Nord, any (trusted) insight on feature to cost ratio?

[N i g e l]

they aren’t as refined, or as smooth as the Nord,

The Nords ive used all run at 96kHz which means they can only do 1/2 as much as a 48kHz processor for the same money. Maybe the x2 contributes to the price.

[jellyjim]

they aren’t as refined, or as smooth as the Nord,

The Nords ive used all run at 96kHz which means they can only do 1/2 as much as a 48kHz processor for the same money. Maybe the x2 contributes to the price.

That’s an interesting point.

[Funkyflash5]

I'm not much of a keyboard guy, but a little over a year ago I decided that it was time to retire the digital piano I learned on 20+ years ago to home noodling, and have something in the studio that covered the sorts of sounds I'd like to have quick to hand, and something that anyone coming in to rehearse or record wouldn't scoff at.
Asking around the local keys folks, I came to the conclusion that Nord People were a lot like Mac People, they accept feature limitations and a price premium in exchange for a workflow that makes going too far wrong hard and a fit/finish/style that goes with the premium. If that's a trade-off you're willing to make, then a Nord is a perfect choice.
I ended up going with an (open box) Korg Grandstage, as it covers the sorts of sounds I want, with a good balance of quick access to major sounds and user presets, while allowing some pretty deep tweaking if needed. 2nd choice was a Kurzweil Forte SE, but that seemed to be a lot busier front panel and at that time it was a little more expensive. Looking now the prices seem to have flipped so the Kurzweil might edge in if I was buying today, but its really had to say as I like the workflow (and xlr outs!) of the Korg so much. Either were/are at least a third less than a comparable Nord and other options l looked at were missing my favorite sound, Mellotron Flutes!

[Arpangel]

If that's a trade-off you're willing to make, then a Nord is a perfect choice.

But that’s just it, the Nord is not "the perfect choice" if it was it would be worth the asking price, it’s an "OK" choice, for perfect money.
And if a studio wants me to look impressed, then get a nice acoustic piano, a Rhodes, or a real Hammond, they are all reasons I’d book a studio.

[Hugh Robjohns]

But that’s just it, the Nord is not "the perfect choice" if it was it would be worth the asking price...

They are and they are to some people with different requirements, expectations, and aesthetic leanings to you!

Your view is just a view. It is not the universal righteousness that you seem to imply in so many posts..

[jellyjim]

Asking around the local keys folks, I came to the conclusion that Nord People were a lot like Mac People, they accept feature limitations and a price premium in exchange for a workflow that makes going too far wrong hard and a fit/finish/style that goes with the premium. If that's a trade-off you're willing to make, then a Nord is a perfect choice.

As a software developer on both MacOS and Windows platforms I don't see any limitations on either, just different ways of doing things. Let's not forget the former is Linux/FreeBSD under the hood. But anyway!

"Features" are an interesting idea in themselves. My Yamaha MODX8, fine instrument though it is, has 11,000 arpeggio patterns. Yes you read that correctly. I just find that ridiculous and not at all useful. They're cryptically named, it's difficult to find simple patterns such as octave up and octave down, and most are so complex as to feel like music by numbers if I use them.

I use more "limited" arpeggiators on my other instruments instead.

I do often wonder if the obsession with boundless features is driven more by companies competing with one another rather than any user asking for them.

"Hey Yamaha, the Motif series had 8,000 arpeggio patterns. It simply wasn't enough. Can you put another 3,000 in your next synth?" Said nobody, ever

[Arpangel]

But that’s just it, the Nord is not "the perfect choice" if it was it would be worth the asking price...

They are and they are to some people with different requirements, expectations, and aesthetic leanings to you!

Your view is just a view. It is not the universal righteousness that you seem to imply in so many posts..

It is my view, who else’s would I be interested in expressing?
I "assumed" people would automatically realise that!
Thousands of people have bought Nords, and they obviously fit their needs, I just think some items of equipment, instruments, are a bit over rated and over priced for no apparent reason, this is just my opinion though, I thought I’d better get that in before we go any further
If I made equipment there’d probably be loads of people that wouldn’t like it, and loads that did like it, just like us, as people, some don’t like me, some do, this isn’t a personal go at Nord.
I know a guy, he bought a Nord Stage piano, he said to me, I’m not sure about this, come and play it and see what you think, he’d had it for about a year and was still a bit unsure, I played it, it was fine, he agreed, it sounded fine, everyone said it "was fine" but he wasn’t gelling with it for some reason.
Given the choice, I’d have probably chosen something else, it didn’t have my kind of mojo, but if you’d given it to me and said this is your only keyboard for the next year I’d probably say OK, fine.
He ended up selling it, replacing it with I don’t know what, I haven’t spoken to him lately.

