issue08

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 55, Issue 08

This issue's topics:
	
	MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano? (20 messages)

Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1993 16:31:57 +0200
From:         Ferdinando Villa 
Subject:      MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Hi all,

        I believe this question may be of interest to others on the
list, so I decided to bother you all asking for your advice. I am a
classical pianist with a growing interest in electronic music; I use
to play a Kaway digital piano with a good keyboard and a not-so-good
sound; I have some synth modules and CSound on my Mac and the Sparc10
at the university. My piano is progressively breaking and my
electronic needs increase, so I am thinking about trading everything
in and buying a new setup. My question is: which combination of MIDI
88-keys, weighted- action controller and piano sound module/sampler
give a satisfying piano emulation (I mean, for a classical piano
player)? I know the question is rather subjective but I am interested
in your opinion. I don't want to buy another digital piano, because I
need the power of a full-fledged MIDI controller, but I also need the
keyboard response and feel of a good digital piano like the Kaway or
the Clavinova. Is a sampler module (medium-end) a good choice to get a
good piano sound? Is the EMU piano module better? Do some of these
things together offer a good substitute to a good digital piano?

Thank you very much, I'll summarize for the net if there is enough
feedback.

Ferdinando

--
Ferdinando Villa, dr.

Institute of Ecology                     Direct phone: +39-521-905615
University of Parma                               FAX: +39-521-905665
Viale delle Scienze                      e.mail: villa@eagle.bio.unipr.it
43100 Parma, Italy                               villa@sparrow.bio.unipr.it

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1993 18:51:45 BST
From:         "Steven D. Bramson" 
Subject:      Digital Piano

Ferdinando Villa Writes:

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

Hi all,

        I believe this question may be of interest to others on the
list, so I decided to bother you all asking for your advice. I am a
classical pianist with a growing interest in electronic music; I use
to play a Kaway digital piano with a good keyboard and a not-so-good
sound; I have some synth modules and CSound on my Mac and the Sparc10
at the university. My piano is progressively breaking and my
electronic needs increase, so I am thinking about trading everything
in and buying a new setup. My question is: which combination of MIDI
88-keys, weighted- action controller and piano sound module/sampler
give a satisfying piano emulation (I mean, for a classical piano
player)? I know the question is rather subjective but I am interested
in your opinion. I don't want to buy another digital piano, because I
need the power of a full-fledged MIDI controller, but I also need the
keyboard response and feel of a good digital piano like the Kaway or
the Clavinova. Is a sampler module (medium-end) a good choice to get a
good piano sound? Is the EMU piano module better? Do some of these
things together offer a good substitute to a good digital piano?

Thank you very much, I'll summarize for the net if there is enough
feedback.

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

I have a Yamaha Clavinova and a Roland Sound Canvas.  The Clavinova has
very good feel on the keyboard but as it is not aimed as a synth, the
keyboard is of course touch (velocity) sensitive, but there is no
after-touch.  Having said that, a few of the built in sounds change
between two different tones (timbres) depending on how hard you hit the
keys.  There are no pitch bend or mod wheels, but you can set one or two
pedals to control pitch bend (different pedals bend up and down).  The
piano sound is excellent and uses 16 bit (Yamaha call it AWM2) stereo
samples.  They re-record the samples every few notes, they don't just
record middle C and speed up or slow it down over the full 88 note range,
they just speed up and slow down over a range of a few notes, then
re-sample.  This means that the sound stays good over the whole range and
the bottom end is particularly impressive.  The previous model range of
Clavinovas used to fall off in volume and quality noticeably at the bass
end (these were AWM 12 bit).  The piano sound is the best I have ever heard
from an electronic instrument.  I have played the piano sound on a number
of synths such as the Yamaha SY series and the humble Sound Canvas, and on
other digital pianos such as Roland, Technics and Kurzweil but the Yamaha
was the best to my ears.  I have never used a dedicated sampler but would
strongly advise you to check if you can assign new samples to different
note ranges.  I havn't tried the EMU piano module mentioned by Ferdinando.
When I was looking for an instrument my first priority was the quality of
the basic piano sound with a good piano like action as second.

