Korg Forums

...

...

...

Sina172 wrote:I just found this out, reading the CP5 Manual:

You can record your OWN Backing Tracks on the CP5?! I REALLY need to see this thing now!

Why doesn't the CP1 have ANY of these features? I'm quite puzzled here.......

It really SHOULD be the complete opposite. Weird. I'm gonna compare them both this week and get back to you cause this is REALLY interesting to me.

Sina

Yes, please let us know because it is interesting
The CP5 has more features but the CP1 is almost twice the price with munch
less, why ? Could it be that Yamaha is planning something big for CP1 .

Thanks

...

I posted once a link to a comparison chart between the two. As far as I remember CP5 is lacking the FM processor. Which in my opinion is no loss at all. It is really a shame that a company like Yamaha, with all its FM history did add FM that way. I doubt they will offer something for the CP1 after release without using this in advance for marketing.

Yamaha is also a company usually selling instruments without any updates. Because their instruments are usually very reliable. One exception came into mind - their samplers.

BUT as Sina wrote, the CP1 is a great complement to OASYS. Agree, it is much more of an E-Piano then a Stage Piano. Its surface on top is to vulnerable for stage, but mine is in the studio and it will stay there.

As I've already posted in another thread, I think the SV-1 has the edge over Oasys on overall sound and playability of Rhodes sound. SV-1 has more velocity layering of the samples, so there's a smoother, more realistic transition from soft to loud. And Korg's RH3 keyboard somehow makes the playing experience very enjoyable.

For my studio purposes, I'm happy with the O most of the time. But there's no denying the reason why so many people have taken to the SV - it's a lot of fun to play, and it is very easy to use.

jg::

I am a long time Rhodes player and still use a Mk I. Just my persoanl view:

I do NOT regard the Yamaha CP1 Rhodes as the best emulation available.
As with most Yamaha sounds, it has some kind of polished, not really authentic versions of the real Rhodes, not quite sounding like the real thing(s) in my ears, and polished is no compliment for rendering a Rhodes.

When played live in band context, I regard the Clavia Rhodes sounds as those coming most close to an original Rhodes. This surprises me a lot, looking at the limited sample space they take (even if you consider the well working compression). And they have the by far best library of typical different models. Played live at loud band level, they beat anything in the market, from smooth to wild overdriven sounds and cut through excellent. No Yamaha Rhodes comes even close.

Next best from my view is Roland's SRX-12 library, with single sampled 4 velocity Rhodes Mk I. The vintage Rhodes samples on board of the Fantom G aren't far behind that, if you do the patches yourself.

Kurzweils are programmed well, but their sample size is that much small and outdated, that they don't remotely catch the vivid character of a Rhodes. They just sound like the best Rhodes sounds from the 90s.

Yamahs XF/XS sounds fall into a similar category: well programmed, but with outdated samples (vintage rhodes 76 not changed since the original Motif, if I remember well).

The Korg Rhodes on M3 really don't impress. They sound thin and liveless, cover much too much vibraphone-like bell and are completely lacking the fat and dynamic character of a real Rhodes.


So far the sample based.
Modelling has not been successful from my view up to now.

Already in old software times, you get never get an EVP 73/88 or a Lounge Lizard to sound like a real Rhodes: they always had nice dynamic velocity response, but at the price of sounding like some not really existing hybrid EPiano.

Roland's ARX-02 was another dreadful effort at that, sounding completely artificial.

And now SV-1, which is better than ARX-02, but not really convincing and still pretty unauthentic, again with all that unreal kind of bell sound and artificial, not really Rhodes sounding modelling features. I'm really a bit concerned about that, because despite all the nice "signature" patches I probably will have to deal with that if I buy a Kronos.
I would much prefer the Clavia Rhodes sounds in a Kronos.
Or a fresh sampled (not modelled!) Rhodes in Scarbee quality. now THAT kind of high quality sampled Rhodes without wrong polish would fit a Kronos or Oasys well!

jimknopf wrote:I am a long time Rhodes player and still use a Mk I. Just my persoanl view:

I do NOT regard the Yamaha CP1 Rhodes as the best emulation available.

And now SV-1, which is better than ARX-02, but not really convincing and still pretty unauthentic, again with all that unreal kind of bell sound and artificial, not really Rhodes sounding modelling features. I'm really a bit concerned about that, because despite all the nice "signature" patches I probably will have to deal with that if I buy a Kronos.
I would much prefer the Clavia Rhodes sounds in a Kronos.
Or a fresh sampled (not modelled!) Rhodes in Scarbee quality. now THAT kind of high quality sampled Rhodes without wrong polish would fit a Kronos or Oasys well!

Yea looking forward to hear the new EP-1 MDS in Kronos , who knows ,may be they will surprise us and nail that sweet sound of the rhodes that no one seems to be able to do . BTW it appears Waldorf has thrown there hat in the ring with this http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2011/01/ ... ct-rhodes/ but until we have a clear winner I think for now the CP-1 is consider the 1 to beat .(but it's all so subjective I know).

In the Kronos demos the MDS Rhodes sounded just like that from the SV1.
Aren't they more or less identical?

A modelling approach, which once more just doesn't sound like the real deal.

A well sampled 8 layer Rhodes would sound much more authentical, and from 8 layers up you don't have too many issues with velocity jumps/gaps either. No modelling needed.

I am not sure if it was meant that way and to avoid any misunderstanding - Yamaha's new CP series combines sampling and modeling.

