Piano Sounds on the next C2d ?

[Hlaalu]

BTW, the cheapest 2-manual Hammond with multi-contact is the XK5+XLK5, totalling $4900 and weighing quite a bit as well.

That's because so far it is the only one. But the thing is that the XK-5 and the SK Pro, while both having multi contact emulation, do that by two different means: 3 physical contacts for the XK-5 and just the use of velocity (standard 2 contacts) for the SK Pro. At least this is what it seems from the early info that's been circulating. And while one could rightly argue that physical contacts are more realistic, the huge advantage of velocity based multicontact simulation is that it relies on an existing (and cheap and light) hardware. In theory a simple firmware update could backward-implement the trick for any older standard 2 contact keyboards too.

The problem is that the SK Pro is new and I think nobody yet knows whether its multicontact emulation could turn out to be a feasible compromise, or whether one really needs physical contacts for it to sound good. In the former case, we might expect Nord to come up with something along those lines without too much issues. In the latter case... not sure how long it would take and if they even intend to do so.

[anotherscott]

BTW, the cheapest 2-manual Hammond with multi-contact is the XK5+XLK5, totalling $4900 and weighing quite a bit as well.

That's because so far it is the only one.

It's also in the A3 configuration, and an even better implementation is in the B-3 Mk II which uses 9 actual contacts.

Regardless, the real point is that, at least near term, at its price, any dual manual Nord is not likely to find itself going up against any dual manual Hammond that has multi-contact simulation.

3 physical contacts for the XK-5 and just the use of velocity (standard 2 contacts) for the SK Pro. At least this is what it seems from the early info that's been circulating. And while one could rightly argue that physical contacts are more realistic, the huge advantage of velocity based multicontact simulation is that it relies on an existing (and cheap and light) hardware. In theory a simple firmware update could backward-implement the trick for any older standard 2 contact keyboards too.

The problem with using straight velocity for this is that velocity in a 2-contact system is completely undeterminable until the key is depressed past the lower sensor... which means you lose your high trigger function. That's why I don't think this is strictly a 2-contact-velocity-based thing. If velocity is involved (which I don't think we know for sure), there is still probably some other kind of calculation (or randomization) going on.

The problem is that the SK Pro is new and I think nobody yet knows whether its multicontact emulation could turn out to be a feasible compromise, or whether one really needs physical contacts for it to sound good.

Just from the demos I heard, I expect it will be a nice feature.

[Hlaalu]

It's also in the A3 configuration, and an even better implementation is in the B-3 Mk II which uses 9 actual contacts.

The A-3 is the XK-5 plus the XLK-5. It's a different marketing name for when the two pieces are sold together as a single unit. Which by the way it's not even available in that format in every part of the world (in Europe, as far as I'm aware, you have to separately buy the two to have an "A-3").

The B-3 Mk II is a monster, but it's now old and I guess its core sound itself has been surpassed as clonewheel technology was improving. Also, considering it costs more than a real Hammond, it's kind of an oddity in its own right... I would really be curious to know how many of them they actually sold...

The problem with using straight velocity for this is that velocity in a 2-contact system is completely undeterminable until the key is depressed past the lower sensor... which means you lose your high trigger function. That's why I don't think this is strictly a 2-contact-velocity-based thing. If velocity is involved (which I don't think we know for sure), there is still probably some other kind of calculation (or randomization) going on.

True, however I was wondering if a solution for that couldn't be placing the two sensors closer along the travel of the key, just enough to keep a somewhat high triggering, while at the same time allowing for velocity to be calculated. That is, a compromise between the two. The other possibility would be like the XK-5, that is sensors activating a bunch of contacts each, but with only 2 real trigger points I'd imagine the outcome to be not so realistic... By the way Jim Alfredson, in the SK Pro demo, says he thinks it's velocity.

I guess it's too soon to know, but one way or the other I believe that the multicontact implementation threshold has been crossed and from now people are going to expect it (quite rightly so!) more and more on future clones.

[anotherscott]

The A-3 is the XK-5 plus the XLK-5.

Close. The A3 lower manual is slightly different from the XLK5. But it is functionally identical, it's a cosmetic difference. (In the tradition of old Hammonds that differed only cosmetically, like B3 vs C3!) I suspect you need the A3 lower manual if you intend to mate it with the A3 base, but I'm not sure.

The B-3 Mk II is a monster, but it's now old and I guess its core sound itself has been surpassed as clonewheel technology was improving. Also, considering it costs more than a real Hammond

I think that institutions (e.g. churches) may prefer to buy a new B-3 MK II than a used "real" (tonewheel) B3 that would come with no warranty and a likelihood of some amount of on-going maintenance, even if the latter saves them some money up front.

[Hlaalu]

Close. The A3 lower manual is slightly different from the XLK5. But it is functionally identical, it's a cosmetic difference. (In the tradition of old Hammonds that differed only cosmetically, like B3 vs C3!) I suspect you need the A3 lower manual if you intend to mate it with the A3 base, but I'm not sure.

Well when I said the only dual manual to have multicontact I meant the "computer" side of things, that is the identical XK-5... Btw I read the difference is that the XLK-5 in the A-3 format has wider wooden shoulders. As you note, not sure if the lower piece of wood furniture you plop the whole thing onto has to match. Probably yes but in Europe at least we can afford not to know since there is no trace of the A-3 (...to the point that makes me wonder if its birth was really intended by Hammond US or was caused by some measurement error in the furniture design at some point that ended up in some of them being manufactured thicker than others... that's the ONLY difference AFAIK).