I know that Yamaha do a master keyboard (KX88) which has a similar action
and feel to the Clavinova, but incorporates after-touch and has a pitch
bend wheel and a modulation wheel.  It has no sound generation at all.

Make sure you get plenty of polyphony (simultaneous notes).  I am convinced
that 16 is not enough and that 32 is preferable.  I guess 24 would be OK.
You may argue that you only have ten fingers and thumbs, but 32 note
polyphony allows you to perform duets, and more importantly, you can play a
series of sustained chords or arpeggios without having notes cutting out.
This again is aimed at getting the basic piano right, but high polyphony
comes in handy for other sounds as well, especially if you start layering
(have one piano key play two or more simultaneous sounds).

There are two ranges of clavinovas: the CLP range concentrates on getting a
good piano sound with high polyphony at the low end of the model range.
The CVP range gives you "knobs and whistles" such as a rhythm unit, auto
backing and bass and even auto tune harmonisation, but you don't get the
best piano sound or decent polyphony until you get near the top of the
range.

I know Ferdinando didn't want to but a digital piano but I think he should
have a play on a few to get some idea of the quality of results.  Also it
gives me a chance to harp on about the instrument I'm in love with.


Steven


+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven D Bramson                                               |
|                                                                |
| Data Management Group        JET Joint Undertaking             |
| Abingdon   Oxfordshire   OX14 3EA   United Kingdom             |
|                                                                |
| E-mail sdb@jet.uk   Voice 0235 465 013   Fax 0235 465 399      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| JET is Europe's fusion research project            Disclaimer: |
| Any views expressed are mine and do not represent those of JET |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1993 17:26:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

The Kawai M8000 keyboard along with the Kurzweil 1000Px will give you the
most convincing real piano feel and sound you are likely to achieve.  This
is especially true if you buy the used set I am selling.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1993 09:51:48 -0400
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

>The Kawai M8000 keyboard along with the Kurzweil 1000Px will give you the
>most convincing real piano feel and sound you are likely to achieve.

That's fine.

> This
>is especially true if you buy the used set I am selling.

But that's not. Please keep buying & selling in private e-mail. Thanks, John.

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1993 10:34:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Sorry about that.  I hit the reply key instead of readdressing the mail
to the sender of the initial message.  However, I do contest this level
of nitpicking, although not your right to do so.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1993 10:46:20 -0400
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

>Sorry about that.  I hit the reply key instead of readdressing the mail
>to the sender of the initial message.  However, I do contest this level
>of nitpicking, although not your right to do so.

The nitpicking is simply to make sure that it's always clear to everyone
that ads aren't permitted. I dislike being anal-retentive about it, but
it's one of those slippery-slope things that I prefer to avoid having to
deal with on a "but you let so-and-so get away with it, why can't I?" etc.,
etc.

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:41:58 EDT
From:         Paul Pizzi 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

> My question is: which combination of MIDI 88-keys, weighted- action
> controller and piano sound module/sampler give a satisfying piano
> emulation (I mean, for a classical piano player)? I know the question
> is rather subjective but I am interested in your opinion.

It's next to impossible to find a good piano sound in the electronic realm to
satisfy a classically-trained pianist. You've got to compromise anyhow.
You'll find plenty of satisfactory piano-like MIDI keyboards (without
expecting the feel of a Steinway double-action :) ) whereas you can never
find a module that's good enough for you.

The best piano sound is likely to come out of a sampler, I'm talking about
*very long* stereo samples with inaudible loops and at least three different
dynamic levels (of course your sampler must be capable of velocity-mixing
them without a glitch). To get this you'd need to spend a fortune on a
high-end 44.1Khz stereo sampler with a huge RAM (over 20 mb).
If you don't want to fork out this much (I wouldn't, with the same amount
you'd
rather buy a decent *real* semi-concert...) you might be happy with the
limitations of the small ready-made-sound boxes such as the ones from Roland,
Emu, Korg etc...

I'll try to review some of them:

Roland U220
----------
PROs:Probably has the *best* piano sound small money can buy. It's the *only*
one that has two separate dynamic levels for "piano" and "forte".
The soft layer is pretty good and definitely the most real while the hard one
is a bit on the thin side in the high range.
CONs: The switch between the two dynamics is fairly noticeable and the middle
range loops are far from perfect.
BOTTOM LINE: I've used it in a CD with other instruments (some real, some
not)
and everybody thought I used a real piano. It's probably the most convincing,
as long as it's not played solo. You can find it pretty easily on the used
market for around $300.