Peter

peter m. mahr wrote:I am not sure if it was meant that way and to avoid any misunderstanding - Yamaha's new CP series combines sampling and modeling.

Peter

Yes Peter, I know, I just put it on top of the list because I had great Rhodes expectations myself concerning the CP-1 and then ran into this modelled sound.

The big three all try the same thing basically: have samples and then use computing power to calculate smooth, stepless transitions, while offering rich additional editing "bells and whistles" (up to absurdities like "tine rust" or the like, as seen in ARX-02).

In the efforts so far the positive results were the gapless velocities with a high dynamic range, while the letdowns have been unauthentic overall sounds. The CP-1, just like the new Walldorf Zarenbourg and Korgs SV1 do that better than ARX-02 did. But none of them sounds as close to real Rhodes models as the different sampled Rhodes models offered in the the Nord library. This is funny, looking at the relatively small size of those samples.

For me, as I said, the real deal would be anything like Clavia or better, e.g. some fresh sampled Rhodes sounds on the same level as the new piano models (like the software 12 velocity Scarbee). My sympathy for modelled EP types is very limited after all I heard so far.


Herzliche Gruesse aus D nach Oesterreich und danke für deine schöne Oasys-Seite!

jimknopf wrote: ... up to absurdities like "tine rust"

.. completely agree

[quote="jimknopf" But none of them sounds as close to real Rhodes models as the different sampled Rhodes models offered in the the Nord library. This is funny, looking at the relatively small size of those samples.[/quote]

I found them a bit to dark, but probably that is what you do not like about the Yamaha Rhodes (polished).

jimknopf wrote: Herzliche Gruesse aus D nach Oesterreich und danke für deine schöne Oasys-Seite!

Oh ... Verbeug und Danke

Liebe Gruesse aus Wien
Peter

jimknopf wrote:I regard the Clavia Rhodes sounds as those coming most close to an original Rhodes. Next best from my view is Roland's SRX-12 library, with single sampled 4 velocity Rhodes Mk I. Kurzweils are programmed well, but their sample size is that much small and outdated, that they don't remotely catch the vivid character of a Rhodes. They just sound like the best Rhodes sounds from the 90s.

I agree on the srx-12 (the bang/buck ratio of even a xv5080+srx/12 is impressive: less than 700 euros for great sound),

but disagree on the Kurz/Clavia evaluation:

I A/B tested them two months ago, when I bought a keyboard expressly for master+Rhodes sounds,

and Clavia didn't impress me as a far as performance and playabilty were concerned.

Please consider that I use heavily processed rhodes sounds ["fusion" timbres from the '70s],

and that I won't consider a theoretically "pure" Rhodes sample. Maybe the crude, middle-keyboard, listened-with-an-oscilloscope, sample is better on clavia.

Bue when listened through a "wha-wha", a "ring modulator", a "morley", various phasers - I mean of course the onboard emulations, not real pedals],

all in all I found the kurz rhodes to have more "bite", more "gnarl" through
the effects.

The best test is the effect of pedal wha on lower octaves: since the BP filter kills a lot of bass,

if a Rhodes emulation survives the wha (pc3 does well, imho), it's good for me.

The Roland srx-12 wha was, on the contrary, lame. Only exception to my very favorable review of that unit.

The srx-12 ring modulator is definitely the best, on the other hand.

my two bites on a heavily subjective matter.

PS: you will notice I didn't mention the M3. Sharp made an heroic effort with his samples, and they are way better than the factory rhodeses, but... no way.

I am curios of listening to the Kronos rhodes modeling (live, not on youporn of facebook).

Thanks for the replies.

It's not easy to discuss such a topic based on general views.
A real Rhodes can mean so many different things to different people and contexts, and even the emulations have a bit of that.

So let's take an example (youtube, limited sound quality) to be sure what I am talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtb2BIzo14g
in this song listen especially to the Rhodes solo from around 2 minutes on...

@Peter:
as you will notice, the "dark" Clavia Rhodes amplified is a completely other animal (as the real Rhodes, BTW, which sounds quite dark and mellow if you DI it directly or would output it into a middle-of-the-road transistor amp, what thankfully nobody does). Ampliefied it DOES develop a typically Rhodes kind of mid-high end. A "polished" Rhodes will sound dreadful in such an amplified context, just artificial.

@ozy:
Yes, the Kurz walks straight into the "typical" processed sounds, sounding quite liveless and dry as a non-processed Rhodes due to the probably most small, looped samples on the workstation market today (at least it sounds to me like that).

a) it would hardly be able to render the dry, slightly overdriven (and quite close to an original 1974/75 Rhodes Mk 1) example in the video above.

b) concerning the processed sounds:
here you meet some very good and typically well done jobs of the Kurz programmers, who just know their Rock history book and try to come as close as possible to signature Steely Dan, Stevie Wonder or whatever sounds.

Here the Clavia may have less good programmed presets in some areas. But it is not at all uncapable of delevering that, and for my ears even in that case definitely better than the Kurz, once programmed well:
Just a single example (bad youtube sound quality again, but you will get the point) from another Steely Dan classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWDNW-gy ... 9&index=29

and here another a/b:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wkDjnSi ... re=related

I'm not after a "my brand is better than your brand" discussion in any way. I just happen to find, that Clavias deliver a Rhodes better than anyone else so far.

And I only discuss this here to show what I'm after in a Kronos I would like to buy.