|
Hello
May 15, 2008 21:54:01 GMT -5
Post by gibsonkal on May 15, 2008 21:54:01 GMT -5
Excellent rendering! ;D I'd buy one! How about a few gray keys?
|
|
|
Hello
May 16, 2008 8:38:16 GMT -5
Post by Sean on May 16, 2008 8:38:16 GMT -5
Thanks for all the comments. Tony asked how long I have been with Roland - 18 years!
I agree that the combo organ is coming back - you can hear it in use with many bands. Sales of our VK8 don't seem to reflect this re-newed interest. I wonder therefore just how big the market actually is? Is it pros / semi pros only? Do they insist on the real thing or are they happy to play clones? Do they need 2 manuals? How many players use a pedal board etc.
I have always assumed that most players would want the organ as part of a bigger set up rather than a stand alone instrument. If so, is there much interest in hybrids such as the Nord Stage?
Sean
|
|
|
Hello
May 16, 2008 13:37:43 GMT -5
Post by plateauphase on May 16, 2008 13:37:43 GMT -5
Two things come to mind, Sean:
The VK8 is really thought of as a clonewheel. It's where you go for Hammond sounds -- and all those extras -- rather than a transistor combo organ sound. It's also pretty pricey, and looks... well... it looks like something you'd play in church.
My organ -- a Vox Jaguar -- is, along with my Fantom X6, the heart of my rig. I build everything from it. One of the reasons why I wouldn't go for a Stage, or for something like the VK8, moreover, is that there would just be too much overlap. I have synths that cover the EPs, strings, pianos and tonewhels quite well, and -- in the case of the Fantom -- offer sampling and sequencing. What I would like is something that the synths can't provide -- a good, reliable and giggable combo organ. Synth transistor organ patches are notoriously bad; they've always been an afterthought, I guess. But I want something that has the immediacy of my Vox, with minimal menu diving and direct panel control over tone.
I think you can have it both ways, though. If Roland DID use the combo organ as the base, with SRX/ARX cards for those people who would want the pianos and strings, then I think you'd definitely have a winner. The problem with the Clavias, for me, is that they just offer TOO much, and it's difficult to justifying spending that kind of rhino on yet another set of Hammond and EP patches. Give me something basic but expandable, and I'll be over the moon, particularly if the price is right.
|
|
|
Hello
May 16, 2008 13:45:58 GMT -5
Post by Time Lord on May 16, 2008 13:45:58 GMT -5
Another problem with the Clavia stuff is the price. It is just too expensive. Period.
ROMpler combo organ presets do not do justice to the real thing (then what does?). We have three keyboards in our house with combo organ samples and they all bite compared to the Elka Panther 2100. And the Elka wasn't even that well specified to begin with.
|
|
|
Hello
May 17, 2008 23:46:53 GMT -5
Post by karl on May 17, 2008 23:46:53 GMT -5
Hello there Sean,
Welcome, I just thought I would put my 2 cents in here. One big difference I have found with all keyboards is the keydeck action. The nord stage 88 has a piano action. How do you play this like an organ? Come on guys. I almost always pass over a multi purpose do-it all keyboard because of things like this. Do one thing and do it well. On the other hand I have found the lite action on my Vsynth to be fantastic for lightning motifs.
I have also found that if you are playing along side guitarists, and would actually like to be heard in the mix, an organ cuts through like nothing else. There is also the musical aspect of chording. Most synth sounds are far to complex to play chords with. An organ allows a musician to explore chord progressions giving the band a larger sonic dimension. This caused me to look into organs lately. Maybe other folks are thinking the same thing. Anyway I settled on an electro 73 because of it's modeled B3 sound and distortion. Guys want to know where the tubes are and I tell them sorry, it's just a really smart computer. The ROMed-up pianos are nice but don't translate the same on a lite keydeck. Still looking for a road worthy transistor organ sound.
Karl
|
|
|
Hello
May 18, 2008 6:52:40 GMT -5
Post by gibsonkal on May 18, 2008 6:52:40 GMT -5
Realistically, even a smaller cased keyboard (5 octave, synth sized) that covers nothing but combo sounds would be cool. It would be easier to produce/get on the market...the sound and feel though would have to cut the mustard. The appearance should somewhat recall the classic 1960's combo. Oh yeah it's gotta have a cool name....folks?
|
|
|
Hello
May 18, 2008 15:03:29 GMT -5
Post by plateauphase on May 18, 2008 15:03:29 GMT -5
The thing is, you play an organ differently than a synth. Synths are -- or can be -- 90% programming and 10% playing. An organ is 90% playing and 10% fiddling with the mix. You turn it on, you click the vibrato tab and you're on your way. There's an immediacy to the organ that you don't have with synths, and the biggest problem with all-in-one ROMplers and workstations is that you have to scroll through hundreds of patches to get that right sound. On an organ, you trip some tabs, push or pull some drawbars and you're on your way.
The thing is, how do you charge as much for an organ as for a workstation like the Juno-G? [Great board, by the way; my singer just got one and, apart from the short keys, it's a marvel for <$1000.] The answer is that you don't -- and I think Roland could do it.
When you think about it, Roland is ideally positioned to do something like this. It has some substantial advantages over companies like Clavia and, to some extent, even Korg. One of those is its already well-established production facilities that allows it to leverage economies of scale that other manufacturers can't match. The other is decades worth of PCM programming that allows it to pack huge numbers of patches in its workstation products.
With that in mind, it's entirely possible for Roland to develop a combo organ at the price of a Juno-G. The key would be to not do too much at once; rather, Roland should approach this from the home computer angle: Provide a quality instrument with a basic-but-essential feature set, and allow users to upgrade and expand it if they want pianos and clonewheels.