[Funkyflash5]

As a software developer on both MacOS and Windows platforms I don't see any limitations on either, just different ways of doing things. Let's not forget the former is Linux/FreeBSD under the hood. But anyway!

I tend to think of Mac limitations as being more of a hardware issue than a software one, but I'm well and truly out on the fringe as a Linux user!

And I'll agree that there is a point of diminishing returns on some features, but something like having xlr outs so I don't need a stereo DI is a hardware feature that I find valuable, but that I can find on something less expensive but not on the Nord.

[Folderol]

"Features" are an interesting idea in themselves. My Yamaha MODX8, fine instrument though it is, has 11,000 arpeggio patterns. Yes you read that correctly. I just find that ridiculous and not at all useful. They're cryptically named, it's difficult to find simple patterns such as octave up and octave down, and most are so complex as to feel like music by numbers if I use them.

To be fair, we've fallen into the trap of "this seems like a good idea" a few times with Yoshimi, only to find absolutely nobody uses the extra bit we added. The trouble is, once you do add something you can't take it away again - that's the point where someone shouts they wanted to use it

[N i g e l]

The trouble is, once you do add something you can't take it away again - that's the point where someone shouts they wanted to use it

you could gradually degrade it or make it incompatible, I think thats a thing

[Dave B]

something like having xlr outs so I don't need a stereo DI is a hardware feature that I find valuable

It's worth pointing out here that, whilst this is convenient, it does carry a small amount of risk. I used to do that with my old PC3s as they had balanced outputs, so I fed those to the PA. It was pointed out to me that the DI is not just balancing the output, but it also provides isolation from the system which is safer. Admittedly, the risk is small, but I see the logic. And these days, even an inexpensive stereo DI won't aversely impact the sound too much (I use a cheap Palmer stereo DI and it has been bulletproof for years now).

[Hugh Robjohns]

...but something like having xlr outs so I don't need a stereo DI is a hardware feature that I find valuable...

You're a braver man than me!

As noted above, I know of no stage keyboard that includes galvanic isolation in its balanced outputs, and while I would hope something with XLRs would be designed to cope with the presence of phantom power, I definitely wouldn't assume it.

I've seen the results of unexpected volts being sent up the output of keyboards several times, (including at least two with a balanced XLR output) and it was always terminal for the gig, and sometimes terminal for the keyboard too.

While a balanced output might have a practical benefit in a studio setting, I personally wouldn't set foot on a stage with any of my keyboards without a decent isolation / DI box incorporating good quality isolation transformers. It's just not worth the risk for such a modest and long-lasting outlay.

[Funkyflash5]

While a balanced output might have a practical benefit in a studio setting, I personally wouldn't set foot on a stage with any of my keyboards without a decent isolation / DI box incorporating good quality isolation transformers. It's just not worth the risk for such a modest and long-lasting outlay.

That's fair enough, but so far it's only getting used in the studio and it's unlikely to ever be used on a gig where I'm not the one running sound on my own board. For now I'll save a couple cables and DI for something else but if I do end up with some weird gig, I'll keep this in mind.

[tea for two]

Here's something weird.

Acoustic Piano (upright or grand) and Old (not brand new), just the sound is inspiring for me.
I can place my ear so near the keys just to hear their movements.

Digital Piano, Sampled Piano, Programmed Piano, no matter how faithful a recreation I just want to alter it.

ADSR is almost must for me in considering a Digital Piano.
My Fusion 8HD had this in spades, ADSR linked to Piano, sound mangling the Piano.
This is the reason it's still my favourite Digital Piano, alongside the 88 weighted keys being one of the better ones under £2k (even though I no longer have it).

[Arpangel]

He.
Digital Piano, Sampled Piano, Programmed Piano, no matter how faithful a recreation I just want to alter it.

