VST Rhodes Analog Rhodes side by side comparison

[aciddose]

Another perhaps more worthwhile comparison might be with a digital synth vs Rhodes. Far more opportunities to create dynamic motion and modulations against which the Rhodes ,with its relatively stable timbre, will struggle to compare

https://soundcloud.com/xhip/angler-rhodesy

This is with Xhip using a preset released in 2005.

It doesn't sound anything like a Rhodes, completely lacks the variation funkybot talks about and has no "clunking" from the hammers and no release tones.

You mention "clean emulators", although I'm not sure why you'd think this "wouldn't do it justice".

The second clip I offered is more clean than the first, it is the pure Rhodes timbre without additional EQ.

[ImNotDedYet]

There are huge tone differences between different releases so a mk1 sounds way different from an mk2 and it depends a lot as well how you have voiced your rhodes.
Defining what a "real" rhodes should sound like is not trivial.

otristan nailed it.

Another perhaps more worthwhile comparison might be with a digital synth vs Rhodes. Far more opportunities to create dynamic motion and modulations against which the Rhodes ,with its relatively stable timbre, will struggle to compare

You're saying a Rhodes has a stable timbre? The timbre of a Rhodes is largely due to the voicing which takes into account the tines vertical position to the pickup, the horizontal position to the pickup, the distance from the pickup, it's relation to the tonebar, the tuning of the particular note, not to mention the strike line and condition of the hammer, damper felts, etc. And all of these can be and most likely are slightly off from note to note. But even then, the dynamics of how it's played along with the voicing has a lot to do with the timbre - softer is more bell, more forte is more bark. As an example, my MK1 is voiced much more along the bell tone, so I really have to hit the keys for bar, but I'm finding I want to get some of that bark, so I'll be re-voicing it as well as doing the Miracle Mod for better action.

I wouldn't say the Rhodes timbre is relatively stable at all, which is what makes it such a dynamic and enjoyable to both play and hear, instrument. (not to mention difficult to emulate)

[Breeze]

I'm surprised this discussion didn't mention the sample-based Neo Soul Keys EP Libs. They've managed to break down the Rhodes sound into a bunch of mixable layers and they've also made of point of sampling these instruments respecting the individual note eccentricities of the units they were sampling, which as mentioned is part of what gives these instruments their character. Not a physical model but a really good effort and very playable, IMO.

[dewgong]

There are huge tone differences between different releases so a mk1 sounds way different from an mk2 and it depends a lot as well how you have voiced your rhodes.
Defining what a "real" rhodes should sound like is not trivial.

otristan nailed it.

Another perhaps more worthwhile comparison might be with a digital synth vs Rhodes. Far more opportunities to create dynamic motion and modulations against which the Rhodes ,with its relatively stable timbre, will struggle to compare

You're saying a Rhodes has a stable timbre? The timbre of a Rhodes is largely due to the voicing which takes into account the tines vertical position to the pickup, the horizontal position to the pickup, the distance from the pickup, it's relation to the tonebar, the tuning of the particular note, not to mention the strike line and condition of the hammer, damper felts, etc. And all of these can be and most likely are slightly off from note to note. But even then, the dynamics of how it's played along with the voicing has a lot to do with the timbre - softer is more bell, more forte is more bark. As an example, my MK1 is voiced much more along the bell tone, so I really have to hit the keys for bar, but I'm finding I want to get some of that bark, so I'll be re-voicing it as well as doing the Miracle Mod for better action.

I wouldn't say the Rhodes timbre is relatively stable at all, which is what makes it such a dynamic and enjoyable to both play and hear, instrument. (not to mention difficult to emulate)

The Rhodes has a teeming system of interacting parts which shape the sounds but this occurs in a narrow field. A softsynth will allow you to set velocity to control wave phase or morph controls to create something that covers more ground at the expense of low level dynamism

[Bubbamusic]

I'm an old fart and I've been doing this too long. I have an old 73 and I have some Rhodes plugins. The plugin that I have the most fun playing is an old one. It was made by Roland (Edirol), quite a few years ago. Super Quartet is the VSTI. It has Bass, keys, Drums and guitars. They all sound nice, but a tad dated - like me. There are a couple of Rhodes patches on their that are the tits. One's call "Rhode Trip" and another is "Rhodelizer". Every once and a while, I just load them up and play.

[coincidental]

I'm no Rhodes tech, but I've played a couple, and they're all individual, particularly now that they're all in various stages of refurbishment or disrepair. There is no one "Rhodes sound", though of course that doesn't stop us from recognising one when we hear it.