1. Use already-developed parts and technology. Use the VK8 front plate and keyboard. This would allow Roland to (a) use existing stock and (b) avoid expensive retooling, saving quite a bit in development and production expenses.
2. Provide a basic soundset of combo sounds, and two SRX slots that would allow users who want all those extras to install them as needed. One way to do this would be to offer organ/SRX bundles, with the organ, the expansion board and the installation cost [paid to the retailer] combined. An organ does not need 640 patches built-in. It needs a handful of good sounds and some decent drawbar action.
When you think about it, if Roland can come out with the Juno-G, with 128 voice polyphony, 1024 patches, sequencer, arpeggiator, rhythm, 4-track audio recording, two SRX slots and expandable memory for <$1000 street, there's really no reason why it can't hit that price point with a combo organ without the sequencer, arpeggiator, rhythm and audio recording. The real expense would be programming good quality combo organ sounds, but the C1 has shown that this is really do-able with a synth engine. And, to be frank, the Juno-G/Fantom X synth engine is up to the task.
As for the form factor, this goes to have an organ is actually used in a rig. I really think there is a need for some place to stack another synth on top, especially if the organ come with legs, either as an option or as standard equipment. Provide enough space for a V-Synth, and I'll be happy.
|
|
v301h
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Hello
May 19, 2008 0:43:15 GMT -5
Post by v301h on May 19, 2008 0:43:15 GMT -5
Hello. I joined here because of my interest in vintage keyboards and other instruments which I tend to collect. Currently I have several combo organs including 3 Vox Continentals, Vox Super Continental, 2 Gibson G-101's, and Farfisa Compact. Other vintage keyboards I have include Hammond C3, Hammond M102A, RMI 300A, Hohner Pianet N, Roland Jupiter 6, Yamaha CS70M, Oberheim OB8, Oberheim Matrix 12, Sequential Pro-One, and Korg MS20. My guitar collection includes a 1966 Rickenbacker 360 12-string, 1981 Rickenbacker 320, 1968 Messenger, 1981 Fender The Strat, and 1981 Fender Stratocaster. Looking forward to some interesting discussions.
|
|
|
Hello
May 19, 2008 7:39:02 GMT -5
Post by Time Lord on May 19, 2008 7:39:02 GMT -5
Welcome v301h (if that is in fact your real name!) That is a rather drool inducing collection that you have. When you have more than one of something is that because you have an extra for parts or you just like that particular keyboard so much? Just curious.
|
|
|
Hello
May 22, 2008 4:30:47 GMT -5
Post by spacepatrollerlase on May 22, 2008 4:30:47 GMT -5
This is my impression of what a future combo would be like firststringers.spacepatrol.us/futurecombo.htmlIn fact, if you wanted to be more elequent, you could add voices Principal and Horn (a mellower sawtooth with a cf of about 50% and a res of about 50-65% using the the Opus 3 sliders as a reference). If you go modern, you could put Mode: Live/Pre and a set of prgrammable presets The vibrato could be foot activated; all of which will make for faster on-stage changes
|
|
|
Hello
May 22, 2008 22:22:25 GMT -5
Post by Time Lord on May 22, 2008 22:22:25 GMT -5
These are wonderful things to fantasize about, however...
The more knobs and drawbars that you put on something, the more you raise the cost. Modern companies want to sell thousands of units or they will kill a product dead. I agree that if this could be done for the street price of say, a Juno G, then you might sell tons of units. But the recent combo organ fad might be just that and then die back again. I think that one of the reasons that they died the first time was that new features were added until they became so expensive that only real pros could afford them.
I am trying to find the e-mail address of that Korg guy I talked to about that Vox at NAMM. Maybe we can get him on here to see what he has to say for himself.
|
|
|
Hello
May 28, 2008 8:24:54 GMT -5
Post by spacepatrollerlase on May 28, 2008 8:24:54 GMT -5
If it were expansion of the enveolope that killed off "the 'fad", would the more expensive Hammonds have replaced combos? or synthhesizers which cost about $US1400 per note? Also Yamaha and Farfisa kept on keeping on into the late 1970's. I think what killed off "the fad" is that it was, as a large-scale phenomenon, a fad. They were still being used in semi-pro bands. Fads die because they are fads and once the shine is gone, the fad goes. Then too, you had a different kind of music It would be doable to have the five basic tones on tabs with 16;, 8', 5-1/3', 4' and a mix of some kind also on tabls like the Rheem. I was never really fond of bass keys Check out firststringers.spacepatrol.us/bugs.htmlThe music of the '70's was heavier and the thick Hammond sound was preferred with the cutting sounds being handled by the MiniMoogs and ARP's, I't's a pity that the SH-3 and 5 didn't get more action. I still wouldn't mind getting hold of a 3. Monosynth's still have the cut and clarity to do the job. Also a wave has a crest and a trough and a fad is like a wave. But things eventually settles to smooth, this board and the yahoo group prove that there is an underlying fandom here for the instrument.
|
|
luigi
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Hello
Jul 1, 2008 3:08:31 GMT -5
Post by luigi on Jul 1, 2008 3:08:31 GMT -5
Hello my name is Luigi and I made the Combo Sister transistor organs emulation, www.nusofting.liqihsynth.com/combosister.htmlI have read with much interest the thread about a possible new combo organ, unfortunately I hardly could build one alone, my skills are just and only about software and sound design, not about hardware. Anwyay I would be very happy to collaborate with a manufacturer to (maybe) put my Combo Sister in a physical box. Not that at Roland or Yamaha would need my help of course, but maybe some other smaller company. ciao, Luigi
|
|