I think digital pianos are like caricatures, cartoons, exaggerated examples of what a piano sounds like. So the temptation is to turn it all down, a bit less attack, a bit less bright, less velocity.
It’s surprising how smooth a real piano is, also, it has the benefit of a real acoustic room, to colour and blend the sound. I use the word real unashamedly, because "that’s" what it is, real.
It’s surprising how difficult it still is to emulate acoustic instruments, the piano is so important too, but you would never see a digital piano on stage at a serious classical recital, just like it would be unthinkable to play a sampled Sax, it’s that serious and it always amazes me how people can settle for what is actually a lot of the time, a bad sampled piano, for quite serious projects.

[Wurlitzer]

It depends how you look at it.

I've long ago taken the attitude that I don't care whether these emulations are 100% accurate; what I care about is whether they're beautiful, expressive and musical.

Partly this is because the better ones are already 95-99% accurate, and with the law of diminishing returns that remaining 1-5% is such a mountain to climb for such a tiny difference that is only sometimes relevant anyway. There are just more important things to be getting on with.

Partly it's because the whole idea of 100% accuracy relies on the fallacy that there's a single definable "thing" being emulated - "THE" piano sound; "THE" Rhodes sound, Hammond sound etc. In reality there are as many different piano sounds as there are pianos. Getting emulations fimrly in the ballpark is one thing, but when you start saying an emulation is too bright or whatever, what are you comparing it with? I've heard plenty of pianos that are brighter than some sample sets.

OTOH I find that there's an inescapable experience that occurs when I start playing a truly great sampled or modelled instrument (just as there is when I play a real Steinway). I find myself "drawn in", seized with curiosity about what the instrument can do, delighting at unexpected details, and losing track of time as I get lost in "the zone". That experience is why we do all this bollox in the first place, I'm not going to waste it in order to scrutinize the ADSR envelope against some mythical perfect benchmark.

[Arpangel]

It depends how you look at it.

I've long ago taken the attitude that I don't care whether these emulations are 100% accurate; what I care about is whether they're beautiful, expressive and musical.

Partly this is because the better ones are already 95-99% accurate, and with the law of diminishing returns that remaining 1-5% is such a mountain to climb for such a tiny difference that is only sometimes relevant anyway. There are just more important things to be getting on with.

Partly it's because the whole idea of 100% accuracy relies on the fallacy that there's a single definable "thing" being emulated - "THE" piano sound; "THE" Rhodes sound, Hammond sound etc. In reality there are as many different piano sounds as there are pianos. Getting emulations fimrly in the ballpark is one thing, but when you start saying an emulation is too bright or whatever, what are you comparing it with? I've heard plenty of pianos that are brighter than some sample sets.

OTOH I find that there's an inescapable experience that occurs when I start playing a truly great sampled or modelled instrument (just as there is when I play a real Steinway). I find myself "drawn in", seized with curiosity about what the instrument can do, delighting at unexpected details, and losing track of time as I get lost in "the zone". That experience is why we do all this bollox in the first place, I'm not going to waste it in order to scrutinize the ADSR envelope against some mythical perfect benchmark.

I know what you’re saying, but I never use digital acoustic pianos, I just don’t get inspired by them, I think it’s also got a lot to do with the keyboard too.
I absolutely don’t have a problem with Rhodes, as that’s such a diverse sound anyway, and the keyboard, even though it’s important, for some reason doesn’t bother me as much on a digital instrument.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It’s surprising how difficult it still is to emulate acoustic instruments, the piano is so important too, but you would never see a digital piano on stage at a serious classical recital

It is extremely difficult to emulate acoustic instruments convincingly, I completely agree. It always amuses me how easy it is to reliably tell within a few moments of walking in to a bar or club whether piano music is coming from a real acoustic instrument or from a CD or digital/virtual instrument.

And no, Obviously you wouldn't expect to see a digital piano at a classical recital.

But not everyone has the space and/or funding to support a real, good condition, well maintained concert piano.

The harsh reality is that there are an awful lot of poor quality, or just plain knackered and poorly maintained real pianos sitting around in homes, churches and other venues. You already know all about this...

