Help! The keyboard I want is too good to be true!

[GreenXenon]

Hi:

My dream MIDI keyboard is a musical keyboard that has 88 keys and
relies purely on digital AFM [Advanced Frequency Modulation] synthesis
[not sample playback or analog synthesis] to generate tones. It has a
headphone jack. It can store and produce .mid files. In addition, it
is able to somehow record and store songs digitally [as .wav files] so
I can directly burn them into a CD. It has an internal HDD. It also
has a CD burner/player which can record/playback any and all formats
of CD-sized discs. It also has an external HDD which I can use to
import/export to/from the keyboard and my PC.

In addition, the keyboard’s synth is purely-hardware [not a softsynth]
and freshly generates its tones [i.e. it does not use any sampling or
sampled sounds to any extent].

The AFM synth in my dream MIDI keyboard has as many operators, voices,
channels [OPL3 has 18 channels, OPL2 has 9], voices-per-channel, and
operators-per-voice as physically-possible with the size of my
keyboard being the same as that of the current highest-quality
keyboard available.

This keyboard also has a display screen as well as controls, settings,
and effects which are as sophisticated as that of the most advanced
keyboard.

The audio from my dream keyboard is stereo but it sounds exactly the
same in both the L and R channels. When audio is played back, the
audio signals in the left and right channel are exactly the same in
terms of amplitude, frequency, and phase. There are no settings to
change this.

Last but not least, my dream MIDI keyboard makes the most efficient
use of Realtime Convolution and Modulation.

I would like to make karaoke tracks using this hypothetical keyboard
and then burn the karaoke songs into CDs.

Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.


Thanks

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT), GreenXenon
> wrote:

>The audio from my dream keyboard is stereo but it sounds exactly the
>same in both the L and R channels. When audio is played back, the
>audio signals in the left and right channel are exactly the same in
>terms of amplitude, frequency, and phase. There are no settings to
>change this.

They did this a hundred years ago. No problem.

>Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.

The hard part is learning to play it. Technical stuff is
trivial; playing is a life's work. Don't worry about the gun;
practice shooting. At least that's my take on things, FWIW.


All the best fortune,
Chris Hornbeck

[GreenXenon]

On Jul 13, 9:32 pm, Chris Hornbeck >
wrote:


> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:51:37 -0700 (PDT), GreenXenon


> >Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.
>


> The hard part is learning to play it. Technical stuff is
> trivial; playing is a life's work.


I know how to play keyboards. I've played the piano since I was 7. So
keyboards are pretty much just as easy.

[smallbutfine]

Hi,
all of your dreams are technically possible as of today.
I always wonder why the big companies spend so little effort into
designing true pro keyboards that are up to todays possibilities.
I guess they are afraid of development costs and small number market for
these.
You may remember the Hartmann Neuron synthesizer, that was actually an
exceptional piece of gear with top-notch technology, sound, hardware and
design - but sadly failed in the market. Or an older example, the JD-800
- a great synth and keyboard, that, despite it's good name as an all
time classic, was commercially a near-flop. ( I still have one that was
bought the time it was invented in the eighties, simply a great synth
that is still hard to beat nowadays if it goes to experimental sound
design, though it has some midi flaws if it goes to realtime comtrolling...)
However, the 'softsynth'-market is flooding the studios, for performers,
the systhesis is still done in 'workstations', but they are more or
less little computers with 'softsynths'. (BTW the Hartmann synth was
actually a PC internally).
What you want would be possible relatively easy with some fast paced
processor(s), a realtime OS, some off the shelf computer chipsets for
the peripheral interfaces, some old school software design (no 'banana'
philosophy, where you get functional behavior after the third update
earliest...) and lots of testing.
But i guess the last point is what cost the most - hardware design is
subject of modern QA, developing costs mostly raise due to lack of
qualified developers and testers, core competencies are oftenly
outsourced by the big companies and communication paths between QA,
design and implementation are critical....
So, it looks like companies concentrate on the con-/prosumer market
mainly and just sell updates of their existing concepts from time to
time (sadly).