ROLAND U-110
------------
Same as U-220 but much more noisy. In fact the U-220 is a refinement of
this disgraced machine phased out only three months after its release due to
poor D/A converters (hence the noise).

ROLAND SOUND CANVAS (all models)
--------------------------
Clearly a scaled down U220 piano sound. Only one layer and much less samples.
Still better than many others...

EMU Proformance
--------------
PROs: sound is definitely good despite a single dynamic layer and treble keys
are even better than Roland's but...
CONs: overall sound is kind of muffled and never blends well with any type of
reverb. No matter how many instruments you mix it with you can always detect
that sound is not coming from a real piano.

KORG (any piano sound in any synt)
-------------------------
Korg probably doesn't care about a faithful reproduction of a concert piano.
I'd say they're more concerned with replicating the feel of a rock piano and
in a way they're successful. But if you look for something to play classical
music you'd better forget it...

YAMAHA (any piano sound in any synt)
---------------------------
Ditto (well, almost... some Clavinovas don't sound as bad but are expensive
and
full of useless gadgets like auto-arrangers, rhythm machines and so on...)

KAWAII (any piano sound in any synt)
---------------------------
Thin and tinny. They all sound like a toy-piano. Kind of...

KURZWEILL (K250)
---------------
Used to be the best around but now it's showing its age. The most noticeable
flaw is the uneveness of the transition between samples and the (relative)
lack of them.

KURZWEILL (K1000, PX1000 etc...)
---------------------------
Worse than K250, definitely a step backward. I guess Kurzweill was more
interested in cutting price than improving sound quality. Even though today
you can find these once pricey boxes at around $400-500 I don't recommend
buying them.

KURZWEILL K2000
---------------
Better than the previous generation of sample-based machines but certainly
a disappointment for the price you pay. Check it out by yourself...



PAOLO PIZZI
Time Elapsed Art Music
Los Angeles - CA (U.S.A.)
email:pizzip@aol.com

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 18 Aug 1993 18:05:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Most of what Paul Pizzi has said is factual.  However, it the Kurzweil
products he mentions (other than a K250) are clearly the most faithful
producers of piano timbres.  First of all, the 1000 series (Px, PRO, +,
K1000, etc) allow 4 scallable ranges of sample layers.  The piano samples
themselves are identical to the K250.  The cross-modulation possibilities
referenced to velocity, are quite extensive.  It is possible to arrange
the 1000 series to respond to 4 different velocity ranges, and even
smoothly modulate between them (using fast envlopes for crossfades).  In
no way would anybody say that the Kurzweil sound was inferior to a Roland
220, if they had ever really worked with the Kurz.

The K2000 comment is almost unexcusable.  First of all, the instrument is
not very expensive if you compare it to anything else which does even
less than 1/3 of what it is capable.  For about $2400 you can buy a K2000
keyboard with 16 MB of sample RAM.  Several companies market full 16 MB
grand piano samples which are both STEREO and 3 strike-velocity layered.
These samples cost about $99.  No one who has reviewed these samples
Date:         Thu, 14 Oct 1993 09:48:43 -0400
From: BITNET list server at AUVM (1.7f) 
Subject:      File: "EMUSIC-L LOG9308C"
To: Joe McMahon 

has said anything other than 'fantastic'.  Onje of the companies is
currently working on a 32 MB piano which will have twice the number of
samples as the current version.  Also, the ROM-based piano is the same
set of samples from the K250 and the 1000 series.  The K2000 allows only
3 layers in a standard program, however what you can do to modify the
tonal characteristics in each of those layers is unparalleled in any
other system.  Overall, the K2000 is undisputedably the most powerful
synthesizer ever made.  For a reasonable price you can add sample RAM up
to 64 MB.  The kind of piano you could stick into 64 MB sample space
would almost certainly be a nearly exact replica of the real thing with
three velocity-layer STEREO samples taken about every other semitone.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1993 06:34:53 EDT
From:         Paul Pizzi 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

> However, it the Kurzweil products he mentions (other than a K250) are
> clearly the most faithful producers of piano timbres. First of all,
> the 1000 series (Px, PRO, +, K1000, etc) allow 4 scallable ranges of
> sample layers.

