adjustment with this bridge. The PRS web
site has a guide to setting the intonation.
MJ
Giri
> >
> >that allow angling of the taipiece from either side.
> >
> >Initially, I wasn't optimistic about this system, but my PRS SAS has it, and
> >the intonation is good.
>
> right, there shouldn't be a need to intonate it very much. I'm still
> not convinced about this design, though. Do you know how EXACT PRS
> would have to drill the holes for the bridge and tuners? A few
> millimeters off and you can't intonate the guitar.
I'm not sure what you mean there. Why should the tuner location
be so critical for intonation? Anyway..
Hamer's been using a similar bridge (by Wilkinson, I think), with
one key difference. The B and G strings can be intonated separately,
but together. That part of the bridge moves independently. I haven't
messed with one of those, but it seems like it could be used as
a replacement for the PRS bridge and may well be a solution for
anyone facing intonation problems due to uncommon string choices.
Cypher
On 27 Jan 1998 06:43:39 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Sounds like we're in a rare state of complete agreement on those two
>issues. I like the all-mahogany body sound quite a bit, and much prefer
>the bolt-on necks.
I'm a mahogany, twin humbucker, stop tailpiece fan, so we're in
agreement more than on just the PRS issue. I also prefer bolt-on necks
for maintenance reasons. I've heard nightmares from set-neck guitar
owners about getting neck problems fixed (guitar necks, Mic!). Can you
imagine what someone would have to do to a PRS to repair a set-neck
problem? ACK! It would never be the same again, I guarantee.
My stop-tail, mahogany body, twin humbucker guitars are:
Godin LG
Godin LGX
Les Paul Standard
Starfield Cabriolet LTD
>The Standard has a higher relative resale value? I never knew that. Then
>again, I'm admittedly pretty clueless about the resale market, having only
>resold some Mexican-made-casters in my past.
Go figure... I know several guys that work in music stores and I was
talking to them about this same subject before. I brought up PRS, and
he said.. "Yeah.. the resale value is pretty high, but you need to
have a higher-end model to get a decent trade." He said that they
could take trades on CE's all day, but they wouldn't give more than a
few bills for them. He then pointed to a transparent cherry PRS CE
that they've had hanging on the wall for a few months. He kept
referring to them as "bolt-on-jobs". Granted, this was one store, but
this seems to be the case with most low-end guitars of any guitar
line. I don't understand it, personally.
Maybe someone like DougA can better field this question. I'd like to
get a different perspective on PRS resale value.
>Regardless, I *know* I want a CE22...I just can't decide whether or not I
>want it *more* than I want to take up keyboard (and an Alesis QS8 and
>piano lessons aren't cheap).
I play piano, and I have an Alesis QuadraSynth... Now, stop it! You're
scaring me! :)
-Cypher
Killjoy
> >millimeters off and you can't intonate the guitar.
>
> moves a _lot_ (and in seasoned maple that might be not much of a problem)
> you can drill to under 0.01 inch tolerance.
>
> Later,
> Andrew Mullhaupt
I could see them scrapping out units for this reason.
But I would think the real trouble might show up years later after you
buy one and don't know that yours is one of the ones that *just barely*
passed the Q.C. test. Time moves all things, and let's face it, in any
quality control system, there are *always* going to be borderline units
no matter where you set the border.
Don't get me wrong, I've been very impressed with every PRS I've seen,
but this issue is new to me and I'm beginning to think it's a legitimate
cause for concern over the long term.
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>I'm a mahogany, twin humbucker, stop tailpiece fan, so we're in
>agreement more than on just the PRS issue.
You're quite right. How frightening; basis for harmony on rmmg. :)
>I also prefer bolt-on necks
>for maintenance reasons. I've heard nightmares from set-neck guitar
>owners about getting neck problems fixed (guitar necks, Mic!). Can you
>imagine what someone would have to do to a PRS to repair a set-neck
>problem? ACK! It would never be the same again, I guarantee.
Yeah, that's a great point, and the one great fear I live with as a Carvin
neck-through owner. If the neck on either of my Carvins (bass and guitar)
goes really bad or breaks, it's done for.
>My stop-tail, mahogany body, twin humbucker guitars are:
>Godin LG
>Godin LGX
>Les Paul Standard
>Starfield Cabriolet LTD
Nice set. I have no mahogany guitars currently. I have a hardtail
(obviously) MexiTele, and a hardtail alder/maple Carvin.
>Go figure... I know several guys that work in music stores and I was
>talking to them about this same subject before. I brought up PRS, and
>he said.. "Yeah.. the resale value is pretty high, but you need to
>have a higher-end model to get a decent trade." He said that they
>could take trades on CE's all day, but they wouldn't give more than a
>few bills for them. He then pointed to a transparent cherry PRS CE
>that they've had hanging on the wall for a few months. He kept
>referring to them as "bolt-on-jobs".
An attitude like this is one of the many reasons I have a hard time
finding a guitar store I don't loathe going into because of the staff.
They can do what they want as far as trades go, of course, and I'm sure
that will in at least some measure effect resale...but I doubt it. And I
haven't seen that sentiment expressed by any dealers I've spoken with.
>Granted, this was one store, but
>this seems to be the case with most low-end guitars of any guitar
>line. I don't understand it, personally.
Not a problem for me. I never do trades anyway. You're always better
off reselling one guitar before buying the new one. A dealer can't
possibly do as well for you on a trade, or it wouldn't be profitable for
him.
>I play piano, and I have an Alesis QuadraSynth... Now, stop it! You're
>scaring me! :)
Very very eerie. Twilight Zone comes to rmmg.
Have a good one,
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6ajvmr$rkn$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
>Regardless, I *know* I want a CE22...I just can't decide whether or not I
>want it *more* than I want to take up keyboard (and an Alesis QS8 and
>piano lessons aren't cheap).
Have you considered going for like a used synth? The QS8 is cool, (I am not
of the "Alesis=Shit" school of thought - I have an S4 to prove it.) but to
some extent, you will get a lot of the same sounds from two or three year
old synths as you do from this year's model unless you go for "physical
modeling" which is almost certainly not the place to start for chops
building.
If you go down the keys road, you will find that you will spend a hell of a
lot more money buying new on stuff with _microscopic_ resale value, since
the cost of computation drops so fast and consistently. A patient man such
as yourself will be able to save lots of money buying used, or models as
they get phased out, etc.
You will also find that if you get somewhere, you won't be happy with just
an Alesis. You will end up needing a Korg and a Roland, and probably a
Kurzweil, for various reasons, (but mostly tone). It's like playing guitar
you need stuff with single poles, humbuckers, etc. You might end up needing
some "vintage" stuff, too.
If you're not a committed keyboard player yet, I would suggest getting a
used Korg X5 or something similar which is of convenient size, and offers
good sound, some MIDI flexibility, and (all important) a headphone jack.
Don't worry about the weighted keys thing - plenty of monster keyboard guys
came up through either route. You can have the same fistfight between "start
with weighted keys" and "don't need to" as you can between "start with
acoustic guitar" and "don't need to".
Lessons may or may not be really useful depending on where you are at as a
musician and who you can connect with. One thing I would suggest is to get
some qualified help on hand position and fingering, and work through a
keyboard oriented theory book, but beyond that it depends a lot on whether
you're the sort who profits from lessons. Once they understand the basics, a
lot of people get where they want to go by listening and playing along with
records, etc.
Since you mentioned playing synth, as opposed to a one-sound instrument such
as the piano, you will find that different sounds call for different playing
techniques, and the technique for controllers (e.g. mod and pitch wheels,
joysticks, foot pedals, etc.) is not something that I think there is general
agreement on any more.
Later,
Herr Prof. Dr. Stevie Andrew P. Mullhaupt, T. P. O. A.
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Have you considered going for like a used synth? The QS8 is cool, (I am not
>of the "Alesis=Shit" school of thought - I have an S4 to prove it.) but to
>some extent, you will get a lot of the same sounds from two or three year
>old synths as you do from this year's model unless you go for "physical
>modeling" which is almost certainly not the place to start for chops
>building.
[lots of other good stuff deleted for brevity]
Andrew,
Thanks for the suggestion. Let me clarify what I'm looking for in order
to let you know why I originally saw the Alesis QS8 as a good choice, and
maybe you can help me hit the target.
I said 'synth' and probably should not have. All I want are preferably
88 keys that I can use to play a good piano sound and a good organ sound
without owning either/both large, bulky instruments, and which I can use
to record direct. Thus, a synth is my only choice...I think.
