From bruce@ashbysolutions.com Wed Apr 26 13:58:59 2006
Subject:Re: XK-1 vs. XK-3, VASE II vs. VASE III, King Kong vs. Godzilla (Triple Bill!)

Hi David,

One thing that might account for the action differences: The default touch for the CX-3/BX-3 only uses the top switch contact. Korg calls this "shallow" triggering. It works because an organ isn't generally velocity sensitive, and it helps to create a simulation of the fast action of the original B-3. Korg offers "deep" (2nd switch) triggering as a global option. I believe that the VK-8 has a similar approach.

The Electro doesn't offer this feature; all triggered notes must be pressed far enough to trip the 2nd switch. So, this might account for some of the perceived difference. Having to press the keys farther down will give an illusion of "heavy" keys, even if the actual weight is the same.

It's also possible, however, that the Electro's keys are lightly weighted. I've never popped to top to figure out the difference.

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions™ http://consult.ashbysolutions.com
978.386.7389 voice/fax
bruce@ashbysolutions.com

At 12:56 PM 4/26/2006 -0700, you wrote:

>Bruce,
>
>Interesting thoughts on the keybeds. I have recently owned a CX3 and currently own an XK3 and a Nord Electro. The difference in feel between the CX3 and the XK3 are subtle and would be called "user preference" or certainly "user interchangeable" IMO. I probably prefer the CX3, though traded for the XK3 for sound reasons. Playing the XK3 after the CX3 required that I revisit my technique for accuracy (shallow trigger points) though the touch is closer to my vintage Hammond console.
>
>The Nord Electro, on the other hand, has a semi-weighted action that is somewhere between hammer and organ. Granting the Electro some amnesty for it's many great sounds, I tolerate it at best.
>
>If the action on the XK1 matches the Electro, then it better produce an equal array of Wurly, Rhodes and Clavinet sounds to make up for the less than stellar organ touch -- or I would suggest popping the difference for the XK3. Once again, my preferences based on being an old B3 player. Many B3 techniques are less viable on semi-weighted keybeds.
>
>Younger Keyboard players looking for over-all versatility and value may not feel the same prejudices as an old F**t like me.
>
>David Owen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Wahler
> To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [CWSG] XK-1 vs. XK-3, VASE II vs. VASE III, King Kong vs. Godzilla (Triple Bill!)
>
> Hi All,
>
> Some thoughts about the two keyboards, and "new" products in general:
>
> - The XK-1 is not just a "new" XK-3; it's a COST-REDUCED XK-3 as well, with additional features. So, it's unrealistic to expect that all of the XK-3's bells and whistles will be applied -- for free. The removal of the preset keys and one set of drawbars doesn't automatically make the price difference. I expect the XK-1 to provide enough adjustments for an average clone player, and maybe a little more. After saving $1K or so, if it doesn't have your favorite feature, oh well ...
>
> - The keybed on the XK-1 is NOT the same as the one on the XK-3. This in of itself, however, isn't a bad thing. As pointed out, the Fatar waterfall keybed is also used by Korg (CX-3/BX-3) and Clavia (Nord Electro). If the XK-1 uses the same springs, weights, etc. as my BX-3's keybeds, then it should be quite playable. I've never been able to confirm whether the BX-3 and NE2 keybeds are the same. It would seem that they would be -- how many variations of a waterfall keybed can Fatar afford to produce? -- but some players claim that there's a difference in the feel. Maybe it's in the software, or just an imagined difference? (My BX-3's lower keybed, mounted to the case, feels a little different than the upper one, mounted to a metal frame.)
>
> - Software-only improvements are an interesting thing. Let's take split-keyboard vibrato, for instance. If it's just a new software algorithm, the XK-1 might have it, even though the XK-3 doesn't. However, if H-S' marketing group feels that this will cause XK-3 sales to plummet, it probably will not happen. If it requires extra hardware, it almost certainly WON'T happen.
>
> - Most keyboard manufacturers have the own versions of "VASE". Back in the days of the D-50, Roland had "L/A synthesis," which loosely translated into "the combination of traditional synth waveforms with sampled formants." Roland now has COSM, which is lightly sprinkled over much of their product line. VASE III is the new, modeled (or combination modeled and sampled) Hamm-Suz method. What "VASE III x 2" means is anyone's guess.
>
> Regards,
>
> -BW
>
> --
> Bruce Wahler
> Design Consultant
> Ashby SolutionsT http://consult.ashbysolutions.com
> 978.386.7389 voice/fax
> bruce@ashbysolutions.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]