Nothing what is said in your specifications is rocket science. In fact
this would be *easily* doable as of todays possibilities.
I just think that no big company would pick up the task to produce such
a piece of reliable, simple non-fancy but useful modern pro performer
concept.
How could they market something like this without rendering other parts
of their portfolio obsolete or ridiculous?

Kind regards,
Martin



GreenXenon schrieb:
> Hi:
>
> My dream MIDI keyboard is a musical keyboard that has 88 keys and
> relies purely on digital AFM [Advanced Frequency Modulation] synthesis
> [not sample playback or analog synthesis] to generate tones. It has a
> headphone jack. It can store and produce .mid files. In addition, it
> is able to somehow record and store songs digitally [as .wav files] so
> I can directly burn them into a CD. It has an internal HDD. It also
> has a CD burner/player which can record/playback any and all formats
> of CD-sized discs. It also has an external HDD which I can use to
> import/export to/from the keyboard and my PC.
>
> In addition, the keyboard’s synth is purely-hardware [not a softsynth]
> and freshly generates its tones [i.e. it does not use any sampling or
> sampled sounds to any extent].
>
> The AFM synth in my dream MIDI keyboard has as many operators, voices,
> channels [OPL3 has 18 channels, OPL2 has 9], voices-per-channel, and
> operators-per-voice as physically-possible with the size of my
> keyboard being the same as that of the current highest-quality
> keyboard available.
>
> This keyboard also has a display screen as well as controls, settings,
> and effects which are as sophisticated as that of the most advanced
> keyboard.
>
> The audio from my dream keyboard is stereo but it sounds exactly the
> same in both the L and R channels. When audio is played back, the
> audio signals in the left and right channel are exactly the same in
> terms of amplitude, frequency, and phase. There are no settings to
> change this.
>
> Last but not least, my dream MIDI keyboard makes the most efficient
> use of Realtime Convolution and Modulation.
>
> I would like to make karaoke tracks using this hypothetical keyboard
> and then burn the karaoke songs into CDs.
>
> Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.
>
>
> Thanks

[GreenXenon]

On Jul 17, 7:09 am, smallbutfine > wrote:
> Hi,
> all of your dreams are technically possible as of today.
> I always wonder why the big companies spend so little effort into
> designing true pro keyboards that are up to todays possibilities.
> I guess they are afraid of development costs and small number market for
> these.
> You may remember the Hartmann Neuron synthesizer, that was actually an
> exceptional piece of gear with top-notch technology, sound, hardware and
> design - but sadly failed in the market. Or an older example, the JD-800
> - a great synth and keyboard, that, despite it's good name as an all
> time classic, was commercially a near-flop. ( I still have one that was
> bought the time it was invented in the eighties, simply a great synth
> that is still hard to beat nowadays if it goes to experimental sound
> design, though it has some midi flaws if it goes to realtime comtrolling...)
> However, the 'softsynth'-market is flooding the studios, for performers,
> the systhesis is still done in 'workstations', but they are more or
> less little computers with 'softsynths'. (BTW the Hartmann synth was
> actually a PC internally).
> What you want would be possible relatively easy with some fast paced
> processor(s), a realtime OS, some off the shelf computer chipsets for
> the peripheral interfaces, some old school software design (no 'banana'
> philosophy, where you get functional behavior after the third update
> earliest...) and lots of testing.
> But i guess the last point is what cost the most - hardware design is
> subject of modern QA, developing costs mostly raise due to lack of
> qualified developers and testers, core competencies are oftenly
> outsourced by the big companies and communication paths between QA,
> design and implementation are critical....
> So, it looks like companies concentrate on the con-/prosumer market
> mainly and just sell updates of their existing concepts from time to
> time (sadly).
>
> Nothing what is said in your specifications is rocket science. In fact
> this would be *easily* doable as of todays possibilities.
> I just think that no big company would pick up the task to produce such
> a piece of reliable, simple non-fancy but useful modern pro performer
> concept.
> How could they market something like this without rendering other parts
> of their portfolio obsolete or ridiculous?
>
> Kind regards,
> Martin


Is there anyone who I can hire to build me my customized keyboard
without having to pay a megabuck?