Is the Korg model you suggested I find used a great source for an
good-sounding piano and an old-style organ sound? The other stuff is
mildly interesting to me, but not what I'm in it for. I have no intention
whatsoever of going the sequencer/music workstation route. I just want to
learn the keys.
I'd prefer weighted keys only for the sake of my own feel. I've diddled
around a bit, and liked the weighted feel. As far as 'need' expansion
goes...well, I know that keyboard prices will keep me in check. Sure, I
can pay for a PRS once a yar or so...but there's no way in Hell I could
ever afford a trio of great keyboards. I'm just looking for simple and
good.
I also appreciate your advice on learning/teachers and such. I'll
definitely heed it should I actually get some keys to use.
Thanks,
Matt I.
Cypher
On 27 Jan 1998 23:13:31 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Yeah, that's a great point, and the one great fear I live with as a Carvin
>neck-through owner. If the neck on either of my Carvins (bass and guitar)
>goes really bad or breaks, it's done for.
Which Carvin bass do you have? I've heard that these are very well
built basses. Do you like it?
>Nice set. I have no mahogany guitars currently. I have a hardtail
>(obviously) MexiTele, and a hardtail alder/maple Carvin.
Mahogany is definitely my favorite body-wood for guitar, although I
love swamp ash, too. Swamp ash is pretty rare among most guitars,
though. Mahogany is an excellent tone-wood, and it's relatively cheap,
abundant, and easy to work with.
>An attitude like this is one of the many reasons I have a hard time
>finding a guitar store I don't loathe going into because of the staff.
>They can do what they want as far as trades go, of course, and I'm sure
>that will in at least some measure effect resale...but I doubt it. And I
>haven't seen that sentiment expressed by any dealers I've spoken with.
Yeah... I can't stand most guitar salesman, but I go to this one store
where they seem to be honest, and have good deals. The guy was just
telling it like it was... I mean.. They "invested" money in a trade
for a PRS, and it just hangs in their store, and nobody ever seems to
play it for some reason. They're not a PRS dealer, so this could be
the problem. However, you can't make money when guitars don't move and
you own a guitar store. Although, I have a feeling they'd sell this
PRS if they lowered their price. It's just a basic CE-22 w/o maple top
or birds, and they want $1000 USED! Hell, DougA sells these for less
than that, NEW!
>Not a problem for me. I never do trades anyway. You're always better
>off reselling one guitar before buying the new one. A dealer can't
>possibly do as well for you on a trade, or it wouldn't be profitable for
>him.
I have a real hard time "reselling" guitars, even good ones like my
Fender Strat Plus. The "new" market is so flooded, it's hard to do
anything these days but trade-in. At least around Dallas...
Cheers!
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>Which Carvin bass do you have? I've heard that these are very well
>built basses. Do you like it?
LB75 (5 string), about two years old. I love the thing. The playability
is incredible, the B string sounds very good despite a 34" scale, and the
electronics provide a lot of felxibility and low noise.
>Mahogany is definitely my favorite body-wood for guitar, although I
>love swamp ash, too. Swamp ash is pretty rare among most guitars,
>though. Mahogany is an excellent tone-wood, and it's relatively cheap,
>abundant, and easy to work with.
Sounds like an all-around winner. If I have my way, I'll have one
mahogany PRS and one swamp ash PRS by summer.
>Yeah... I can't stand most guitar salesman, but I go to this one store
>where they seem to be honest, and have good deals.
Sounds reasonable
>They're not a PRS dealer, so this could be
>the problem. However, you can't make money when guitars don't move and
>you own a guitar store.
Again, makes sense on both counts.
>Although, I have a feeling they'd sell this
>PRS if they lowered their price. It's just a basic CE-22 w/o maple top
>or birds, and they want $1000 USED! Hell, DougA sells these for less
>than that, NEW!
Oh absolutely. I plan on buying mine for less than $1000 new. They are
clearly the reason for their own lack of sale on that one.
>I have a real hard time "reselling" guitars, even good ones like my
>Fender Strat Plus. The "new" market is so flooded, it's hard to do
>anything these days but trade-in. At least around Dallas...
Maybe it is geography, because I haven't had problems in Atlanta or in
central Illinois, although I admit that I had/have access to large student
populations in each case.
Take it easy,
Matt I.
Cypher
On 27 Jan 1998 23:46:29 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>I said 'synth' and probably should not have. All I want are preferably
>88 keys that I can use to play a good piano sound and a good organ sound
>without owning either/both large, bulky instruments, and which I can use
>to record direct. Thus, a synth is my only choice...I think.
I own a QuadraSynth, and I personally wouldn't suggest it for piano
sounds. Alesis advertises a "phase accurate" grand piano sample, but
this is more marketing hype than anything. The Piano doesn't sound
very real to my ears. The QS8 is a good choice for 88 keys, but for a
little more money, I'd highly suggest the Kurzweil PC88/MX instead.
Once, you've heard the Kurzweil piano, you'll never go back to another
synth for piano sounds.
The keyboards aren't really competitiors, though. The QS8 has WORLDS
more features and sounds, including PC software that you can use to
sample your own sounds. The PC88 is just a very simple controller with
a few GOOD built in sounds like Piano, Strings, Bass, Organ, etc..
what the Kurzweil does, it does VERY well.
If you try one, you'll probably also agree that the feel is very close
to that of a Piano. The QS8 just doesn't stack up here, either.
>.but there's no way in Hell I could
>ever afford a trio of great keyboards. I'm just looking for simple and
>good.
The Kurzweil is a board that you could buy and never want to get rid
of. The sounds are excellent, and the controller features and overall
feel of the keyboard are excellent. Reliabiliy is A+ on Kurzweil
products... can't say the same for Alesis. I've had mine in the shop
THREE times, and twice they replaced the motherboard on it. Now it's
out of warranty. I hope it holds up.
BTW: Did you know that people are still scoring soundtracks with a
Kurzweil K250? That board was made over 10 years ago!
-Cypher
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6alrkl$ncd$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
>I said 'synth' and probably should not have. All I want are preferably
>88 keys that I can use to play a good piano sound and a good organ sound
>without owning either/both large, bulky instruments, and which I can use
>to record direct. Thus, a synth is my only choice...I think.
88 keys is an unusual requirement for starting out. You almost never need 88
in an electronic instrument and it contributes a lot to weight.
If you do a lot of splits, you may prefer the wider board, but if you play
one sound at a time, 60 keys is usually enough, and 76 is almost always more
than enough. 88 is usually beyond overkill for one sound. The Korg X5 (or
similar) I recommended is a 60 key non-weighted keyboard. It's _very_
portable. Even a 76 key weighted keyboard (such as my Fatar 1176) is pretty
heavy and in a case, quite bulky. For pedrspective, 60 keys is five octaves
which is the same range as a 24 fret guitar from top to bottom.
A synth is probably your best choice, but some samplers can also do what you
want, although I'd steer clear of samplers as a first keyboard. Samplers are
usually a pain in the ass to use compared to synths. Modern synths tend to
be essentially easy-to-use sample playback devices.
>Is the Korg model you suggested I find used a great source for an
>good-sounding piano and an old-style organ sound? The other stuff is
>mildly interesting to me, but not what I'm in it for.
It's pretty good on those counts, but it's a more general purpose synth. If
you really want just piano and organ, there are alternatives, such as
>I have no intention
>whatsoever of going the sequencer/music workstation route. I just want to
>learn the keys.
Yeah, and I was just going to buy one guitar....
>I'd prefer weighted keys only for the sake of my own feel. I've diddled
>around a bit, and liked the weighted feel.
A lot of people who come from the piano side of the fence like the feel.
It's sort of analogous to prefering a high action on a guitar. But it's much
less important than in tone than it is in guitar. There were huge fistfights
among piano players about how emotion and expression could be added to the
music by pressure applied to the keys after the note was struck, until the
first half of the twentieth century when it was finally realized that once
the hammer is launched off the lever only the velocity with which it leaves
matters, and nothing after that except the lifting of the damper by keeping
the key depressed. Since then, touch has been relegated to its proper
place - all that matters is when and how hard you hit with a piano action.
Some synths with weighted action throw a monkey wrench into this clean
picture by adding "aftertouch" and "release velocity" to this picture. So no
matter which way you go, you're going to develop bad habits for one
controller or another. One reason I am playing guitar now is that I have too
much of a piano approach and this makes effective playing guitar patches on
synths and samplers somewhat harder than if I had been born late enough to
have learned to play on non-weighted synths.
