Nord User Forum

orangefunk wrote:

stiiiiiiive wrote:

orangefunk wrote: I have a BSc/MSc and PhD in computer science but I would not use that to try and berate someone else with my supposedly superior knowledge ...

I did!!!

and you did it beautifully...

Agreed. Excellent response.

Brilliant. Another synth.

I am a keyboarder who plays modern music, like most of everyone else here. I used to gig a Minimoog D which was great, A Nord Lead is a great piece of kit which pretty much did it. If I need a synth, I need a basic analogue synth, not any fancy stuff. I also need a good variety of pianos, clavinet and organ. It saves me having to drag a van full of stuff around big gigs and making compromises with what I take on smaller gigs. I'm not interested in whether the Nord Super * A+++ has another wave whank or anything else, it's all much of a muchness to most of us players. It's another bloody synth.

Anyone who gets on a stage will go "bloody hell, I will go and sell my Rhodes, Clavinet, Hammond, Leslie, Moog right now, as they have been replaced by this amazing piece of red wonder. Give it a bit of time and it starts sounding very very poor indeed. Some of the acoustic pianos are good, but the Rhodes and Clavinets are pretty terrible. The leslie simulation is also appalling. The more you play and the more you listen, the cheaper and more gimmicky it becomes. I've got to the point where all I can here when I multitrack record myself are the shortcomings. I wish I had kept my old gear.

Rather than release another synth and tell us it's something new and something great, how about they sort out some of the shortcomings (and very sortable shortcomings) on the stage. It strikes me that Nord have resorted to arcane fiddling, rather than dealing with their core customers, bog standard modern keybordists who want the absolute best in classic gear emulation.

Again: disagree on the Clav. I only wish they had Key-Off samples.

The new Wurli is damn good.

Agreed on the Rhodes and the Leslie sim: they're sub-par.

Disclaimer: been playing a Nord electro 2 for nine years, now own a Stage 2, have three clavinets, two Rhodes, a Wurli and four Hammonds.

jazzystu wrote: I wish I had kept my old gear.

I have all my old gear... Rhodes 73 and Minimoog and an old Oberheim. Something really wonderful about all of them. However, I do like modern stuff and have a Kronos and PolyEvolver (8 voices with the rack).

The acoustic pianos on the Nord Stage 2 are superb... but like everything its a compromise. The other sounds are not really cutting it... although i have used the Rhodes with overdrive on some gigs and sessions. I do not own a Stage 2 but was hoping a Stage 3 with more memory available would allow more substantial samples.

jazzystu wrote: I wish I had kept my old gear.

I'm kind of surprised to read that. Usually, the Nord Stagers are all the opposite: gladissimo with the light package and more than ok with the sound compromise.
I wish you'll find a way to get some good ol' juicy gear, mate

NWaveSam wrote:Okay, you know... I'm out of this stupid f**** forum. Everyone here is so condescending.

f**** ya'll, Moog $w@G

Really I did not want to hurt anyone, Sam. I would have sincerely apologized if only you'd put it in a more suitable language.

I am sad to say that the A1 does not excite me at all.

First, the price. At this price, I can buy a real Analog like the Dave Smith Mopho X4. 4 Voices is enough for me. Nobody will give a s*** about it being Analog or Digital on stage of course, but with the Mopho X4 I feel that I am playing a real synthesizer instead of an 'Analog Modeling' Synth. I think Clavia is trying TOO hard with this stupid name, as if they want to jump in to the current trend of analog revival. I don't mind it being digital at all, but come on "ANALOG MODELING" sounds retarded.

Second: Clavia relies too much on the latest and best technology. Of course this is great, but all of their products feel too much like updates to me. They start to resemble corporate companies that just make updates of current product lines to cash in, but don't have their focus on real innovative and exciting ideas. The result: Boring products which lacks character, inspire-less because of recycled ideas and therefore lacks the timelessness that other instruments from the old and (some new) do have.

Third: No Modular G3. I still have my G2, and I feel it's a one of a kind instrument. When they brought out the G2, it was a different era with Clavia. They used to be a company that innovate, and take risks with their instruments, that is what set them apart from others in my opinion. But sadly, I think these days are over and they have lost their edge.

maybe, But there there is still plenty of opportunity to get it back.Load a few mega systems into the circuitry and allow for total personal sound integration.(The Mac Pro seems to be far more advanced than any keyboard yet)Making the Interface the priority was a well thought out idea.If they were to expand that to a level where the keyboard was only a "tool" (notice that I am not trying to diminish the soul of the keyboard but rather create the ideal keyboard for myself and maybe a few others?)

And I wants to go into somes speculation How much money does the Nord company as a whole actually have?What are there limits in terms of funds?Seeing the amount of keyboards they have sold should give us a picture of what they are capable of, no?

No Wave, no care. Personally I'm glad I get to save my money now!

patrickdafunk wrote:I am sad to say that the A1 does not excite me at all.

First, the price. At this price, I can buy a real Analog like the Dave Smith Mopho X4. 4 Voices is enough for me. Nobody will give a s*** about it being Analog or Digital on stage of course, but with the Mopho X4 I feel that I am playing a real synthesizer instead of an 'Analog Modeling' Synth. I think Clavia is trying TOO hard with this stupid name, as if they want to jump in to the current trend of analog revival. I don't mind it being digital at all, but come on "ANALOG MODELING" sounds retarded.

It really doesn't matter whether you think it sounds "retarded". It sounds a bit like you're letting analog elitism cloud your judgement, rather than looking at what gives an instrument an identity.

And the only reason the Nord Lead 2 is still on the market is because it's a real instrument. It has its own unique character, which people love. And part of that unique character is due to the fact that it is NOT analog. Everybody I know seems to agree that the Nord Lead 3 had a nicer interface but didn't have as much character as the 2. They didn't like it.

And apparently, the engine in this A1 thing is new. There is a difference between taking a sample and running that through digitally calculated filters, and actually modeling how an oscillator circuit works, with its quirks and possibly instabilities (sticking, etc.), and modeling how a particular filter circuit WORKS, rather than just measuring how it sounds and reproducing that.

The holy grail of this sort of modeling is component modeling, where you recreate every resistor and capacitor in a circuit to the point where you can age them or have them react to varying voltages/overload the way a real, aged physical component would.

We're probably a decade or two away from that (last I heard was that a top-end 2009 Mac Pro would have just about enough power to model a single Fender Bassman head).

But "virtual analog", as defined by the original Nord Lead, is far removed from that.

analogika wrote:The holy grail of this sort of modeling is component modeling, where you recreate every resistor and capacitor in a circuit to the point where you can age them or have them react to varying voltages/overload the way a real, aged physical component would.

We're probably a decade or two away from that (last I heard was that a top-end 2009 Mac Pro would have just about enough power to model a single Fender Bassman head).

Actually that's what Korg made with the Legacy suite at that time. I guess everything depends on the depth of the modelling.