And that's the point really. Sample-based instruments and physically modeled instruments can sound very "Rhodes-like". I'd go so far as to say that often within a mix they can be indistinguishable. But, yes, some ITB Rhodeses are a bit duff. On the other hand, some physical Rhodeses are poorly maintained, or set up to produce a tone that you don't like, or that doesn't fit with what you're doing.

And for sure the experience of playing a Rhodes - the immediacy, the keyboard feel, the unpredictability - is different from the experience of playing a VST through a keyboard controller. Modern music tech has made the studio and recording experience even more "mediated" that it was, and the feedback you get from playing something with your fingers that is actually moving and making a noise cannot be reproduced.

However (and I think maybe this is what the OP was getting at), there are some gains to be had too. Something like Soniccouture's EP73 Deconstructed gives you a whole range of related tones (mallet, bowed, plucked...) as well as a beautifully detailed recording that you might struggle to match without a lot of time, expertise and high-end equipment. Lounge Lizard and Pianoteq give you great tonal responsiveness (though you need to find a keyboard controller that suits you). And pushing the physical models can be fun too...

https://soundcloud.com/coincidental/scr ... late-night

I'd love to have a Rhodes, but I don't know where I'd put it, and I certainly wouldn't want to tote it about much. If it was my main performance instrument and I was playing it every day I might feel differently, and that's perfectly understandable. On balance, though, I reckon we're lucky to have the virtual tools we have now - and there are some benefits they bring as well.

[Fleer]

I'm surprised this discussion didn't mention the sample-based Neo Soul Keys EP Libs. They've managed to break down the Rhodes sound into a bunch of mixable layers and they've also made of point of sampling these instruments respecting the individual note eccentricities of the units they were sampling, which as mentioned is part of what gives these instruments their character. Not a physical model but a really good effort and very playable, IMO.

+1
I have SC EP73, Pianoteq, AAS Lounge Lizard, AIR Velvet, Toontrack Classic Electrics and some more, but Neo Soul is something else.

[fluffy_little_something]

When I was trying to kind of emulate the Rhodes sound with a regular synth the other day, of course I had to look at the various parts of the sound in order to recreate them individually. And I was wondering if the initial metallic component has a pitch of its own. The sound is so fast and so fused with the rest of the sound that I have difficulty focusing on the metallic sound alone. Does its pitch change? Sometimes I get the impression, but it doesn't seem to be linear across the keyboard at all. Sometimes it sounds like it is something like 7 semitones (in addition to several full octaves) higher than the note played.

[dewgong]

When I was trying to kind of emulate the Rhodes sound with a regular synth the other day, of course I had to look at the various parts of the sound in order to recreate them individually. And I was wondering if the initial metallic component has a pitch of its own. The sound is so fast and so fused with the rest of the sound that I have difficulty focusing on the metallic sound alone. Does its pitch change? Sometimes I get the impression, but it doesn't seem to be linear across the keyboard at all. Sometimes it sounds like it is something like 7 semitones (in addition to several full octaves) higher than the note played.

I'd say that each of the parts of the Rhodes should have a separate synth. This way you can shape everything independently. The bark/bite is really important and definitely deserves its own envelope filters and mod routing

[layzer]

heres a short demo i made using an EnergyXT2 sampler instrument made from samples used in the free Purgatory Creek - Mark V kontakt instrument. the kontakt version is 1.4gb in size, my version is only 6mb.
but it uses velocity triggered filter and resonance to add extra varience in the tone as it is being played.
https://soundcloud.com/layzerkvr/purgat ... gyxt2-demo

here is a d/l link of the EXT2 instrument if anyone might want to use it
https://www.sendspace.com/file/j6upu3

[aciddose]

When I was trying to kind of emulate the Rhodes sound with a regular synth the other day, of course I had to look at the various parts of the sound in order to recreate them individually.

It is best to use layers to accomplish the two or more components of the sound:

1. Tine vs. magnet
2. Tonebar (metal clunking)
3. Hammer sound (Initial push on the tine + any grabbing and pulling by the rubber)
4. Sympathetic resonance (Usually -20db at most, picks up sounds from the action)

The tine and tonebar sounds are supposed to be tuned in resonance. If you tune a Rhodes outside the tuning it was originally designed for it will not sustain correctly and the "bell" timbre from the tonebar will be decreased.