Note that classic organs (Hammond or pipe) are completely velocity
insensitive. If you really want to develop Hammond chops like Jimmy Smith,
etc., then you _don't_ want a weighted keyboard. If, on the other hand, you
want to go for great piano technique if you ever do play an actual acoustic
piano or (God help you) a Rhodes, you want weighting.
So either way, you're making a compromise.
> As far as 'need' expansion
>goes...well, I know that keyboard prices will keep me in check.
>Sure, I
>can pay for a PRS once a yar or so...but there's no way in Hell I could
>ever afford a trio of great keyboards.
Not true. Tone generators get cheaper and better all the time because their
cost is determined by the cost of computation. Wait four years and you'll be
able to afford three kick-ass tone generators. Note that you usually only
want one controller and then the rest you go rack.
>I also appreciate your advice on learning/teachers and such. I'll
>definitely heed it should I actually get some keys to use.
My advice on teachers is: "One never knows....do one." It turns out to be
pretty easy to stuff music _into_ students but the point of the exercise is
actually to get music to come _out_ of the students. I don't think all music
teachers understand this. In the very beginning, you want to learn the
fingering tricks. You will most easily figure this out by playing all the
major and minor scales in parallel and contrary motion. If, after realizing
just what this means in terms of transposition compared to guitar (on
keyboards it's a stone bitch compared to guitar) you are still playing
keyboards, then just start spelling chords and working out inversions. Go
back and forth between the guitar and the keyboard and play the same stuff.
That can be a bit of a head trip since the symmetry breaking of the black
and white keys means that chord shapes on keyboards change with key, and for
each note there is only one place to go.
If you hook up with a good teacher, great. But that depends a lot on the fit
of personalities.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes
<6alrkl$ncd$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <34cea30...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>I own a QuadraSynth, and I personally wouldn't suggest it for piano
>sounds. Alesis advertises a "phase accurate" grand piano sample, but
>this is more marketing hype than anything. The Piano doesn't sound
>very real to my ears. The QS8 is a good choice for 88 keys, but for a
>little more money, I'd highly suggest the Kurzweil PC88/MX instead.
>Once, you've heard the Kurzweil piano, you'll never go back to another
>synth for piano sounds.
Thanks for the info. I looked up the Kurzweil, and was sad to find out
that it's *much* more expensive than the Alesis ($2400 vs $1500 street
price). Still, from what you've said, it does match my wants a lot more
closely.
[deletions for brevity]
>If you try one, you'll probably also agree that the feel is very close
>to that of a Piano. The QS8 just doesn't stack up here, either.
Also good to know. There might actually be a decent keyboard shop in town
that I didn't know about before (hey, I am a singer first and a guitarist
second, a bassist third and now a wannabe keyboardist fourth). I'll see
if I can compare the two.
[deletions for brevity]
>Reliabiliy is A+ on Kurzweil
>products... can't say the same for Alesis. I've had mine in the shop
>THREE times, and twice they replaced the motherboard on it. Now it's
>out of warranty. I hope it holds up.
Oooh. Definitely a Bad Thing (tm). Figures that when I found something I
thought might do it for a price I could afford, it'd be problematic. I
could still *maybe* go the Kurzweil route, but with that kind of money, I
could get a *seriously* nice PRS, Matchless, Alembic, small PA, or
whatnot.
>BTW: Did you know that people are still scoring soundtracks with a
>Kurzweil K250? That board was made over 10 years ago!
Sounds like they do the job right at that company.
Thanks,
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>88 keys is an unusual requirement for starting out. You almost never need 88
>in an electronic instrument and it contributes a lot to weight.
OK. I can see that. I was just wanting a full piano worth of piano
sound. Seemed logical. I'm not really worried about weight, since I
don't expect to move it, and already play bass, so heavy equipment is
hardly new to me. but it's a good consideration should I ever gig (on
*any* instrument) in the near future.
>For pedrspective, 60 keys is five octaves
>which is the same range as a 24 fret guitar from top to bottom.
Actually, a 24-fret guitar only has 4 octaves, but that just makes your
point stronger.
>It's pretty good on those counts, but it's a more general purpose synth. If
>you really want just piano and organ, there are alternatives, such as
Such as...? Don't leave me hanging, here, man. I got such as and nothing
else in the post I read. I'm eager to find out what the alternatives are.
>>I have no intention
>>whatsoever of going the sequencer/music workstation route.
>>I just want to learn the keys.
>Yeah, and I was just going to buy one guitar....
Point taken, but I'll put it this way: if I could just buy a Hammond organ
and a piano (and have someplace to *put* them), I would. I have nothing
against synth music. I just don't have an interest in that. I admit that
my direction could chage, but I don't see the point in not getting what I
think I really want just in case I change my mind.
[deletion for brevity]
>One reason I am playing guitar now is that I have too
>much of a piano approach and this makes effective playing guitar patches on
>synths and samplers somewhat harder than if I had been born late enough to
>have learned to play on non-weighted synths.
Interesting stuff.
>Note that classic organs (Hammond or pipe) are completely velocity
>insensitive. If you really want to develop Hammond chops like Jimmy Smith,
>etc., then you _don't_ want a weighted keyboard. If, on the other hand, you
>want to go for great piano technique if you ever do play an actual acoustic
>piano or (God help you) a Rhodes, you want weighting.
>So either way, you're making a compromise.
Looks like it. I guess that's one compromise I'll have to make. What I
least want to compromise on are good piano and organ sounds. I'm willing
to compromise on number of keys (as you mention above), but I don't want
to buy a multi-purpose synth just so I can have something that does a lot
of things I don't really want to do and only does the things I really want
in a so-so fashion.
>Not true. Tone generators get cheaper and better all the time because their
>cost is determined by the cost of computation. Wait four years and you'll be
>able to afford three kick-ass tone generators. Note that you usually only
>want one controller and then the rest you go rack.
I hope you're right. But the prices right now for some of this stuff is
staggering, and it seems like it follows the computer pricing mode: Once
the old stuff becomes cheap and low-margin, it gets discontinued in favor
of new stuff, which the consumers eagerly buy up because they are used to
a certain price level (say, around $2500 for a 'multimedia' home PC).
[deletion for brevity]
>If you hook up with a good teacher, great. But that depends a lot on the fit
>of personalities.
I'm certain that's the case, which is why I've never really found a guitar
teacher I've stuck with, and as a result am about 90% self-taught. Sure,
I have some personal technique quirks which a teacher would call 'bad
habits,' but then again, they help me get my own sound, so I don't mind.
Thanks for the info, and please do let me know which specific instruments
you think might be able to match my needs best.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cypher wrote in message <34cea30...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>
>I own a QuadraSynth, and I personally wouldn't suggest it for piano
>sounds.
Did you get the add-on card piano ROM? Makes a huge improvement. I have a
K2500R as well as an S4 (rack version of your QS) with the add-on card. The
add-on card in teh S4 is about as good as the stock K2500R. The optional
piano ROM for the K2500R is better.
>I'd highly suggest the Kurzweil PC88/MX instead.
>Once, you've heard the Kurzweil piano, you'll never go back to another
>synth for piano sounds.
Actually, I use the K2500R for electric piano but I sometimes use the S4 for
piano - I like their 9' and Bosendorfer samples. It depends on how much
'heavy lifting' I need to do with the K2500R and the JV1080.
>The Kurzweil is a board that you could buy and never want to get rid
>of. The sounds are excellent, and the controller features and overall
>feel of the keyboard are excellent. Reliabiliy is A+ on Kurzweil
>products... can't say the same for Alesis. I've had mine in the shop
>THREE times, and twice they replaced the motherboard on it. Now it's
>out of warranty. I hope it holds up.
I've owned several Alesis pieces and none of it has ever failed. My K2500R
hasn't failed, either. In fact, my only electronic keyboard ever to fail was
my DX-7 when some moron sat on the keyboard. Just lucky, I guess.
>BTW: Did you know that people are still scoring soundtracks with a
>Kurzweil K250? That board was made over 10 years ago!
Some people (but not me!) are still driving Mini Moogs, which are much older
than that. Even though they are just as fashionable as vintage guitars, most
really vintage synths are really just a little piece of hell come back to
haunt you.
Later,
Andrew "shouldn't there be a rec.music.makers.keyboards?" Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6amiir$dm7$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>For pedrspective, 60 keys is five octaves
>>which is the same range as a 24 fret guitar from top to bottom.
