Piano sounds worse on my Electro 6 than my old Electro 4!

[Gambold]

Well, all these knowing defenses aside about Nord's exclusive and unalterable architecture, it doesn't change the fact that Nord isn't moving forward, much. And frankly, this kind of memory architecture limitation is their problem now, not their solution.

There was a lot of excitement (and an awful lot of typing on this forum in the Stage section) about the Stage 4. Now that we've all calmed down, we live with the glum truths that the board is priced at almost $6000 USD and is far from a generational change - it's a features update which doesn't even carry more memory. There is no good reason for anyone who owns a Stage 3 to buy one, ever, until their Stage 3 stops working or falls overboard during a cruise gig. That's not a business model that looks to the future. It's a holding pattern for a company reaching senescence.

Given that, I'm not expecting anything from an Electro 7. Indeed, I've argued that the Electro as a platform is played out and that what Clavia really should be doing is developing new models of keyboards that meet current needs, expectations and tech standards. I listed a passle of what those could be in my last post. Others have also posted ideas smarter than mine around the forum. None of it is happening.

I guess because of their architecture.

[maxpiano]

Well, all these knowing defenses aside about Nord's exclusive and unalterable architecture, it doesn't change the fact that Nord isn't moving forward, much. And frankly, this kind of memory architecture limitation is their problem now, not their solution.

Sorry, but looking at the market today I think it is not just Nord's problem, for example: how much user samples memory does Yamaha Montage or Roland Fantom have (and they are workstations)? Apart from PC based (with SSD disks) keyboards, like Kronos, Nautilus, etc... or the likes, can you please list keyboards and in particular Stage ones having more user samples memory in a relevant amount?

[Rusty Mike]

Nord is not the only company that has focused on evolving their original architecture over the years instead of creating new platforms. In fact, all the major keyboard manufacturers do this. Kurzweil product lines (PC, K2700, SP and formerly Forte and Artis) are built on the K2000 architecture introduced in 1991. The PC4 and K2700 are the latest products in this lineage. Over time, Kurzweil has added capabilities and engines (VAST and KDFX were introduced in 1999), and have gone through (I think) 3 generations of processors. This is 32 years! In addition, there has not been any significant increase in memory in recent years. The UI has improved, but the underlying architecture is essentially the same.

Yamaha workstations are evolved from the original EX architecture, first introduced in 1998 - 27 years ago. Again, improvements have been incremental and slower than their customer base would have preferred. The Montage and MODX models are more changed relative to the generations of Motif products, as they added in the FM engines and changed the sequencer structure, but they are still arguably based on the same architectural elements. Their CP line has been using the AWM engine for years, which it has evolved of course over time. The new CP's are significantly different due to the user interface, but the underlying sound generation engine I'm sure is just the latest iteration of AWM.

Korg Kronos architecture is "only" about 12 years old, and was pretty innovative at the time. It was more like a computer with a keyboard (using a traditional CPU & OS design) and included multiple different sound engines. It too, carried over technologies from its ancestors, as well as passing on architectural elements to the Nautilus before passing into the great beyond in 2022. Their piano lines are from different development and manufacturing sources, and actually somewhat exclusive from each other from what I understand (The SP series and Grandstage are made from different teams). Their success is arguable.

Same thing with the Roland workstations, yada yada, rinse and repeat. The point here is that every manufacturer develops their "brand" architecture and capabilities and evolve from there. It's very expensive and time consuming to create a whole new architecture, and runs the risk of alienating customers who are invested in the ecosystem. Rich companies like Yamaha don't do it often, and it has much deeper pockets than Clavia.

A bit of snarky aside: The minimoog was introduced in 1970 (!) and has used the same architecture throughout its life. I think MIDI and velocity are the only "new" features. Nobody seems to complain about that.

Clavia's unique product architecture is what enables them to feature VST-quality piano samples in a relatively small memory footprint. A key part of that architecture is the expensive style of memory they use. It's the reason Nord pianos are praised as being among the best in the industry. They're not going to change the very thing that their brand is built upon. That said, the memory is expensive and there may be software challenges to addressing above a certain amount. These factors will determine the rate of change more than any other.

My first Nord was an Electro 2. I remember the low quality of the acoustic piano samples - they were almost a novelty among the better sounding organ, electric piano and clavinet sounds. The early Electros were famous for how terrible their acoustic pianos sounded. Clavia turned that around significantly. Now that's not to say they haven't made some other deliberate decision in the opposite direction, such as removing the clav filters and the 9th drawbar cancel hubris. The company obviously made business decisions to develop in some areas and ignore others. Agreed, there are features like Audio over USB that are bewildering. Despite our grumblings, for the most part their strategy has succeeded. It's amazing to me how many people buy the Stage to play only piano on it.

But the point is they have evolved the same architecture across their lines. Pure economics and market success are going to be the drivers for any companies' product decisions. Nord's brand is held in high regard in the musical instruments industry. Like their competitors, they are most likely to evolve their architecture rather than do a clean-sheet reinvention. It's not economically prudent.