See here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... arres.html

The tonebars in the higher registers are a lot like solid "clamped" bars, vibrating only in one axis. The lower registers however there is a lot of circular movement and so the distance of the tine from the pickup will change through the note. This is sort of like a timbre modulation, this is the source of this weird "woeroworow" timbre.

(I thought I had an example clip of that. I'll see if I can hook up the Rhodes later to sample some stuff. I've just had it connected to a small combo amp...)

And I was wondering if the initial metallic component has a pitch of its own. The sound is so fast and so fused with the rest of the sound that I have difficulty focusing on the metallic sound alone. Does its pitch change? Sometimes I get the impression, but it doesn't seem to be linear across the keyboard at all. Sometimes it sounds like it is something like 7 semitones (in addition to several full octaves) higher than the note played.

The tone bar is definitely not tuned in the same way the tine is, but it is harmonically in tune with the tine, otherwise there would not be enough resonance for the tone to be sustained.

I might aim the tonebars at the pickups rather than the tines if possible and sample those for you if I get a chance.

See this image: http://i.imgur.com/9hajjqm.jpg

The tine is the small tapered cylinder / pin with the tuning spring on the bottom, it is aimed at the chisel tip of the pickup magnet.

The tonebar is the large metal bar attached above. They are fixed at the same point but both vibrate separately. The vibration is transmitted via the anchor point between the tine and tonebar.

[fluffy_little_something]

Since you seem to know all about it, maybe you should program a Rhodes synth


Was just watching a couple of videos on the Rhodes mechanics, very informative since I have never seen the mechanics before. I liked this for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx9v0XQrk64
At around 20 mins one can see how the action works.



Here at 7 mins he talks about the harmonics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljqEB_r37Rg

So, the hammer tip hits the tine, which is like the string on my electric bass, I take it? The end of the idle tine is a bit above the pickup, so that when the tine is hit, it vibrates into the center of the pickup for a while, which creates the richer harmonics, right?

When I see those fat felt dampers, I assume a synth emulating a Rhodes should be played using aftertouch and release velocity.


I am a bit surprised that the hammers are made of plastics, and generally how flimsy some parts seem to be designed and made. And how loud the keyboard is

[dewgong]

Here's mine https://soundcloud.com/heliope/dusty-sp ... ld/s-4l8kP I havent included any expression controls on anything yet because Ableton cant seem to handle M4L midi devices (???). Im going to keep going with this though and hopefully alter it beyond recognition

[aciddose]

So, the hammer tip hits the tine, which is like the string on my electric bass, I take it? The end of the idle tine is a bit above the pickup, so that when the tine is hit, it vibrates into the center of the pickup for a while, which creates the richer harmonics, right?

When the tine crosses the center of the magnetic field, the polarity flips. This is a lot like abs(sine + offset) actually.

The pickup, like any pickup forms a RLC filter. The magnetic field has hysteresis and resists being warped as the tine moves through it. In other words this is sort of like inerta, or a low-pass filter with a little Q.

The the result ends up looking a lot like warp(abs(sine + offset)), where warp(x) is the function for the shape of the magnetic field. This signal is also low-pass filtered, not just at the output but during the entire process by the interaction of the tine with the magnetic field and the RLC filter.



So the two spikes are due to the ends of the range of the swing of the tine. They're pointy because of the inverse square falloff of the magnetic field. They're smooth because of the inertia/hysteresis and RLC filter. The smaller ripples are the harmonics from the tonebar. One peak is smaller than the other because the center of the tine's swing is not the center of the magnetic field, so it "pulls" on the magnetic field harder and moves farther in one direction than the other.

Also, the peaks are actually happening when the tine crosses the center point of the magnetic field and the polarity suddenly switches. Once the swing of the tine decays enough that it no longer crosses the center of the field it will look like a warped sine without the abs() part.

Here is a two minute attempt to type in a function like this:


The x^2 obviously doesn't make the edge sharp enough, my lowpass filter is 6db/o and the physics of the inertia of the tine, interaction with the field, field shape and tonebar are completely missing. This is simply high(low(abs(sine + offset)^n)).

In a subtractive a sync'd ramp works great.

[fluffy_little_something]

Oh, sorry, I can't follow you there, math was too long ago
Maybe one could use a vertical fork end for the tine, centered exactly at the height of the center of the pickup. This way there would be many more harmonics as those effects you described would happen twice as often, namely from the top and the bottom

Anyway, was just experimenting with Sylenth, trying to emulate the different pitches for the same note:

https://app.box.com/s/9ur6ppbsthae8k84jg796gatwqz4k45f