>
>Actually, a 24-fret guitar only has 4 octaves, but that just makes your
>point stronger.
You're right I counted the five E's and forgot the 'fencepost' theorem.
>>It's pretty good on those counts, but it's a more general purpose synth.
If
>>you really want just piano and organ, there are alternatives, such as
>
>Such as...? Don't leave me hanging, here, man. I got such as and nothing
>else in the post I read. I'm eager to find out what the alternatives are.
Um, yes. When I read my post I figured this point would be touched on.
I have a whole bunch of things that might work for you but I'll have to
check on some details. I'll get back to you.
>Point taken, but I'll put it this way: if I could just buy a Hammond organ
>and a piano (and have someplace to *put* them), I would. I have nothing
>against synth music. I just don't have an interest in that. I admit that
>my direction could chage, but I don't see the point in not getting what I
>think I really want just in case I change my mind.
The cool thing about the synths today is that you can basically come very
close to the piano and Hammond sounds (bass and drums, too), but permit the
use of a sequencer to play back a whole band full for you to play guitar
and/or sing along with. It actually builds certain aspects of your
musicianship to play all the parts and try and leave room for and fit in
with yourself.
>Looks like it. I guess that's one compromise I'll have to make. What I
>least want to compromise on are good piano and organ sounds. I'm willing
>to compromise on number of keys (as you mention above), but I don't want
>to buy a multi-purpose synth just so I can have something that does a lot
>of things I don't really want to do and only does the things I really want
>in a so-so fashion.
Actually, that's not really the trade off. Some of the more limited range
synths don't have great sounds. You better go play some in the store to see
whose piano you like the best. But be careful. It's like guitars. An
instrument that sounds great all by itself may have too much going for it in
the track. Piano sounds are really complicated once you get to know them.
>I hope you're right. But the prices right now for some of this stuff is
>staggering, and it seems like it follows the computer pricing mode:
Which is why you can save a _ton_ of money on old or used stuff.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Rob Martino
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>
> >It's pretty good on those counts, but it's a more general purpose synth. If
> >you really want just piano and organ, there are alternatives, such as
>
> else in the post I read. I'm eager to find out what the alternatives are.
Matt, based on what you are looking for in a keyboard I would
recommend the weighted key instruments which have a small number
of very high quality sounds. This would include the Kurzweil PC-88,
Roland's digital pianos (ep-7mkII, ep-9, or RD-600 depending on
how many keys you want, number of effects, built in speakers or not,
etc.) and the Korg SGproX. General Music and Ensoniq might have similar
offerings but I am not a familiar with their lines.
For Roland specs on their digital pianos, check out:
http://www.rolandus.com/products/MI/MIprod_DPO.html#RD-600
Kurzweil:
http://www.youngchang.com/kurzweil
Korg:
I've played with the Rolands which do have some nice piano and organ
sounds. For excellent Hammond sounds the Roland VK-7 combo organ
is regarded by many as the current best B3 clone.
Good luck!
Rob
--
Rob Martino
http://www.cris.com/~rpmtino
Matthew Ivaliotes
<6alrkl$ncd$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <6amgbm$k...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <6amiir$dm7$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <6amlcr$o...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
[deletions]
Thanks again, and I eagerly await yur recommendations
>Actually, that's not really the trade off. Some of the more limited range
>synths don't have great sounds. You better go play some in the store to see
>whose piano you like the best. But be careful. It's like guitars. An
>instrument that sounds great all by itself may have too much going for it in
>the track. Piano sounds are really complicated once you get to know them.
I've already done that, and to be frank, it seems hopeless. These
companies throw *so* much stuff into the mix, and unless you get a *very*
helpful salesman, it's hard to get them to help you find exactly what you
want, especially when your desires are as simple as mine.
>>I hope you're right. But the prices right now for some of this stuff is
>>staggering, and it seems like it follows the computer pricing mode:
>Which is why you can save a _ton_ of money on old or used stuff.
True, true. But if I can get what I want at a non-insane price, I'd
prefer to avoid used, primarily because in a week I could have a
nonfunctioning piece of junk. I don't know nearly enough about the things
to be able to give one a valid once-over, and digital electronics are
delicate enough that any amount of mistreatment could have long-range
effects.
Besides, the market here for used synths is virtually non-existent, the
same as it is for used guitars. Definitely a seller's market with few
options. There's got to be a good new choice for both piano and organ.
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com> writes:
>Matt, based on what you are looking for in a keyboard I would
>recommend the weighted key instruments which have a small number
>of very high quality sounds. This would include the Kurzweil PC-88,
>Roland's digital pianos (ep-7mkII, ep-9, or RD-600 depending on
>how many keys you want, number of effects, built in speakers or not,
>etc.) and the Korg SGproX. General Music and Ensoniq might have similar
>offerings but I am not a familiar with their lines.
Do all of the Roland digital pianos you list include a good organ sound?
[web pages deleted. thanks.]
>I've played with the Rolands which do have some nice piano and organ
>sounds. For excellent Hammond sounds the Roland VK-7 combo organ
>is regarded by many as the current best B3 clone.
But I'd imagine it does not have piano functinoality. I'm not *so*
specific that I just want one or the other. I'd really like to be able to
do both.
Thanks for the info,
Matt I.
Cypher
On 28 Jan 1998 05:48:41 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Thanks for the info. I looked up the Kurzweil, and was sad to find out
>that it's *much* more expensive than the Alesis ($2400 vs $1500 street
>price). Still, from what you've said, it does match my wants a lot more
>closely.
Ouch! I know that I've seen it cheaper than that. Maybe I'm thinking
of the standard PC-88, but I thought you could get it for around
$1500. Maybe I'm wrong... I don't keep up with keyboard prices very
much.
For what I use it for, my Quadrasynth does the job. Plus, it's
probably the easiest synth to use.
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>On 28 Jan 1998 05:48:41 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
>wrote:
>>Thanks for the info. I looked up the Kurzweil, and was sad to find out
>>that it's *much* more expensive than the Alesis ($2400 vs $1500 street
>>price). Still, from what you've said, it does match my wants a lot more
>>closely.
>Ouch! I know that I've seen it cheaper than that. Maybe I'm thinking
>of the standard PC-88, but I thought you could get it for around
>$1500. Maybe I'm wrong... I don't keep up with keyboard prices very
>much.
Actually, you were right, the price I saw was for the PC-88MX. The PC-88
is about $500 cheaper, which still put it near $2000. If you see a
cheaper price somewhere, let me know.
>For what I use it for, my Quadrasynth does the job. Plus, it's
>probably the easiest synth to use.
Sounds good. If you think it's a contender for the 'virtual piano/organ'
spec that I'm trying to fill, I'll definitely keep it on my list. I was
first interested in a QS8 in the first place because I like the feel and
the ease of use.
Matt I.
Rob Martino
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>
> Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com> writes:
>
> >Matt, based on what you are looking for in a keyboard I would
> >recommend the weighted key instruments which have a small number
> >of very high quality sounds. This would include the Kurzweil PC-88,
> >Roland's digital pianos (ep-7mkII, ep-9, or RD-600 depending on
> >how many keys you want, number of effects, built in speakers or not,
> >etc.) and the Korg SGproX. General Music and Ensoniq might have similar
> >offerings but I am not a familiar with their lines.
>
> Do all of the Roland digital pianos you list include a good organ sound?
Let's see, on the Sweetwater Sound web site, they have some specs:
http://www.sweetwater.com/products/roland/ep9_ep7mkii.html
It says the ep-series have two pianos, electric piano, vibraphone, strings,
organ, choir and harpsicord. The 76 key version retails for $795,
which is not bad at all. (the 88 key is $1195 and includes a stand).
With only one organ preset I'm sure what kind of variations you
could have, you'd want to hear it first if you can find it.
The RD series will give you more sounds (I believe the RD-600 is
what I played recently in a music store) and it did have some
nice piano and Hammond organ variations. The RD series however
retail for over $2000.
The Roland A-70 is price-wise somewhere in between but seems
to be more oriented as a master controller for controlling
other MIDI gear and setting up splits (different sounds on different
ranges of keys), with lots of knobs and sliders for controlling
sound parameters. Internal sounds are obtained via expansion
cards for the types of sounds you want. There's a card called
VE-RD1 which seems to indicate it gives you RD-series types sounds,
which I mentioned are pretty good.
> >I've played with the Rolands which do have some nice piano and organ
> >sounds. For excellent Hammond sounds the Roland VK-7 combo organ
> >is regarded by many as the current best B3 clone.
