Whither Nord?

[Gambold]

>I would add Hammond as a company selling stuff for way too much. That new M-Solo, a product with limited use and appeal, is selling for $1400!<

Totally agree! When that was announced, I got all excited because in my perfect world I'd be playing a Nord Piano with hammer action and have a second board dedicated to quality Hammond reproduction. Bye-bye kinda lame Fatar waterfall keyboard for piano work!

SO - Hammond does it the best and I was all in a sweat to buy an M-Solo until they come out with a $1400 price - closer to $1500 in the USA after sales tax. I figured it was going to list for $995 or something like that and boy was I dreaming.

[analogika]

Nord is not alone here. For all the people that gush over Moog, when was the last time they actually innovated? Every product they’ve produced over the past several years is just repackaging or slight variations of their core technology.

I don’t feel that is a legitimate argument. When has Bechstein last actually „innovated“? Or Steinway?

These are variants of core technology that identify the manufacturers and set them apart from others (apart from companies building soundalikes or copies).

Of course Moog isn’t going to build granular synthesis with AI-enhanced fractal computing interfaces from the future. Why would they? Their entire ID is built around analog oscillators, four-pole ladder filters and subtle-to-not-so-subtle overdrive of filters and op-amps.

And for all its shortcomings, the regrettably unfinished Moog One was, to my perception, a revelation in terms of what can be done architecturally with a fully polyphonic, multitimbral analog machine. I never really gelled with the sound (owning a Lintronics Memorymoog), but wow, the One really showed the world how to do it.

Sadly, it seems that they never *quite* got all the kinks worked out.

But that aside, I’m all for companies just concentrating on what they do best, rather than feeling the constant need to „innovate“.

[cgrafx]

Nord is not alone here. For all the people that gush over Moog, when was the last time they actually innovated? Every product they’ve produced over the past several years is just repackaging or slight variations of their core technology.

But that aside, I’m all for companies just concentrating on what they do best, rather than feeling the constant need to „innovate“.

Yes by all means do concentrate on what you do best, but then do it.

The NS4
- Why do you lose a synth channel to do dedicated midi out. (totally unnecessary)
- Actually fix the midi implementation.
- Why is there no pick-up setting for dials that are moved instead of just jump to the current setting
- Removal of rotory encoders from stage 2, to stage 3, to stage 4.
- why are there fewer hammond stage 3/4 organ settings then on the lesser Electros. The top of the line product should be equal to or a superset.
- 9th drawbar cancel. If your going to emulate a B3, then do it.
- one of the things I dislike about all of Nords paino samples is they all have ambient room reverb in them. Meaning they all sound like recordings of a piano in a room. Give me at a couple of those in a completely dry room and close mic'd. If I wan't room acoustics, I'll add that with reverb. Or how about a piano sample set that lets you blend between a truly dry sound with the room sound (wouldn't even have to change the architecture, just two matched samples that can be loaded as a pair into the two piano engines.

- fix your damn sample editor so it properly loads and converts previous samples.

these are things that would not require some magical innovation, just truly be the best at what you do.

Keep in mind this is just the things I can rattle off my head without putting much thought in to it. It shouldn't take the amount of time its taking just to fix the most basic flaws in the NS4 and Sample Editor.

[analogika]

Points taken.

Obviously, I'm talking about designing and building the machine as a product.

That it needs to work properly is kind of a given — I applied the same yardstick to the Moog One in my comment above.

[Rusty Mike]

Nord is not alone here. For all the people that gush over Moog, when was the last time they actually innovated? Every product they’ve produced over the past several years is just repackaging or slight variations of their core technology.

I don’t feel that is a legitimate argument. When has Bechstein last actually „innovated“? Or Steinway?

These are variants of core technology that identify the manufacturers and set them apart from others (apart from companies building soundalikes or copies).