I think that institutions (e.g. churches) may prefer to buy a new B-3 MK II than a used "real" (tonewheel) B3 that would come with no warranty and a likelihood of some amount of on-going maintenance, even if the latter saves them some money up front.

Right... that could be its place after all. Anyway, a fascinating machine for sure.

[anotherscott]

Hiaalu, it turns out that the multi-contact implemetation i the SK Pro is switchable between two modes. High trigger, where the multi-contact effect is random, and velocity-based, where you lose the high trigger.

[Hlaalu]

Hiaalu, it turns out that the multi-contact implemetation i the SK Pro is switchable between two modes. High trigger, where the multi-contact effect is random, and velocity-based, where you lose the high trigger.

That's interesting, because if that's the case neither of those modes is the same as the XK-5's.

Whatever that is, it seems good! (from 1:10 on).

I would only be a bit skeptical of the first high trigger random mode: sure enough it does give the effect of harmonics subsequentially coming in, but it's always the same regardless of how quick the key has been pressed, which is not very realistic. I guess the system lets you adjust both how random and how asynchronous they are going to be, but still it's going to be the same for any given setting and totally non-dependent on how I physically play, which could quickly become overwhelming.

I am assuming Frank Montis in that video is using the other mode. By the way where did you read it's velocity based? From the way the key reacts in the video, it doesn't seem the case, as the key is being hit quickly but not fully, which is the point of the multicontact emulation after all. It might be a similar implementation as in the XK-5, in that certain harmonics come in after the first contact has been close, and the remaining ones after the second contact has been close.

[anotherscott]

That's interesting, because if that's the case neither of those modes is the same as the XK-5's.

We already knew the implementation had to be different from that of the XK-5, because that used a 3-sensor action, whereas the SK Pro uses a 2-sensor action (no "middle" sensor between the highest and lowest).

I would only be a bit skeptical of the first high trigger random mode: sure enough it does give the effect of harmonics subsequentially coming in, but it's always the same regardless of how quick the key has been pressed, which is not very realistic.

Being random, it is not always the same, but right, it is not based on how quickly you press the keys.

I guess the system lets you adjust both how random and how asynchronous they are going to be

You can't adjust how random, and I'm not sure what you mean by how asynchronous, but there are a couple of parameters you can adjust.

By the way where did you read it's velocity based?

Page 85 of the manual describes both options.
http://www.hammondsuzuki.com/download/o ... ebbb8a.pdf

[Hlaalu]

Ha! Page 84 says:

"Random: When a key is depressed, each contact of the VMC’s will connect in a random order at the shallow point, and all the contacts are fully made when the key reaches its deep point". So it's the "random" mode that is indeed the same as the XK-5 but with 2 physical contacts instead of 3, which in my opinion is much better than a velocity based mode.

At this point I'm guessing that what we saw in the above video is the first "random" mode. Well, well done Hammond, it sounds very realistic with only 2 contacts.

[Rob Millis]

Regarding the topic of a hypothetical successor of the C2D, I think the area in which Clavia should improve the most to be competitive again in this portion of the market is not so much the core sound of the (Hammond) organ nor how many other EP/AP sounds it will have, but rather the organ engine tweakability, and also not-so-subtle subtleties like the multicontact feeling of the keybed, which are pretty radical changes as compared to the present C2D.

Hammond Suzuki did this with the XK-5 and more recently even with their lower priced SK Pro which among other things has piano sounds and a basic synth in it. Whatever Clavia will come up with, at this point they can't pretend it didn't happen. Yet, I am not sure that implementing any form of multicontact emulation, or redesigning the interface so that such tweakability is easy accessible in the main panel, is something they can come up with in just a few months from now.

Like so many, I too would like to see some basic EPs in the C2d successor, but let's not forget that the Hammond SK-series are Electro rivals not dedicated organs, so in essence replacing the C2d with a dual manual Electro would be my preference, but I'd want at least two sets of drawbars and I hope that the appearance of the SKx would trigger that anyway. But the C2d as it is - like the Legend series and the new 'Classic' Mojo, neither of which have piano sounds either - remains very much an organ not an all-in-one like SK/Electro products, so no AP/EPs.

Clavia could clean up here as the EPs in the Suzuki SK series are pee-your-pants-laughing quality, and Crumar still haven't upgraded the dual manual Mojo to the same architecture as the infinitely superior Mojo-61. That said, given the poor quality SK pianos and EPs, at the moment the most credible way to get a dual manual with some extra voices is still the old Mojo, but that has some weird stuff happening (eg, if you want a Wurly on one manual, you have to have a Farfisa organ on the other!).

I can't say I ever get excited about multi-contact keypads or partial emulations of it. In all the years I played tone wheel Hammonds (I still own an A100) all I ever found a use for that function for was to demonstrate what happens if you press a key down slowly. Like the way that key click ends up being more tweak-able on many clones than far more significant things like the chorus/vibrato, I think the keybed thing could easily become over-obsessed about. Frankly, there is more variance in action, sound and almost any measurable 'thing' from one tone wheel console to another than there is between one clone wheel and the next, or between any clonewheel and an original. I'd vote for a standard Fatar keybed and keep the cost down.

The XK5 is great but it is very bulky, very expensive and I'm not a fan of that Hammond 'modular' format - for the effort of lugging about two separate manuals and a stand, I'd stick with my current rig of a C2d and a dedicated stage piano.