Well that's your opinion and I respect it, but let me remind you that I was
talking about *classical piano* emulation, not rock, not even jazz...
Those instruments may allow you to stack even 2,000 layers but the fact is
their piano sound is made up of only one.

> The piano samples themselves are identical to the K250.

Possible, but the split points are completely different and the transitions
more audible. This may be a proof they took away some of the samples to
trim down memory.

> In no way would anybody say that the Kurzweil sound was inferior to a
> Roland 220, if they had ever really worked with the Kurz.

You're getting *very* offensive here. First of all let me assure you that
I've used *all* the instruments I reviewed in a professional environment
and that I own or used to own almost all of them (Kurzweils included).
I understand that you may be deceived by the press who usually praises
American products and bashes the Japanese but that's not a good excuse to
disrespect  different opinions than yours. (Especially if based on experience

and not mere talk...).

Try this simple thing: record some chamber music, I mean for example a *real*
violin and a real cello and then stack a MIDI piano on top of it.
(Could be any trio you want...) Try with the Kurzweil first and then with the

U220 and see which one sounds more phony. You'll be amazed with the
results...

> The K2000 comment is almost unexcusable. First of all, the instrument
> is not very expensive if you compare it to anything else which does
> even less than 1/3 of what it is capable. For about $2400 you can buy
> a K2000 keyboard with 16 MB of sample RAM. Several companies market
> full 16 MB grand piano samples which are both STEREO and 3
> strike-velocity layered. These samples cost about $99.

OK, I'll glide over your lack of good manners and just show some
contraddictions
in your speech:

- $2,400 is *not* expensive? Well, then what would you call a $1,200
    Wavestation SR, a steal?

- I was *clearly* talking about built-in piano sounds and not what you may
buy
   in a second time. If you've got to resort to a third party for a good
piano
   sounds, like you  implicitly admit, that means its ROM sound is not that
great.

- If a third party company markets a good 16 mb piano sound that has
*nothing*
   to do with K2000, you may load the same sound into a Roland SP2000 sample
   player or whatever else instrument has a RAM, even a second-hand AKAI you
   may find on the used market for half the price of a new K2000.
   I've got a great 16 mb piano sound for my Sample Cell (you see I don't
praise
   only Japanese instruments) card that is much more flexible than the K2000
  and it's not loaded with useless ROM-based (i.e.=unerasable) sounds.

> No one who has reviewed these samples has said anything other than
'fantastic'

Are those samples coming from Kurzweil? Don't think so... So, yours is a "non
sequitur" statement... (see before)

>  Also, the ROM-based piano is the same set of samples from the K250
> and the 1000 series.

And that's a good reason to not consider a company who "recycles" sounds
instead
of producing new ones.

>  Overall, the K2000 is undisputedably the most powerful synthesizer
> ever made.

Again, that's YOUR opinion. Kurzweil is not new to such claims and none has
ever
been "undisputable". You may be very disappointed once you discover that
today's
Kurzweil is just a label bought by a Korean maker of cheap synthesizers who
actually manufactures the K2000.


PAOLO PIZZI
Time Elapsed Art Music
Los Angeles - CA (U.S.A.)

P.S. I sold my K2000 just after two weeks from the purchase, I've never been
more dissatisfied with a MIDI instrument...

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 19 Aug 1993 17:30:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

First of all, I never intended to be polite.  Second, you are correct about
the subjective nature of this argument.  It is highly likely that I have
heard more piano emulations by more synths and samplers and in more kinds
of listening environments than you have.  Personally, while I admit that the
opinion is subjecively based, the K1000 piano is (can/be) more realistic
than that of the U-220.  If for no other reason than the dynamic
 characteristicsof a real piano can me more closely approximated using the sound
 engine of
the Kurz, this is the case.