Of course Moog isn’t going to build granular synthesis with AI-enhanced fractal computing interfaces from the future. Why would they? Their entire ID is built around analog oscillators, four-pole ladder filters and subtle-to-not-so-subtle overdrive of filters and op-amps.

But that aside, I’m all for companies just concentrating on what they do best, rather than feeling the constant need to „innovate“.

Actually we are in complete agreement.

Unless I’m misunderstanding, part of this thread’s topic is that Clavia is not innovating enough and this is somehow impacting their business success. Like all other companies, they have their core technologies that they have evolved over the years. Given that their entire product line is based on packaging variations of those engines, there should not necessarily be an expectation that they will do something radically different. Each new product introduction evolves the features. For the most part, their target market seems to be generally happy with that; if they weren’t, products would not sell and Clavia might be more compelled to innovate or do something new.

Again, this is no different from their competitors.

Perhaps Moog is not a good example since they were just bought out and we don’t know what their new owners have in mind either regarding innovation, cost cutting or just leaving them be. I would guess that the Moog One was a huge financial drain for them, and their depleted resources are related to the bugs not being completely worked out. Maybe the new Muse will fare better,

And I assume you’re partially joking about Bechstein and Steinway. People just expect them to build great pianos.

[Rusty Mike]

>I would add Hammond as a company selling stuff for way too much. That new M-Solo, a product with limited use and appeal, is selling for $1400!<

Totally agree! When that was announced, I got all excited because in my perfect world I'd be playing a Nord Piano with hammer action and have a second board dedicated to quality Hammond reproduction. Bye-bye kinda lame Fatar waterfall keyboard for piano work!

SO - Hammond does it the best and I was all in a sweat to buy an M-Solo until they come out with a $1400 price - closer to $1500 in the USA after sales tax. I figured it was going to list for $995 or something like that and boy was I dreaming.

Yea, if it were $900 it would be a lot more appealing.

[Gambold]

>Clavia is not innovating enough and this is somehow impacting their business success. <

I can't speak to their business "success" because metrics are hard to come by, and they seem to be doing fine. But my beef is that the product line has shrunk over the years to the Stage-Electro-Piano lines*, and those three aren't moving with the times in terms of new or improved features.

Now, the Stage, Electro and Piano are all most excellent instruments, and they will continue for now to sell as they are, to people who value Nords for their distinctiveness, construction, and for the feature set that is already available in these boards. BUT - that market is only going to be viable for so much longer. Ten years from now, are new buyers going to be clamoring for an Electro 6? What about in five years?

I figure I personally have about 15 years left before I get too old and disgusting to be performing live. I know, it didn't stop Jagger, but we can't all be the Stones. I am now ready, financially and interest-wise, in updating my Nord. But to what? The Stage 4? Everything I've read tells me don't bother, just find a Stage 3 on the cheap. That's not the kind of on-the-street feedback that Clavia should want. And what about the Electro 7, if it even is going to exist? Will Nord roll out something cool and new that has features the Stage 4 lacks? That's hard to see too.

So, yeah, I'm a little concerned. Nords are starting to become like Rhodes and Wurlitzers: "classics." People want those and will continue to buy them. Some people anyway. But others can remember a Nord that released a lot of different, interesting boards and made regular, significant improvements to those with each new model. Is that still happening? Are we going to keep blaming Covid if it isn't?

--Gambold


*I count the Grand as a gussied-up Piano, and while I'm not a synth person, there is general agreement that Nord is letting their synth lines age out.

[analogika]

And I assume you’re partially joking about Bechstein and Steinway. People just expect them to build great pianos.

I'm not at all kidding. There is no reason why people shouldn't expect Clavia to "just build great instruments".

They quit building the C2 because others were doing the exact same thing better (eventually) and no cheaper. In a market of five or six dedicated organ clones built to do exactly one thing, you either have the "original" brand (Hammond-Suzuki), or you do things better or more cheaply than your competitors. For a very small market.