>
> But I'd imagine it does not have piano functinoality. I'm not *so*
> specific that I just want one or the other. I'd really like to be able to
> do both.
It does have a handful of other sounds, like strings, choirs, electric
piano, brass, but no acoustic piano. I guess I just mentioned it
becuase it is such a killer Hammond clone (better than any sample-based
Hammond sounds you'd find on other keyboards), and because I want one! :-)
In your case I'd definately focus on the digital piano type boards.
Matthew Ivaliotes
Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com> writes:
>http://www.sweetwater.com/products/roland/ep9_ep7mkii.html
>It says the ep-series have two pianos, electric piano, vibraphone, strings,
>organ, choir and harpsicord. The 76 key version retails for $795,
>which is not bad at all. (the 88 key is $1195 and includes a stand).
>With only one organ preset I'm sure what kind of variations you
>could have, you'd want to hear it first if you can find it.
Sounds to me like the EP series could be just what I'm looking for,
assuming the organ sound is actually a darn good one. I'll definitely
have to go ehck one out.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Rob Martino wrote in message <34CF4347...@ctron.com>...
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>
>Matt, based on what you are looking for in a keyboard I would
>recommend the weighted key instruments which have a small number
>of very high quality sounds. This would include the Kurzweil PC-88,
I just came back from auditioning a PC-88. I was not blown away by the
internal piano sounds and a bit less than impressed with the Hammonds. Keep
in mind I own a K2500R so this is not Kurzweil bashing.
>Roland's digital pianos (ep-7mkII, ep-9, or RD-600 depending on
>how many keys you want, number of effects, built in speakers or not,
>etc.) and the Korg SGproX. General Music and Ensoniq might have similar
>offerings but I am not a familiar with their lines.
For this class of instrument a lot of people dig the Roland piano sounds.
>I've played with the Rolands which do have some nice piano and organ
>sounds. For excellent Hammond sounds the Roland VK-7 combo organ
>is regarded by many as the current best B3 clone.
Yeah, but that way he has to go with two keyboards, unless he wants to go
with the VK-7 as a MIDI controller, and I don't know anyone who does that.
I think that while he's learning keys, something like a used Korg X-5 would
do. He can get a Roland XP-50 for a good deal now too. I wouldn't be too
worried about weighted keys, and one can always get a Fatar (now
Studiologic) later if that becomes an issue. I saw a used M-1 for $500
today.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Rob Martino wrote in message <34CF63ED...@ctron.com>...
>> > For excellent Hammond sounds the Roland VK-7 combo organ
>> >is regarded by many as the current best B3 clone.
>>
>> But I'd imagine it does not have piano functinoality. I'm not *so*
>> specific that I just want one or the other. I'd really like to be able
to
>> do both.
>
>It does have a handful of other sounds, like strings, choirs, electric
>piano, brass, but no acoustic piano. I guess I just mentioned it
>becuase it is such a killer Hammond clone (better than any sample-based
>Hammond sounds you'd find on other keyboards),
I think the new K2500 upgrade (free software off the web) gives you a B-3
that stacks up really well with the VK-7. The VK-7 is just a lot more like
an organ in look and feel department.
Later,
Andrew "we really need rec.music.makers.keys" Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I just came back from auditioning a PC-88. I was not blown away by the
>internal piano sounds and a bit less than impressed with the Hammonds. Keep
>in mind I own a K2500R so this is not Kurzweil bashing.
So noted and appreciated. I played a couple of boards today, too. I'll
discuss them as we go.
>For this class of instrument a lot of people dig the Roland piano sounds.
Perhaps the one I played wasn't great, but the EP-9 I played today didn't
feel all that good or sound noticeably better than the QS8 I played. the
QS8 felt *wonderful*, had 88 weighted keys, and was $1600. Any down side
to these? Is the piano sound really supposed to be that bad? I dug it,
to be frank.
>Yeah, but that way he has to go with two keyboards, unless he wants to go
>with the VK-7 as a MIDI controller, and I don't know anyone who does that.
Yeah. I played a VK-7 today, too, however, and it did sound just
fantastic. A great organ.
>I think that while he's learning keys, something like a used Korg X-5 would
>do. He can get a Roland XP-50 for a good deal now too. I wouldn't be too
>worried about weighted keys, and one can always get a Fatar (now
>Studiologic) later if that becomes an issue. I saw a used M-1 for $500
>today.
Here's the frustrating part. There is absolutley zero good used gear in
this town. And there's no way I'm buying used sight unseen.
I'm really thinking about the QS8 again. I absolutely loved the way it
felt. And I genuinely would prefer weighted keys, even if I don't need
them. They just feel a lot better to me. If the time comes when I really
find the QS8 inadequate, i could always buy the latest hyper-real piano
module. But again, I played it through headphones as well as through a
speaker, and the piano sounded pretty good to me. Am I just showing my
lack of experience here?
Thanks for the advice. I still haven't checked out the PC-88 yet, and
hope to find a local dealer soon. I think the Alesis would be cheaper,
though.
Thanks again,
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Later,
>Andrew "we really need rec.music.makers.keys" Mullhaupt
Isn't there r.m.m.synth or somesuch? Maybe I should ask there as well,
but I am kind of glad I've just talked to a few people here rather than
get overwhlemed there or start a flamewar about 'best keys for starter
wanting piano and organ.'
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6aos41$ja4$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>QS8 felt *wonderful*, had 88 weighted keys, and was $1600. Any down side
>to these?
My downside would be do you really want 88 weighted keys to lug around to
gigs, and buying new you will be the schmuck who eats the markdown.
Other than that you will find that Alesis isn't a "cool" brand. I don't give
a shit about that and own several Alesis pieces. It's like your Carvin
guitar. There are some keyboard players who won't take Alesis seriously for
God knows what reason.
For a first keyboard, a QS8 will do fine. It's more than I would start out
with. I still suggest getting a Korg X-5D so you can learn to play and drive
a synth, etc. and spend the next year reading Keyboard magazine and then
spend the $1000 you _didn't_ spend on the QS8 this year to buy something
cooler next year when you know a lot more about what you want.
> Is the piano sound really supposed to be that bad? I dug it,
>to be frank.
If it has the ones on the expanded QS (which I have on a card for my S4) and
I think it has these, then I don't have a lot against them. In fact I often
use them to free up my heavier duty synths.
>>Yeah, but that way he has to go with two keyboards, unless he wants to go
>>with the VK-7 as a MIDI controller, and I don't know anyone who does that.
>
>Yeah. I played a VK-7 today, too, however, and it did sound just
>fantastic. A great organ.
But frankly, the great organ is real easy meat for any relatively muscular
synth with good effects.
>>I think that while he's learning keys, something like a used Korg X-5
would
>>do. He can get a Roland XP-50 for a good deal now too. I wouldn't be too
>>worried about weighted keys, and one can always get a Fatar (now
>>Studiologic) later if that becomes an issue. I saw a used M-1 for $500
>>today.
>
>Here's the frustrating part. There is absolutley zero good used gear in
>this town. And there's no way I'm buying used sight unseen.
Drag. I concur about buying used sight unseen - just say no.
>I'm really thinking about the QS8 again. I absolutely loved the way it
>felt. And I genuinely would prefer weighted keys, even if I don't need
>them. They just feel a lot better to me. If the time comes when I really
>find the QS8 inadequate, i could always buy the latest hyper-real piano
>module.
If you don't contract KAS, the QS8 ought to hold you for a while.
> But again, I played it through headphones as well as through a
>speaker, and the piano sounded pretty good to me. Am I just showing my
>lack of experience here?
Yes. But there is nothing that can be done about your lack of experience
except for you to get experienced.
I can give you a long list of 'spot the clever fake' things to listen for in
a piano simulation. But I'll just give you one that which shows up on the
Korg X-5 and also on the Alesis Nanopiano. If you play a long chromatic
scale you will hear audible shifts in timbre at some of the points where the
keyboard switches from one sample to the next. What the piano simulators do
is they take say, twelve samples, and transpose them to neighboring keys.
Now between the ranges where one sample is used and the next, there can be a
crossfade or a sharp boundary, or maybe something more complicated. The
sharp transition (as in the X5 and Nanopiano) can cause audible shifts in
timbre between two adjacent notes. The crossfade is less obviously
noticable, but can lead to unwanted comb filtering of overtones and blurred
attacks.
Then you have things like velocity crossfading to get different timbres to
simulate the piano, and so you need to play your chromatic scale at
different velocities to expose the artifacts.