I also forget to specify that my dream AFM keyboard has as many
algorithms as physically-possible with the keyboard not exceeding the
size of a most advanced currently-available keyboard.

[philicorda[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:09:22 +0200, smallbutfine wrote:

> Hi,
> all of your dreams are technically possible as of today. I always wonder
> why the big companies spend so little effort into designing true pro
> keyboards that are up to todays possibilities. I guess they are afraid
> of development costs and small number market for these.
> You may remember the Hartmann Neuron synthesizer, that was actually an
> exceptional piece of gear with top-notch technology, sound, hardware and
> design - but sadly failed in the market. Or an older example, the JD-800
> - a great synth and keyboard, that, despite it's good name as an all
> time classic, was commercially a near-flop. ( I still have one that was
> bought the time it was invented in the eighties, simply a great synth
> that is still hard to beat nowadays if it goes to experimental sound
> design, though it has some midi flaws if it goes to realtime
> comtrolling...) However, the 'softsynth'-market is flooding the studios,
> for performers,
> the systhesis is still done in 'workstations', but they are more or
> less little computers with 'softsynths'. (BTW the Hartmann synth was
> actually a PC internally).
> What you want would be possible relatively easy with some fast paced
> processor(s), a realtime OS, some off the shelf computer chipsets for
> the peripheral interfaces, some old school software design (no 'banana'
> philosophy, where you get functional behavior after the third update
> earliest...) and lots of testing.

There are a couple of companies selling a 'PC in a keyboard' which can be
customised. Lionstracks make a Linux based one, and another company whose
name I can't remember do a Windows based one.

> But i guess the last point is what cost the most - hardware design is
> subject of modern QA, developing costs mostly raise due to lack of
> qualified developers and testers, core competencies are oftenly
> outsourced by the big companies and communication paths between QA,
> design and implementation are critical.... So, it looks like companies
> concentrate on the con-/prosumer market mainly and just sell updates of
> their existing concepts from time to time (sadly).
>
> Nothing what is said in your specifications is rocket science. In fact
> this would be *easily* doable as of todays possibilities. I just think
> that no big company would pick up the task to produce such a piece of
> reliable, simple non-fancy but useful modern pro performer concept.
> How could they market something like this without rendering other parts
> of their portfolio obsolete or ridiculous?

The market for performance instruments is tiny. This is because there are
very few piano or synth players around. Synth keyboards are now generally
used as a note entry tool for sequencers, rather than a live performance
instrument.

So, they are getting fewer keys, nastier keyboards, and more sliders,
displays and 'states'. (Ie, hold down 'shift', then press 'menu up' to
tweak the filter. The filter will not change until the slider is passed
though it's previous position, so now wiggle the control up and down till
you hear a change. To adjust another parameter, press exit). Fine for
programming, no fun for performance. (I even see this kind of thing on
keyboards covered in knobs and sliders. What a waste.)

I had a somewhat related experience a few months back, when looking for a
synth for a friend.

They wanted a fairly simple, analog or digital synth, where the controls
on the front panel always corresponded to the sound the synth was making,
and could be tweaked in real time without glitches or stepping. And it
had to have a keyboard, to facilitate playing notes.

They did not need midi, patch storage, or effects or layering, or sample
playback, or a built in sequencer/drum machine, etc. Having these
features would be no disadvantage though.

It turns out that virtually no one makes a synth like that anymore. The
Moog Voyager 'Old School' is about the only one, and that's really
expensive for what should be the most simple and cheapest kind of synth.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:30:12 GMT, philicorda
> wrote:

>The market for performance instruments is tiny. This is because there are
>very few piano or synth players around. Synth keyboards are now generally
>used as a note entry tool for sequencers, rather than a live performance
>instrument.