Concerning the K2000, your position is so absurd that it is almost laughable.
You can not compare a $2400 synthesizer/sampler like the K2000 with a
$1500 box like the WS-SR.  I have a WaveStation, and I love it dearly (even
if it is manufactured by Korg, a company I personally despise).  To compare
the two machines is the same as comparing any two dissimilar things.  The
VAST archetecture makes the K2000 a far more in-depth instrument than
the simple wave sequencing/cross-modulation functions of the WS.  Outside
of a mega-rack modular synthesizer, there is nothing which is capable of
shaping source material than a K2000.  Then there is the concept of the
source material.  Allowing 64 MB of samples is something no other sample
player/sampler (which is a unitary and specific musical package) will allow.
I don't know anybody who has a Sample-Cell Mac with 64 MB of RAM, although
I know 2 people and 4 studios that do.  So, I don't think it is fair to
discount the RAM feature of the K2000, just so you can compare it with a
device which is so devoid of practical features.  More realistic, would be
the comparison of the K2000 with a combination of an E-III AND a Yamaha
SY-99.  Finally, most of us people who bought the K2000 for its synth
capabilities (and who looked at the sampler stuff as an accessory), bought
it as a synthesizer which just happened to have 8 MB of ROM-waveform fodder
for its VAST processing, and its speedy MIDI response (call Bob Moog and
ask him what the only currently available keyboard which satisfies his
sample-rate processing criteria is).  For a device as adaptable as the K2000,
the limitations of its ROM samples are only evident if you want only to
use it as a sample player.  In that case, I believe that you would be
equally happy with a U-220.  However, this isn't the point of the original
discussion.  If you are really happy with a bicycle and don't see a reason
why adding a motot to it would not make it more versatile for some kinds
of things, don't buy a motorcycle.

John

P.S.  Please don't point out that this response was even less polite than
the original.  I only did polite at my Mom's and she's been dead almost
2 years.

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 04:15:12 EDT
From:         Paul Pizzi 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

> However, this isn't the point of the original discussion. If you are
> really happy with a bicycle and don't see a reason why adding a motot
> to it would not make it more versatile for some kinds of things,
> don't buy a motorcycle.

Exactly: this isn't the point of the original discussion! I was reviewing
piano
sounds contained in ROMs and not K2000 synthesis capabilities. You replied
that K2000 can be loaded with third party stunning piano sounds and I told
you
that this doesn't have a damn anything to do with my original point.

End of argument.

> P.S. Please don't point out that this response was even less polite
> than the original. I only did polite at my Mom's and she's been dead
> almost 2 years.

Now while I'm sorry for your mother I don't see why you people with
psychiatric
problems should give vent to your anger in a space that's supposed to host a
peaceful (and polite, yes you gotta be polite in here, this is not Camarillo
State...) discussion on electronic music related subjects.

> It is highly likely that I have heard more piano emulations by more
> synths and samplers and in more kinds of listening environments than
> you have.

Give me a break! You know nothing about me, you can't even imagine how
much gear I've handled. Only two kind of people can discuss with such
naive bullyness: kids and schizoids.
If you're a child just cool off and grow. In the latter case I warmly advise
you to take a term at the aforementioned institute.

PAOLO PIZZI
Time Elapsed Art Music
Los Angeles - CA (U.S.A.)

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:48:26 -0400
From:         Patrick Robinson 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

JohnIII SEZ:
> P.S.  Please don't point out that this response was even less polite than
> the original.  I only did polite at my Mom's and she's been dead almost
> 2 years.

but Webster (shaddap, Eirikur...  ;-} ) SEZ:
   please adv
   (1622)
   1 P used as a function word to express politeness or emphasis in a
       request (please come in)
   2 P used as a function word to express polite affirmation (have some
       tea?  Please)


nudge, nudge.... *wink*, *wink*.

So, John... I'm curious.  What's going to replace that pile of gear on
the yacht?

-Patrick
 pgr

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 09:07:11 -0400
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Relative merits of electronic pianos

Please! Both Paul and John have had valid observations about synthesizers
and piano samples. Beyond that, I think we're getting into a personal
argument that has no place on a music discussion list. Please go to e-mail.
Thanks.