In my experience, nobody actually has "gone all the way" and created a piano
simulation which is impenetrable, although this is not that hard to
conceive. When it gets to the point that the artifacts are on the same scale
as the variation between the registration of notes on actual pianos, there
is a question of whether or not you should 'fix' them.
After you've played a few thousand hours of piano simulations, you'll hear
stuff that will make you wince in one note that you would blissfully ignore
now. And to some extent the experience is a curse more than a blessing.
By the way the same thing happens after a few thousand hours of playing real
pianos.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6aos6l$jct$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Later,
>>Andrew "we really need rec.music.makers.keys" Mullhaupt
>
>Isn't there r.m.m.synth or somesuch?
Well, that would be a drag. There should be one where you can go for all the
keyboard instruments.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Cypher
On 29 Jan 1998 03:13:05 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Perhaps the one I played wasn't great, but the EP-9 I played today didn't
>feel all that good or sound noticeably better than the QS8 I played. the
>QS8 felt *wonderful*, had 88 weighted keys, and was $1600. Any down side
>to these? Is the piano sound really supposed to be that bad? I dug it,
>to be frank.
I dig the Alesis boards, too. Even though I've had a lot of trouble
with mine, it's about the easiest keyboard I've ever used. Alesis has
a very intuitive interface. I used to have an Ensoniq TS-10 that I
sold because it was a pain in the ass to do the simplest of tasks on.
Plus, it wasn't very reliable. It would often lock up while I was
playing or programming. I had to take it back to the shop once to get
it re-set after a severe lock-up that a power off/power on couldn't
recover from.
I also owned a Roland synth before. These have simply horrible user
interfaces. I had an M1 a long time ago that I liked. If your just
starting out, I'd suggest buying a used M1. These boards are very cool
and have a lot of neat sounds. Pretty good for being almost 10 years
old! The only think I don't like is the lack of polyphony. 64 voices
RULES!
>I'm really thinking about the QS8 again. I absolutely loved the way it
>felt. And I genuinely would prefer weighted keys, even if I don't need
>them. They just feel a lot better to me. If the time comes when I really
>find the QS8 inadequate, i could always buy the latest hyper-real piano
>module. But again, I played it through headphones as well as through a
>speaker, and the piano sounded pretty good to me. Am I just showing my
>lack of experience here?
The Piano is OK and it's definitely useable. Whatever sounds good to
your ears is the best. I just hope Alesis has worked out their
reliability problems. I love their gear, but the ONE thing that would
keep me from buying a new one is the fact that mine has broken THREE
times, and TWICE needed a main logic board replacement. Other than
that, it's probably my favorite out of all the synths that I've owned.
-Cypher
Rob Martino
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
> I'm really thinking about the QS8 again. I absolutely loved the way it
> felt. And I genuinely would prefer weighted keys, even if I don't need
> them. They just feel a lot better to me. If the time comes when I really
> find the QS8 inadequate, i could always buy the latest hyper-real piano
> module. But again, I played it through headphones as well as through a
> speaker, and the piano sounded pretty good to me. Am I just showing my
> lack of experience here?
Well, I own the Quadrasynth Plus Piano and I find the piano to be
very nice, although I consider myself more of a synth player than
a piano player (I'm more interested in variety of timbre than
keyboard performance technique). The QS8 I think uses the same
samples for piano as mine. It's certainly better than your
standard sample-playback synth "built-in" piano patch (ie. one
that doesn't come on an expansion card). You will probably
notice some multi-sample artificats if you play chromatically
up the keyboard, but I hardly notice these when I'm actually
playing something. If it sounds good to you and keeps you
inspired to keep practicing, I'd say go for it. And limit
yourself from trying out new keyboards all the time in music
stores, which results in new gear lust! :-)
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6aos41$ja4$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>>QS8 felt *wonderful*, had 88 weighted keys, and was $1600. Any down side
>>to these?
>My downside would be do you really want 88 weighted keys to lug around to
>gigs, and buying new you will be the schmuck who eats the markdown.
Buying new is my only option. I've been scraping the used market around
here to see if *anything* decent is available, and nothing has turned up
for me to even try out. As far as lugging goes...that presupposes that I
have a gig. I've only gigged as a vocalist and infrequent guitar player,
so I don't see this as a big problem. I'm mostly a person who loves music
for music's sake. And hey, I'm a 200-pound guy and used to carry our
little bass player's stack in to gigs, so it's no big deal.
>Other than that you will find that Alesis isn't a "cool" brand. I don't give
>a shit about that and own several Alesis pieces. It's like your Carvin
>guitar. There are some keyboard players who won't take Alesis seriously for
>God knows what reason.
As you eluded to, if cool mattered to me, I wouldn't own a Carvin guitar,
bass, bass amp, and mixer. If it does the job, I'm all over it.
>For a first keyboard, a QS8 will do fine. It's more than I would start out
>with. I still suggest getting a Korg X-5D so you can learn to play and drive
>a synth, etc. and spend the next year reading Keyboard magazine and then
>spend the $1000 you _didn't_ spend on the QS8 this year to buy something
>cooler next year when you know a lot more about what you want.
I think I do know what I want, I'm just not sure if it exists, and haven't
developed a super-critical ear. I do in fact like the feel of weighted
keys, and I just want a piano/organ.
>>Yeah. I played a VK-7 today, too, however, and it did sound just
>>fantastic. A great organ.
>But frankly, the great organ is real easy meat for any relatively muscular
>synth with good effects.
I suppose that's true. It was still cool, drawbars and all. I wouldn't
buy one, but it was cool.
>>Here's the frustrating part. There is absolutley zero good used gear in
>>this town. And there's no way I'm buying used sight unseen.
>Drag. I concur about buying used sight unseen - just say no.
Indeed. I checked the classfieds locally again last night. This market
consists mostly of the keys these students were using in their high school
bands, and no, these particular kids weren't using Korgs and Kurzweils in
those bands.
>If you don't contract KAS, the QS8 ought to hold you for a while.
Well said. I admit it's a risk I take. But even if I do decide I want
more/better sounds, I can just get other sound modules. It was the
best-feeling set of keys that I played, at least to me.
>Yes. But there is nothing that can be done about your lack of experience
>except for you to get experienced.
Right. But I'm just not sure I want to play something for a year or more
than I don't like the feel of out fo fear that I might want a top of the
line model some day.
[interesting piano sound stuff deleted for brevity]
>After you've played a few thousand hours of piano simulations, you'll hear
>stuff that will make you wince in one note that you would blissfully ignore
>now. And to some extent the experience is a curse more than a blessing.
>By the way the same thing happens after a few thousand hours of playing real
>pianos.
Well if that should happen, I guess I'd just have to go buy a new piano
sound module. Doesn't sound like too horrible of a proposition, honestly.
I appreciate you advice a lot. I'll look around for the Korg you suggest
and if I find one, try to play it if at all possible. But I'll go with
what feels right in the end. And if I can't find the Korg used, I'll only
be buying something new that I *know* isn't going to hold me all that
long, rather than something that I think may hold me for quite a while
(but could indeed be very very wrong).
Thanks,
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>Isn't there r.m.m.synth or somesuch?
>Well, that would be a drag. There should be one where you can go for all the
>keyboard instruments.
Good point. After all, I'm far more interested in the other instruments
(at least functionally) than I am in full-bore synth stuff.
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>I also owned a Roland synth before. These have simply horrible user
>interfaces. I had an M1 a long time ago that I liked. If your just
>starting out, I'd suggest buying a used M1. These boards are very cool
>and have a lot of neat sounds. Pretty good for being almost 10 years
>old! The only think I don't like is the lack of polyphony. 64 voices
>RULES!
Heh. Cool. Again, I hate to poo-poo a good suggestion, but the used
market for keys around here really sucks. Same for guitars, basses, and
any other musical instruments, for that matter. I'll hunt for that and
the X5D that Andrew suggested all the same.
>The Piano is OK and it's definitely useable. Whatever sounds good to
>your ears is the best. I just hope Alesis has worked out their
>reliability problems. I love their gear, but the ONE thing that would
>keep me from buying a new one is the fact that mine has broken THREE
>times, and TWICE needed a main logic board replacement. Other than
>that, it's probably my favorite out of all the synths that I've owned.
Andrew didn't have the same problems you had. Have you heard others with
the same problems? I definitely can get frustrated very quickly by an
unreliable instrument, and would want to avoid that if at all possible.