They're still selling the Lead A1 and the Wave 2 because nobody else is filling that exact niche in a market comprised entirely of different niche products. They're great instruments, and they appear to be selling well enough that Clavia continues to make them. No idea if they're working on a replacement for either — the Piano/Grand, Stage, and Electro probably far outsell them and require more attention to keep them competitive.

The Stage and Electro series' have actual competition from Yamaha — and pretty much only from them. They don't need "innovation", though, just enough tweaking to stay competitive.

Now, the Stage, Electro and Piano are all most excellent instruments, and they will continue for now to sell as they are, to people who value Nords for their distinctiveness, construction, and for the feature set that is already available in these boards. BUT - that market is only going to be viable for so much longer. Ten years from now, are new buyers going to be clamoring for an Electro 6? What about in five years?

People are still "clamoring" for an Electro 5d on the used market; they're fine instruments. So what's your argument? That Clavia will still be selling the Electro six ten years from now?

Do you honestly believe that?

I am now ready, financially and interest-wise, in updating my Nord. But to what? The Stage 4? Everything I've read tells me don't bother, just find a Stage 3 on the cheap. That's not the kind of on-the-street feedback that Clavia should want.

It's the same feedback they had after the Stage 3 came out. This forum was full of a small handful of users spamming every thread with complaints about how the Stage 2 was the more viable instrument and the better choice.

Clavia still sold the Stage 3 as fast as, if not faster than they could make them. And looking at Thomann, the Stage 4 88 is currently out of stock and expected back in about two weeks, so it doesn't look like they're currently sitting on years' worth of inventory, either.



Which is hardly a surprise, since, despite reorganising some things (like MIDI control and reverb before rotary), the Stage 3 offered some fundamental benefits over its predecessor, just like the Stage 4 does over the Stage 3.

Depending on what you do, per-engine FX and immediate access to all volume faders are at least on par with seamless transitions.

And what about the Electro 7, if it even is going to exist? Will Nord roll out something cool and new that has features the Stage 4 lacks? That's hard to see too.

What, in your view, would they need to add to the Electro that the Stage 4 lacks?

So, yeah, I'm a little concerned. Nords are starting to become like Rhodes and Wurlitzers: "classics." People want those and will continue to buy them. Some people anyway. But others can remember a Nord that released a lot of different, interesting boards and made regular, significant improvements to those with each new model. Is that still happening? Are we going to keep blaming Covid if it isn't?

They currently have
Stage 4
Electro 6
Lead A1
Wave 2
Grand 2
Piano 5
Drum 3P (which came out in 2017).

At what point did they have a larger product portfolio of "different, interesting boards" than today? Not even in 2007, when the Wave and the C1 came out, was the portfolio larger (at least, that I can find — can't access the product page, since WayBackMachine is currently offline):

Stage (original)
Electro 2
C1 organ
Lead 2X
Modular G2
Wave

[analogika]

BTW, the Nord Electro 2 was on the market for SEVEN YEARS — actually eight, if you count the Electro 1, which was identical hardware that updated to Electro 2 spec with the newer firmware.

[LeftyBass68]

Yes and built great in addition to providing a true portable hardware solution to keyboard logistics.Same with the Stage and Stage EX.
Built for as long as it took competitors to catch up.
Still happy with this C2D and hold no grudges against a company almost out of ideas.

External inputs,Blue Tooth,USB sent me back to Roland after thirteen years.No Cloud,just hardware.Triple sensor at a competitive price.
Had the Stage3 88 out Saturday,still my go to 'all in one' and Stage2EX88 gets some play too.

The Electro2 61 here, still the best compact grab and go keyboard ever made for it's intended use, in my opinion a collectible.
Half the weight of a Roland VR760 at the time,albeit no pitchwheel or samples.This XV3080 still in use since 2000.JX8P in use since 1985.
TX7's in use since 1984.They do all sound great and represent innovation and quality builds for their times in my opinion.