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 13:39:41 BST
From:         "Steven D. Bramson" 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Paul Pizzi writes

(selected extracts)

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

Roland U220
----------
PROs:Probably has the *best* piano sound small money can buy. It's the
*only*
one that has two separate dynamic levels for "piano" and "forte".
The soft layer is pretty good and definitely the most real while the hard
one
is a bit on the thin side in the high range.
CONs: The switch between the two dynamics is fairly noticeable and the
middle
range loops are far from perfect.
BOTTOM LINE: I've used it in a CD with other instruments (some real, some
not)
and everybody thought I used a real piano. It's probably the most
convincing,
as long as it's not played solo. You can find it pretty easily on the used
market for around $300.

ROLAND U-110
------------
Same as U-220 but much more noisy. In fact the U-220 is a refinement of
this disgraced machine phased out only three months after its release due
to
poor D/A converters (hence the noise).

ROLAND SOUND CANVAS (all models)
--------------------------
Clearly a scaled down U220 piano sound. Only one layer and much less
samples.
Still better than many others...

KORG (any piano sound in any synt)
-------------------------
Korg probably doesn't care about a faithful reproduction of a concert
piano.
I'd say they're more concerned with replicating the feel of a rock piano
and
in a way they're successful. But if you look for something to play
classical
music you'd better forget it...

YAMAHA (any piano sound in any synt)
---------------------------
Ditto (well, almost... some Clavinovas don't sound as bad but are expensive
and
full of useless gadgets like auto-arrangers, rhythm machines and so on...)

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

In reply, I think Paul underestimates the Clavinova, perhaps because he has
only heard the older 12 bit models.  I re-itterate my previous post that I
have a Clavinova with the Yamaha latest stereo 16 bit sampled piano.  This
is the first digital piano I have played which to me really sounded like a
traditional piano.  I also have a Sound Canvas and having a good critical
listen last night I find the Sound Canvas rather crude compared to the
Clavinova.  I understand that the Sound Canvas is 16 bit mono but I don't
find the samples very convincing.  One criticism of the Yamaha is that it
doesn't sustain as long as a traditional piano, around 10 seconds (I was
listening on headphones).   Have you tried listening to the final note of A
Day In The Life on Seargent Pepper.  OK, that was three grand pianos played
in unison but that lasts for ages.  I would give the Sound Canvas 6/10 and
the Yamaha 8/10.

How critical are my ears (or anybody's).  Can you tell the difference
between a Steinway and a Bechstein, or even an Upright and a Grand?  I
wouldn't claim to be able to do either, but for example I can certainly
hear pleanty of professional singers singing out of tune on studio
recordings sold  for money, classical and pop.

I'm not sure how much sample ROM is devoted to the Piano sound on either
the Yamaha or the Roland.  Is 32 Mb enough for an ultimate instrument?

44 khz x 16 bits x stereo = 170 kbytes per second per note

Multiply this by say 20 seconds sustain and 88 notes gives 300 M bytes

Perhaps my calculation is too simplistic.  What do people mean when they
talk of sample loops.  I understand this for a repetitive drum loop, but
not a gradually evolving piano note.


 Steven D Bramson    Data Management Group   JET Joint Undertaking
 Abingdon     Oxfordshire              OX14 3EA     United Kingdom
 E-mail sdb@jet.uk   Voice 0235 465 013           Fax 0235 465 399
------------------------------------------------------------------
 JET is Europe's fusion research project
 Disclaimer: Any views expressed are mine and do not represent those of JET

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 09:51:32 -0500
From:         "David C. Bloom" 
Subject:      Re: politness