So for those people, while a digital piano obviously isn't quite as good as a real piano that's been perfectly maintained and set up, it is a massively better and more practical option than a knackered real piano... or no acoustic piano at all. It is what it is: a cost-effective practical alternative.

[Arpangel]

It’s surprising how difficult it still is to emulate acoustic instruments, the piano is so important too, but you would never see a digital piano on stage at a serious classical recital

It is extremely difficult to emulate acoustic instruments convincingly, I completely agree. It always amuses me how easy it is to reliably tell within a few moments of walking in to a bar or club whether piano music is coming from a real acoustic instrument or from a CD or digital/virtual instrument.

And no, Obviously you wouldn't expect to see a digital piano at a classical recital.

But not everyone has the space and/or funding to support a real, good condition, well maintained concert piano.

The harsh reality is that there are an awful lot of poor quality, or just plain knackered and poorly maintained real pianos sitting around in homes, churches and other venues. You already know all about this...

So for those people, while a digital piano obviously isn't quite as good as a real piano that's been perfectly maintained and set up, it is a massively better and more practical option than a knackered real piano... or no acoustic piano at all. It is what it is: a cost-effective practical alternative.

Yes you’re right, and that’s the reality of it, my partner and I, her more than me, see this all the time, "cost effective" "practical solutions"
That’s what we don’t like about the modern world, so much.
Before digital pianos, it was great to hear a good piano, if you didn’t have one, you didn’t have one! that’s what made hearing one so special, like so many other instruments.
My partner doesn’t understand any of this, or music technology, despite my interest, she comes from a musical world of the past, very much so, and I think she’s influenced me, more than me her.

[tea for two]

There was a darkly lit church near where i Iived a decade earlier. During summertime just bits of light would get in through its windows.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/193629214 ... ed-public/

Some week days it would be open.
Hardly anyone went there.
In it, a Bösendorfer Grand (I'm guessing as I wasn't looking at the brand), 1920's I presume. 88 keys not one of their extended 97.
It was and still is my favourite Piano I ever played on.
However, some days or even many days, I just wouldn't feel it. I sat down didn't do anything.

Whereas other days I felt it with my Akai Lpk25 mini keys and Sampled, Programmed Pianos.
(I don't have the ability to turn on the tap as and when).

Sometimes I will have a concept in mind. Altering the Piano sound enables me to approximate this concept.
I expect the Nord's have alterations.

[pax-eterna]

And real Rhodes are a clunky ball-busting PITA, no matter how much one can be tempted to romanticise them.

All we need now is a member by the name of Rhodes to issue a rebuke

Andy

Nope that post is 100% accurate I had a Stage 73 flat top....I would not even CONSIDER lugging one now

[Arpangel]

And real Rhodes are a clunky ball-busting PITA, no matter how much one can be tempted to romanticise them.

All we need now is a member by the name of Rhodes to issue a rebuke

Andy

Nope that post is 100% accurate I had a Stage 73 flat top....I would not even CONSIDER lugging one now

It’s amazing how keyboard players complain, what about drummers? they have lots of stuff to carry around, it’s just accepted.

[Wurlitzer]

Yeah but they're just like beasts of burden. They don't know any better.

[Wurlitzer]

I know what you’re saying, but I never use digital acoustic pianos, I just don’t get inspired by them, I think it’s also got a lot to do with the keyboard too.
I absolutely don’t have a problem with Rhodes, as that’s such a diverse sound anyway, and the keyboard, even though it’s important, for some reason doesn’t bother me as much on a digital instrument.

I agree with this. I think a large part of the difference between an acoustic piano and a digital one is not the qualities of the raw sound wave produced, but the fact that the acoustic one is a piece of wood and metal in front of you bouncing sound waves directly around the room, whereas the digital one is, necessarily, playing through an amplification and speaker system. One reason I believe this is because I've found a good part of that difference is already in place when you mic up an acoustic piano and put it through a PA. The sound may originate from a real piano, but listening to the end product is absolutely NOT the same thing as sitting in a recital hall listening to a classical pianist play an unamplified piano direct to your ears. I would have to assume this difference is never bridgable.

Whereas in a Rhodes (or anything else electro-mechanical) that part of the difference doesn't exist, because even the "real" instrument still relies on amplification and speakers to make usable sound.