Oh come on! There's probably as many people playing as ever - bands,
gigs, theatres, schools, churches... The difference is that there's
a load of people picking out notes into sequencers AS WELL. Recording
used to be something musicians did when they had something worth
recording. Now music construction is something anyone can do. This
isn't a bad thing, and it keeps the cost of the gear down :-)

[philicorda[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:44:50 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:30:12 GMT, philicorda
> > wrote:
>
>>The market for performance instruments is tiny. This is because there
>>are very few piano or synth players around. Synth keyboards are now
>>generally used as a note entry tool for sequencers, rather than a live
>>performance instrument.
>
> Oh come on! There's probably as many people playing as ever - bands,
> gigs, theatres, schools, churches... The difference is that there's a
> load of people picking out notes into sequencers AS WELL. Recording used
> to be something musicians did when they had something worth recording.
> Now music construction is something anyone can do. This isn't a bad
> thing, and it keeps the cost of the gear down :-)

I pretty much agree with that, but I still feel that synths are moving
away from being built for real time performance. Perhaps it's because we
are in a time of popular music where you don't get keyboard solos
anymore.

For instance, my Alesis Micron has three endless rotary encoders on it.
Very cool for modifying sounds while you play. But... If you turn them
too slowly, they don't register at all. If you turn them too fast, they
don't track how far they have been turned, or even reverse direction!
I noticed this behavior within a couple of minutes of using it, and can't
see how the manufacturer didn't. Unless of course, they didn't play the
thing with any vigour.

Also... polyphonic aftertouch. Before around 2000, about thirty keyboards
had this feature. Nowadays, the number is approaching zero. Again, why
bother with it if no one's going to play the thing with expression?

And my biggest pet hate, glitchy or over smoothed controls. Either they
are unusable for performance as you hear the thing stepping when you move
the control, or are so smoothed that there is a quarter second lag before
the synth responds, and you can't do fast stuff. Play a Minimoog after
all this and the feeling of control and connection with the instrument is
very revealing.

The reason electric guitars are still popular is not so much the range of
sounds you can get out of them, but how much instant control and
capability for expression they give. With synths, a simpler synth that
allows expression has more performance capability than one with 10,000
sounds that either glitches or ignores the players attempts to put some
feeling into it.

Ahh, I'm just moaning. And I'm a Rick Wakeman fan, in case that wasn't
obvious. :)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:29 GMT, philicorda
> wrote:

>
>Also... polyphonic aftertouch. Before around 2000, about thirty keyboards
>had this feature. Nowadays, the number is approaching zero. Again, why
>bother with it if no one's going to play the thing with expression?
>
>And my biggest pet hate, glitchy or over smoothed controls. Either they
>are unusable for performance as you hear the thing stepping when you move
>the control, or are so smoothed that there is a quarter second lag before
>the synth responds, and you can't do fast stuff. Play a Minimoog after
>all this and the feeling of control and connection with the instrument is
>very revealing.


Ah! You want a synth that SOUNDS like a synth :-)

[philicorda[_7_]]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:22:36 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:12:29 GMT, philicorda
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Also... polyphonic aftertouch. Before around 2000, about thirty
>>keyboards had this feature. Nowadays, the number is approaching zero.
>>Again, why bother with it if no one's going to play the thing with
>>expression?
>>
>>And my biggest pet hate, glitchy or over smoothed controls. Either they
>>are unusable for performance as you hear the thing stepping when you
>>move the control, or are so smoothed that there is a quarter second lag
>>before the synth responds, and you can't do fast stuff. Play a Minimoog
>>after all this and the feeling of control and connection with the
>>instrument is very revealing.
>
>
> Ah! You want a synth that SOUNDS like a synth :-)

Well, I do like synths. :)

Apart from that, getting rid of the glitching and speeding up the
response time tends to make things sound less synthetic, whatever the
type of synthesis.

If I play the articulation of, say, a french horn sound on an analog
synth using controllers, then it sometimes sounds more 'real' to me than
triggering samples, even if the basic sound is not as accurate. I find I
have to imitate the player as well as the instrument, otherwise it all
just sounds like keyboards.

There are some great sample libraries out there with multiple sets of
samples for the different ways an instrument can be played, but you have
to switch between distinct sets, and real instruments don't really work
like that.

[Badmuts[_2_]]

> My dream MIDI keyboard is a musical keyboard that has 88 keys and
> relies purely on digital AFM [Advanced Frequency Modulation] synthesis

MIDI has nothing to do with that.

> [not sample playback or analog synthesis] to generate tones.