>
> First of all, I never intended to be polite.  Second, you are correct about
> the subjective nature of this argument.  It is highly likely that I have
> heard more piano emulations by more synths and samplers and in more kinds
> of listening environments than you have.  Personally, while I admit that the
> opinion is subjecively based, the K1000 piano is (can/be) more realistic
> than that of the U-220.  If for no other reason than the dynamic
>  characteristicsof a real piano can me more closely approximated using the sou
 nd
>  engine of
> the Kurz, this is the case.
>
> Concerning the K2000, your position is so absurd that it is almost laughable.
> You can not compare a $2400 synthesizer/sampler like the K2000 with a
> $1500 box like the WS-SR.  I have a WaveStation, and I love it dearly (even
> if it is manufactured by Korg, a company I personally despise).  To compare
> the two machines is the same as comparing any two dissimilar things.  The
> VAST archetecture makes the K2000 a far more in-depth instrument than
> the simple wave sequencing/cross-modulation functions of the WS.  Outside
> of a mega-rack modular synthesizer, there is nothing which is capable of
> shaping source material than a K2000.  Then there is the concept of the
> source material.  Allowing 64 MB of samples is something no other sample
> player/sampler (which is a unitary and specific musical package) will allow.
> I don't know anybody who has a Sample-Cell Mac with 64 MB of RAM, although
> I know 2 people and 4 studios that do.  So, I don't think it is fair to
> discount the RAM feature of the K2000, just so you can compare it with a
> device which is so devoid of practical features.  More realistic, would be
> the comparison of the K2000 with a combination of an E-III AND a Yamaha
> SY-99.  Finally, most of us people who bought the K2000 for its synth
> capabilities (and who looked at the sampler stuff as an accessory), bought
> it as a synthesizer which just happened to have 8 MB of ROM-waveform fodder
> for its VAST processing, and its speedy MIDI response (call Bob Moog and
> ask him what the only currently available keyboard which satisfies his
> sample-rate processing criteria is).  For a device as adaptable as the K2000,
> the limitations of its ROM samples are only evident if you want only to
> use it as a sample player.  In that case, I believe that you would be
> equally happy with a U-220.  However, this isn't the point of the original
> discussion.  If you are really happy with a bicycle and don't see a reason
> why adding a motot to it would not make it more versatile for some kinds
> of things, don't buy a motorcycle.
>
> John
>
> P.S.  Please don't point out that this response was even less polite than
> the original.  I only did polite at my Mom's and she's been dead almost
> 2 years.
>

John__  Please take your petty squabbles off-line.
Use discetion, personal email, or just plain consideration.
Emusic-L doesn't have to hear about your wounded ego.  __Mom

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>         david c. bloom           <>                                      <>
<> open networks engineering, inc.  <>  What is the price of an afternoon   <>
<> 777 e. eisenhower pkwy, ste 650  <>  when a small girl is soothed in     <>
<>    ann arbor, michigan  48108    <>  your arms, when the sun bolts       <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>  through a doorway and both you      <>
<>  net  dcb@one.com    <>   \ \    <>  and the child are very young?       <>
<>  vox  313.996.9900   <>    0-0   <>                   __Dorothy Evslin   <>
<>  fax  313.996.9908   <>     .    <>                                      <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 14:26:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Nope, you're correct, I know nothing about you.  From a completely probability
based argument, I would stand by the statement that It is HIGHLY LIKELY
that I have had more experience than you.  I don't want to start comapring
penis size here, so why not let this drop.  Unfortunately, I dont have
usenet access to carry this over to some more appropriate channel for dealing
with polite boneheads.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 14:30:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Right now it looks like a K2000S w 40MB, a uWave, and the Wavestation.  Also
I am thinking ADAT, but I need to find out more about the effects of salty
air, etc on such things.  However, several friends of mine have had no
problems with VCR's in similar situations, and in one case the VCR remained
on the boat for at least 4 years.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:08:47 -0400
From:         Thom Cox 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

Oh go ahead guys, compare penis size!

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:41:01 PDT
From:         Casey Dunn 
Subject:      Re: MIDI controller + sound module == digital piano?

jeez, Rossi said _it_ again!
(ducking)
c a s e y

------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 21 Aug 1993 10:42:39 +0200
From:         Ferdinando Villa 
Subject:      Digital piano question -- thank you

Hi all,

        thanks to you all who responded to my question! I also had much fun
thinking about two people quarreling from a keyboard without even  knowing
each other's face... their quarrel has been very informative anyway, and I am
grateful to both of them. As to the original question, now I have good pointers
on the equipment to check; I'll try and check everything, I'll add my opinion
and post a complete summary of what I find out in the next few weeks. Thanks
again to you all -- and take care of your music and your peace....

best wishes, Ferdinando

--
Ferdinando Villa, dr.

Institute of Ecology                     Direct phone: +39-521-905615
University of Parma                               FAX: +39-521-905665
Viale delle Scienze                      e.mail: villa@eagle.bio.unipr.it
43100 Parma, Italy                               villa@sparrow.bio.unipr.it

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************