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com> writes:
>If it sounds good to you and keeps you
>inspired to keep practicing, I'd say go for it. And limit
>yourself from trying out new keyboards all the time in music
>stores, which results in new gear lust! :-)
A great pair of suggestions. I actually figure that between the keyboard,
my PRS, and my bass, I'll no longer have *time* to spend sitting in a
music store (I barely do now)...and that's a GOOD thing.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6aq9bg$r3a$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>Andrew didn't have the same problems you had. Have you heard others with
>the same problems? I definitely can get frustrated very quickly by an
>unreliable instrument, and would want to avoid that if at all possible.
Matt, if reliability concerns you, Korg and Roland tend to make very durable
gear. I would avoid Ensoniq for tone, reliability, and resale, but I have
avoided them for a long time now and although I hear it's the same sad story
now, you never know if you haven't been hurt. Fender sucked for a while now
they can make respectable gear. A guy like you who will really feel bad with
a sad piece of gear might want to stick to Korg, Roland, and maybe Yamaha.
I never had any problems with my Alesis gear, but I take real good care of
my computing devices. I run my rack off of conditioned power and make sure
that proper ventilation is provided so that the stuff runs cool. I avoid
turning it on and off a lot (which can thermally shock some components in
displays) and to tell the truth my Alesis stuff has never been roaded hard.
If you get a long and weighted keyboard, and a good (flight) case for it,
you're up to something that weighs enough to be easily dropped if someone
stumbles etc. Heavy stuff doesn't benefit as much from case foam as light
stuff does.
So I wouldn't be afraid to go Alesis if you can 'baby' your board. But if
it's going to be roaded to dicey gigs I can't say. Hard roading equipment
includes stuff like 300 lb. drunks falling onto it and snapping it in two.
Many stomp boxes are 'built like tanks' and have real simple guts but I'm
sure every model ever made has failed somehow, somewhere on the road.
If you're going to gig a lot and hard road your board, get two cheaper ones,
and get a strong stand.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Rob Martino wrote in message <34D0897F...@ctron.com>...
>Well, I own the Quadrasynth Plus Piano and I find the piano to be
>very nice, although I consider myself more of a synth player than
>a piano player (I'm more interested in variety of timbre than
>keyboard performance technique). The QS8 I think uses the same
>samples for piano as mine.
Then these are the same sounds I have on my add-in card to my S4. These are
definitely decent.
Matt, sounds like if you're not hard roading the thing, get a good power
strip and enjoy the QS8.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Mick Patterson
In article <6aq9bg$r3a$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu
(Matthew Ivaliotes) wrote:
+guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
+>I also owned a Roland synth before. These have simply horrible user
+>interfaces. I had an M1 a long time ago that I liked. If your just
+>starting out, I'd suggest buying a used M1. These boards are very cool
+>and have a lot of neat sounds. Pretty good for being almost 10 years
+>old! The only think I don't like is the lack of polyphony. 64 voices
+>RULES!
For used M-1s in Austin, TX, they are asking $900. I
think that's a bit much (all instruments cost too much
here), considering the prices of some of the new keys
out there. Is it the same everywhere for the M-1?
---Mick...
___________________________________________________________
My opinions do not reflect those of anyone else... yet.
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Matt, if reliability concerns you, Korg and Roland tend to make very durable
>gear. I would avoid Ensoniq for tone, reliability, and resale, but I have
>avoided them for a long time now and although I hear it's the same sad story
>now, you never know if you haven't been hurt. Fender sucked for a while now
>they can make respectable gear. A guy like you who will really feel bad with
>a sad piece of gear might want to stick to Korg, Roland, and maybe Yamaha.
I'll check them out to see if they have anything comparable for a good
price.
>If you're going to gig a lot and hard road your board, get two cheaper ones,
>and get a strong stand.
I'm a computer network analyst for a living, so I have computer stuff at
home that I also baby quite a bit, and I'd do teh same with my board. I
have no intention of gigging in the near future, and certainly none of
touing in the near, distant, or theoretical future.
I'll check around to see if there are more horror stories like Cypher's.
Thanks,
Matt I.
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Then these are the same sounds I have on my add-in card to my S4. These are
>definitely decent.
Cool.
>Matt, sounds like if you're not hard roading the thing, get a good power
>strip and enjoy the QS8.
That describes me to a tee. Thanks.
Matt I.
Cypher
On 29 Jan 1998 16:05:04 GMT, lo...@staff.uiuc.edu (Matthew Ivaliotes)
wrote:
>Andrew didn't have the same problems you had. Have you heard others with
>the same problems? I definitely can get frustrated very quickly by an
>unreliable instrument, and would want to avoid that if at all possible.
No, and I used to be on the Quadrasynth mailing list. I think that
mine was simply a lemon because nobody else had to have their logic
boards replaced. I think that they would have only had to replace the
logic board once, had they fixed it right in the first place. The
second time they replaced the logic board, they also replaced the
power supply. I'm assuming that the power supply was blowing the logic
boards, but they didn't say. The third time I had to get it fixed
because the LCD started displaying Kanji (Japanese) instead of
English. They did a hardware re-set and it cleared it up. I haven't
had a problem with it in almost two years.
-Cypher
Matthew Ivaliotes
guit...@geocities.com (Cypher) writes:
>No, and I used to be on the Quadrasynth mailing list. I think that
>mine was simply a lemon because nobody else had to have their logic
>boards replaced. I think that they would have only had to replace the
>logic board once, had they fixed it right in the first place. The
>second time they replaced the logic board, they also replaced the
>power supply. I'm assuming that the power supply was blowing the logic
>boards, but they didn't say. The third time I had to get it fixed
>because the LCD started displaying Kanji (Japanese) instead of
>English. They did a hardware re-set and it cleared it up. I haven't
>had a problem with it in almost two years.
Extremely cool. I think I've found my winner. Now all I have to do is
find a good price on it. I'll give the local guys a shot to matche
whatever price I get, and eat the tax if I have to, since they let me try
it out and were pretty cool, if not terribly knowledgeable.
Thanks,
Matt
Rob Martino
Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
> >Yeah. I played a VK-7 today, too, however, and it did sound just
> >fantastic. A great organ.
>
> But frankly, the great organ is real easy meat for any relatively muscular
> synth with good effects.
Between my K2000, Quadrasynth and Wavestation I find convincing
organ sounds to be difficult. It's not so much the samples
used but the Leslie effect which sems to be critical. So
the "awkward" piece of my system at home is a Motion Sound Pro-3T,
(a rotating horn speaker with tube pre-amp) stuffed into a closet
with a microphone on it. I have a few organ patches from a CD-ROM
on my K2000 which I route specificially to the Pro-3T, and this
sounds fairly good. The Motion Sound acoustically-isolated rotating
horn unit (with built in mics) would be better for this situation
but is pricey. Which makes me think that if Matt later wants to
beef up the organ patches on a QS8 or whatever he gets he could
always get one of these great sounding Leslie clones (having a
real, physcially rotating horn is key, even the VK-7 electronic
simulation isn't quite as good). They'll make even a weak organ
patch sound pretty good.
Rob Martino
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
> >If you're going to gig a lot and hard road your board, get two cheaper ones,
> >and get a strong stand.
>
> I'm a computer network analyst for a living, so I have computer stuff at
> home that I also baby quite a bit, and I'd do teh same with my board. I
> have no intention of gigging in the near future, and certainly none of
> touing in the near, distant, or theoretical future.
>
> I'll check around to see if there are more horror stories like Cypher's.
Well, I'd have to pipe in here and say my Alesis Quadrasynth
had to go back for repair once during warranty (the pitch
pot goes bad and you get all these random pitch bends).
Now it's out of warranty and does the same thing again.
I don't feel like sending it back yet so I disable the pitch
bend on the sounds I use to mask the problem.
There have been threads I've read about many QS users sending
their synths back for repair, but not recently. So
maybe they have improved. Take advantage of an extended
warranty and free loaner if your board needs repair if your music
store offers it (a local store here deos that). I'd agree
with Andrew on another post that Korg, Roland and Yamaha
gear is pretty much rock solid.
Rob
Giri
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
> Extremely cool. I think I've found my winner. Now all I have to do is
> find a good price on it. I'll give the local guys a shot to matche
> whatever price I get, and eat the tax if I have to, since they let me try
> it out and were pretty cool, if not terribly knowledgeable.
Well, if they let you try it out and were pretty cool,
you should be willing to pay more than you would with
some mail-order company. You're paying tax doesn't help
them run a store, stock equipment, pay someone to chat
with you, etc. If you're only willing to pay X dollars
(the mail order quote) at the store, what you should be
doing is getting the mail order place to drop *their*
prices to compensate for the lack of various services.
