Nord User Forum

CountFosco wrote:OK OK, some good points. Voice controlled program navigation for a stage keyboard probably isn't one, and could have slightly triggered me, but maybe program navigation has gone backwards on recent products.

I agree, and I wasn't seriously suggesting that for a stage piano, whether the NG is intended as such or not, which is why I said "just about expect". So much has been standardized in digital interfaces for computer software, across different devices from workstations to laptops to phones, that it would make sense to start from there in re-thinking the UI for an instrument.

Thanks;)

I am reading the above thread and still believe that people misunderstand the product. IMO, rapidly navigating between "remote" programs and having a UI that easily activates each and every feature on the NG are simply not relevant for the this type of product. It is a piano! No more no less. When one buys an acoustic piano they have one voice. When one buys a NG they have 5 voices available at the click of a button (Live mode and 5 program keys). It is that easy. One can even tweak the voice with a straightforward set of knobs ranging from a simple equalizer to a basic reverb. When one puts the NG on stage they simply replace a single voice acoustic piano, with a 5 voices digital piano, which is more than enough for any band that needs a piano on stage.
The rest of the stuff should be done using other, dedicated tools, that are better fit for the task: You don't play a synth sample from the NG on stage - you play it from a real synthesizer like Kronos, Wave, Moog, etc. You don't play an organ sound from a NG sample on stage - you use an organ like Hammond. You want an effect on stage - you use a true effects processor and a sound man to set it right. A stage piano is not meant to be a "swiss knife" keyboard but a dedicated tool that does piano very well. And for this specific purpose the NG interface is well done: the main part of the UI - the keybed - is one of the best interfaces one can get for a stage piano. The rest of the UI is a simple, left to right workflow, with real knobs and buttons that are easy to operate in the dark without looking, a few led lights that provide a quick feedback without having to look down or read anything from a screen, and 5 function button to change between 5 live voices... chances of making an operational mistake on stage are very low.
If one buys the NG expecting it to be their main keyboard for "everything", thus need to jump between programs, navigate through menus, and do all kind of "sophisticated" things that require a better UI for this kind of stuff, then they should buy a workstation or an arranger. NG, the way I perceive it, is primarily a piano with some extra stuff that one might play with at home, or use for practice or quickly test out an idea, but when on stage - it is just a piano (or 5), for which its UI is more than adequate.

You took the words right out of my mouth ...

@Tasten-Bert, you took jk2011's words right out of my mouth first.

Hlaalu, there are two parts to your message I'd like to address:
Indeed a digital piano is not, and probably will never be, similar to an acoustic piano, but one must take into consideration that: a) it is difficult and expensive to drag an acoustic piano along for the tour. Just keeping it in tune will be more costly than the NG. b) Amplifying an acoustic piano for each performance is technically complicated. c) Different pieces require different piano voices, but multiple acoustic pianos on stage is not an option. An acoustic piano is perfect for the classical pianist, in a concert hall, where the piano can be dealt with properly and the quality of sound cannot be compromised. But for the touring band, portability and cost must be considered. This is why NG is a good stage piano (not a concert hall piano).
As for "the rest" - all vendors are doing it. It is a matter of convenience. My Hammond SK1 has all kind of extra voices and effects. Chances of using it on stage are close to zero. However, layering a violin or a piano on top of an organ to try out an idea without powering up the laptop, mixers, other keyboards and setting up midi channels is just convenient. I'm using Yamaha MOXF as a Midi controller and a sound card for VSTs, yet it has built in voices and a complete workstation software on board - can it replace a real DAW? never. But sometimes one just wants to rapidly record a couple of tracks without having to power on an entire lab.
So I kind of understand the approach that Nord took... Personally, I would hate to see a touchscreen or a massive keyboard on my NG. The simpler, the better.

I personally think it's a mistake when designing a tool, a piece of software, or what have you, to think that it should only be used in a particular way. Different people will find ways of using even a hammer that would surprise the designer. I had a long career that included involvement in a lot of new software tools for artists, and the greatest thing was always how people come up with their own ways of using a new tool that would never entered the minds of the designers.

With a digital keyboard I see it as the same thing. The more the interface stays out of the way of the user the better. This doesn't mean the interface needs to be bigger and more complex in fact it generally works the other way. In my view the developers should embrace the notion that people will want to use the product in their own unique ways, which results in a much more valuable tool with a broader range of applications.

Some might view the NG as a stage piano. Yet Nord offers a Stage Piano separately. For me it's a studio tool. For someone else it's something else. So if there's something the developer can do without completely re-doing the product, that will open up large areas of functionality for more different types of users, that's money. And it gives the product a longer life as musicians' needs evolve.

A funny thing for me so far with the NG is the navigation through different sounds and the default layout of the sounds seems so unintuitive and borderline chaotic, and so many of the sounds are so great, that I spend a lot of time just scrolling through programs one by one and getting lost in the sounds themselves. It's a great keyboard and I really enjoy it. That doesn't mean there's not huge potential for improvement.

Hlaalu, maybe I misunderstand what you mean by List/Song mode, but the NG has a List mode for voices as well as programs. You hold down the Shift button and turn the knob to bring up a list on screen. But to the bigger question- does the lack of functionality on the "original" instrument justify minimalism on the digital instrument? I don't think this is the motivation behind it. IMO, simple and minimalistic tools are less error-prone on stage. The more complicated the software, the more functional the instrument, the more can go wrong on stage, in real-time, live, with no way to troubleshoot. I'd rather have 5 large buttons on the NG and nothing else, than try to understand what just went wrong, following a random key press. I have a good example from the Hammond - it allows you do download voices from their web site and put it into a empty program slots. However, due to some bug in the software the Live Organ mode started to play weird sounds/noise rather than the organ sound after passing through these program slots. Once it happened I had to remove the additional voice libraries from memory. Should I stop the performance and connect my laptop on stage to fix the problem? Wouldn't it be safer if the digital organ was just an organ like its analog predecessor, with no additional perks that can ruin your day on stage? Digital instruments are just computers with real-time software, and software can have bugs. Less lines of code and sophistication, means less bugs and better stability. Complex software belongs at home (i.e. Clavinova), not on stage.

Just a note to those points, interface is separate from functionality. The functionality of the NG is tremendous. The interface, to me, is not. And a brilliant interface does not necessarily require any more complexity, software or otherwise, than a badly designed interface. I think almost everything discussed in this thread has been about interface design and not functionality/capabilities. Make sense?