Why rule out sample playback or analog synthesis (and there are more
options!)? Each way of generating tones has its pro's and cons. Don't you
want the flexibility?

> It has a headphone jack.

Most synths have.

> It can store and produce .mid files.

Most synths can, if you connect them to a computer.

> In addition, it is able to somehow record and store songs digitally [as
..wav files] so
> I can directly burn them into a CD.

Connect it to a computer.
And who'd want to listen to a CD with just FM synth?

> It has an internal HDD. It also
> has a CD burner/player which can record/playback any and all formats
> of CD-sized discs.

Wow, you also want blu-ray, or CD-I? Why!?

> It also has an external HDD which I can use to import/export to/from the
keyboard and my PC.

Simple audio and midi leads between PC and keyboard would be so much more
practical.

> In addition, the keyboard’s synth is purely-hardware [not a softsynth]

Nothing wrong with well-programmed softsynths.

> and freshly generates its tones [i.e. it does not use any sampling or
sampled sounds to any extent].

Nothing wrong with sampling, when done properly.

> the current highest-quality keyboard available.

Which is...?

This keyboard also has a display screen

They all do.

> as well as controls, settings,
> and effects which are as sophisticated as that of the most advanced
> keyboard.

Which is...?
You just want to show off, right?

> The audio from my dream keyboard is stereo but it sounds exactly the
> same in both the L and R channels. When audio is played back, the
> audio signals in the left and right channel are exactly the same in
> terms of amplitude, frequency, and phase. There are no settings to
> change this.

That's called mono.

> Last but not least, my dream MIDI keyboard makes the most efficient use of
Realtime Convolution and Modulation.

You read that somewhere, right?
So how do you want to combine convolution with FM?

> I would like to make karaoke tracks using this hypothetical keyboard and
then burn the karaoke songs into CDs.

Just get any decent keyboard and a PC with a sound card and a cd burner. It
will do fine for your purpose.

> Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.

Bull. This can be achieved with standard hardware, even second-hand.

> Thanks

Thanks for what? What is the purpose of this post anyway? Do you expect
keyboard manufacturers to read it and start producing what you want?

Bm

[GreenXenon]

On Jul 22, 7:59 pm, "Badmuts" >
wrote:


> > My dream MIDI keyboard is a musical keyboard that has 88 keys and
> > relies purely on digital AFM [Advanced Frequency Modulation] synthesis
>


> MIDI has nothing to do with that.
>


Ok


> > [not sample playback or analog synthesis] to generate tones.
>


> Why rule out sample playback or analog synthesis (and there are more
> options!)? Each way of generating tones has its pro's and cons. Don't you
> want the flexibility?


I don't like the sound quality of analog or sample-playback.



> > In addition, it is able to somehow record and store songs digitally [as
> .wav files] so
> > I can directly burn them into a CD.
>


> Connect it to a computer.
> And who'd want to listen to a CD with just FM synth?
>


I would like to make karaoke tracks with the FM synth and then burn
the audio into CDs.


> > It has an internal HDD. It also
> > has a CD burner/player which can record/playback any and all formats
> > of CD-sized discs.
>
> Wow, you also want blu-ray, or CD-I? Why!?


DVD-audio provides 192-kHz-sample-rate and 24-bit-resolution.


> > the current highest-quality keyboard available.
>
> Which is...?


I don't know. Korg Oasys? However, this seems to be best for those who
want sample-playback, not FM.


> > as well as controls, settings,
> > and effects which are as sophisticated as that of the most advanced
> > keyboard.


> You just want to show off, right?


No. I just want as much control over the audio as possible.


>
> > Last but not least, my dream MIDI keyboard makes the most efficient use of
>
> Realtime Convolution and Modulation.
>
>


> So how do you want to combine convolution with FM?


Similar to Yamaha SY99 but without any hint of samples.


>
> > Sadly my dream MIDI keyboard is way too good to ever be true.
>


> Bull. This can be achieved with standard hardware, even second-hand.
>


How?


> Do you expect
> keyboard manufacturers to read it and start producing what you want?


Sadly, no. I wish they would produce it but they won't.