..Giri
--
e-mail: giyengar "at" ford "dot" com
Giri
Giri wrote:
> some mail-order company. You're paying tax doesn't help
That should be "Your paying tax..."
Thank you for tuning in.
..Giri, beating the nitpickers yet again!
Matthew Ivaliotes
Giri <bl...@blah.blah> writes:
>Well, if they let you try it out and were pretty cool,
>you should be willing to pay more than you would with
>some mail-order company.
At one level, yes. Ata another level, business is business. My only
reason for being willing to pay a *little* more is becuase they are local
(I like to support hometown businesses when I ca). and did indeed let me
try one out, although I could have waited a couple of days and played one
belonging to a friend of a friend.
>You're paying tax doesn't help
>them run a store, stock equipment, pay someone to chat
>with you, etc. If you're only willing to pay X dollars
>(the mail order quote) at the store, what you should be
>doing is getting the mail order place to drop *their*
>prices to compensate for the lack of various services.
I'm willing to pay a little more, but not three hundred dollars more,
which in fact is the price difference including tax between the two quotes
I have. Again, I reiterate that if they match the same basic price, I'll
pay the tax difference. If they come within 50, I still might do it. But
every business has overhead, staff, and inventory. If they can't sell it
to me profitably at the price I'm looking for, I can understand. But I'm
not going to give them a luxurious margin because of their congeniality.
I've been on the seller's side on some things, and would be expect the
same treatment from an intelligent consumer.
Matt I.
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Rob Martino wrote in message <34D0C60C...@ctron.com>...
>Andrew P. Mullhaupt wrote:
>
>Between my K2000, Quadrasynth and Wavestation I find convincing
>organ sounds to be difficult. It's not so much the samples
>used but the Leslie effect which sems to be critical.
I use the K2500R for the organ part and then I usually like to roll up a
Leslie from my Sansamp PSA-1 and a pair of MPX-1s, although this is a bit of
overkill. The Leslie effect in the K2500R is useable.
> So
>the "awkward" piece of my system at home is a Motion Sound Pro-3T,
>(a rotating horn speaker with tube pre-amp) stuffed into a closet
>with a microphone on it.
Those things sound good, but are slightly on the unwieldy side. I find it a
lot more flexible to roll on out of the PSA-1 and a couple of MPX-1s since
the PSA-1 and one of the MPX-1s are part of my guitar rig. The other MPX-1
is in the rack for general purposes.
"The Leslie" effect isn't actually just one effect. Keep in mind that a lot
of people only used the top or the bottom speaker, there was a tube amp
involved, and there were tons of versions and mods. So I just aim for
something musically useful, which isn't always accurate. Sometimes more
complicated than a Leslie and sometimes less.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes wrote in message <6aqi5j$6m2$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>Extremely cool. I think I've found my winner. Now all I have to do is
>find a good price on it. I'll give the local guys a shot to matche
>whatever price I get, and eat the tax if I have to, since they let me try
>it out and were pretty cool, if not terribly knowledgeable.
What about the guys where you buy your guitars. I've had great luck working
with the guitar department at a couple places where I was a known quantity
as a keyboard player, because the word spreads if you're a good customer and
don't waste their time. If you ordered the SAS through a local dealer, maybe
they figure you're a good customer for being patient. I'd avoid the guys you
bought the bum Fender amp from.
You might actually pay $45 more but if you have an "out of box experience"
you might get satisfaction faster than from a mail order house.
This is one thing that you need to know. No matter how good the guys are who
built your synth, it's basically got some PC boards in it and other
components hooked together with various multiconductor connectors. When you
fire up the synth for the first time, if one of these has come loose in
transport the synth may not work, or actually not work _and_ damage itself.
This is called an "out of box experience" and although unlikely, it _can_
happen to any manufacturer. I had one with an Akai. Needless to say it's a
total bummer and usually makes you think the manufacturer is at fault (even
though it's about 50/50 that it was the shipping and handling). Either way,
the drill is the same as with a new computer.
Since you're a network engineer, you already know what comes next but I'll
put it here for those who may not have this sort of thing sorted out.
Upon receipt, you carefully inspect the packaging, and unpack the unit.
Look for obvious signs of damage. Make sure all the components are present.
You read the instructions. You make sure you connect it up to whatever in a
manner conforming to the manufacturer's directions. Then you fire it up. You
find out _right away_ if it seems to work by running the demo sequence.
(Your QS8 will certainly come with one of these). You listen carefully to
it. You play it enough times to pull apart all the parts and sounds and
listen to them all. Do they sound reasonable or unbelievably and
unexpectedly horrible. It is a good idea to listen to the demo sequence on
the demo unit in the store so you can ask "is that _supposed_ to sound like
that?" You will almost certainly be setting your QS8 up the first time at
home, where it will be pretty annoying to ask questions. If reasonable keep
going, else check that you have a good gain structure, etc.
At this point you probably know that the computer part (sequencer, tone
generators, output analog stages) is working.
Look at all the displays and as you go through the manual, make sure all the
keys, buttons, control wheels and sliders seem to do what they should do.
If you get to this part- then you're pretty much rocking. If not, you want
to have a very fast turn around on exchanging the unit.
So it is a good idea to have a plan that allows for the time to do all this
junk as soon as you get the box.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Matthew Ivaliotes
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <amul...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
>What about the guys where you buy your guitars. I've had great luck working
>with the guitar department at a couple places where I was a known quantity
>as a keyboard player, because the word spreads if you're a good customer and
>don't waste their time. If you ordered the SAS through a local dealer, maybe
>they figure you're a good customer for being patient.
Actually, I ordered by SAS from Washington Music Center, which is probably
a good thing, since I ended up moving out of the town I lived in when I
ordered it. I have gotten a quote from him on this as well, and so far
it's the best price I've seen, and a lot more than $45 cheaper than the
local store.
>I'd avoid the guys you bought the bum Fender amp from.
Agreed. I won't even buy strings from those guys.
>You might actually pay $45 more but if you have an "out of box experience"
>you might get satisfaction faster than from a mail order house.
Excellent point, which is another decent reason to try to buy locally.
I'll see how it goes when I call this weekend and give the guy a price to
try to beat. If he can't go lower, at least I know how low he'll
reasonably go, and that's all I really ask.
Matt I.
speaking only for me
Cypher
On 29 Jan 1998 17:09:28 GMT, ra3035...@email.sps.mot.com (Mick
Patterson) wrote:
>For used M-1s in Austin, TX, they are asking $900. I
>think that's a bit much (all instruments cost too much
>here), considering the prices of some of the new keys
>out there. Is it the same everywhere for the M-1?
> ---Mick...
Nah... I've seen M1's go for around $500. I can't see spending more
than that for a board that old.
-Cypher
Cypher
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:50:25 -0500, Rob Martino <mar...@ctron.com>
wrote:
>Well, I'd have to pipe in here and say my Alesis Quadrasynth
>had to go back for repair once during warranty (the pitch
>pot goes bad and you get all these random pitch bends).
>Now it's out of warranty and does the same thing again.
>I don't feel like sending it back yet so I disable the pitch
>bend on the sounds I use to mask the problem.
Matt, I'd get on the QuadraSynth mailing list and query users about
the reliability of their synths, especially if you have no patience
for gear that "breaks".
So far, out of all the boards I've owned, the Korg M1 was the most
reliable. The QS was the least. I baby my gear, too, so it definitely
wasn't caused by abuse.
-Cypher
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
Cypher wrote in message <34d101d...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
>Nah... I've seen M1's go for around $500. I can't see spending more
>than that for a board that old.
Yup. $500 takes a used M1 around here too.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Giri
Mic Cullen wrote:
> Maybe I should get a replacement mahogany neck. Problem is, how do you
> replace a neck-thru neck? And what about the headstock? Would I be able to
> graft it on, or would I have a big ugly volute showing there?
You already do, mate!!
Hyuk, hyuk.
..Stevie "Smooth Joint" Giri
Cypher
On Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:32:29 -0500, Giri <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>Mic Cullen wrote:
>
>> Maybe I should get a replacement mahogany neck. Problem is, how do you
>> replace a neck-thru neck? And what about the headstock? Would I be able to
>> graft it on, or would I have a big ugly volute showing there?
>
>You already do, mate!!
>
>Hyuk, hyuk.
>
DOH!!!!
hehehehehe
-Cypher