Free Rhodes - Version 2
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 15 posts since 2 Aug, 2006 from Australia
doi dashi mashite
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 15 posts since 2 Aug, 2006 from Australia
Hey Jafo, thanks for the kind words. I'm hoping to have another go next weekend and either add some additional layers to the current sample and some extra notes outside the two octave range as has been requested. I had noticed some glitches when playing the sample in Kontakt, and actually fixed some of them. I need to do some more work...
-
- KVRist
- 148 posts since 26 Mar, 2005
very nice Rhodes! 
http://www.tecquilarecordings.be
http://www.tecquilarecordings.be-
- KVRian
- 500 posts since 13 Oct, 2004 from Durham, NC USA
Toddyjoe,
Also, I'm pretty darn sure that Scarbee's piano is the same construction as mine, since the samples sound just like my piano when I don't EQ it. (My samples sound way different from Scarbee, because I've EQ'd it pretty dramatically.)
IMHO, early Mark I pianos have more bell-like tine tone, but not that much more bark -- however, I'm going on memory here and I could well be wrong. But suffice it to say that with the proper pickup distance, a later Mark I (which is the same as Mark II except for a couple minor tine changes that happened throughout the run) can bark quite nicely. You gotta really hammer the keys, though. Strike a Mark I that hard and tines break very quickly. Tines on later Makr I's are much more durable.
Of course, the bark gets more emphasized if you add a bit of tube amp, a very sweet tone. But I never did that and always got plenty of bark. EQ also has a lot to do with it: the bark (like the tine bell tone) is emphasized if you filter out the fundamental, which is REALLY strong on these pianos. Few instruments are that strong on fundamental. (One of the reasons Rhodes makes such a great bass instrument.)
I haven't had an opportunity to try Wasabi's sf2 yet but I am definitely looking forward to it.
Are you sure about that? I have a later Mark I, and it barks very nicely. (I do have the pickups quite close -- they were that way from the factory, and I think I adjusted the low end a bit many years ago.)... But the barky, early Mark I is the instrument many of the commercial samplers use. I say you are going in the right direction trying to make a great sample set of the less-barky Mark II sound which populated a LOT of great music. After all, there are plenty of Mark I sample sets already out there to chose from.
Also, I'm pretty darn sure that Scarbee's piano is the same construction as mine, since the samples sound just like my piano when I don't EQ it. (My samples sound way different from Scarbee, because I've EQ'd it pretty dramatically.)
IMHO, early Mark I pianos have more bell-like tine tone, but not that much more bark -- however, I'm going on memory here and I could well be wrong. But suffice it to say that with the proper pickup distance, a later Mark I (which is the same as Mark II except for a couple minor tine changes that happened throughout the run) can bark quite nicely. You gotta really hammer the keys, though. Strike a Mark I that hard and tines break very quickly. Tines on later Makr I's are much more durable.
Of course, the bark gets more emphasized if you add a bit of tube amp, a very sweet tone. But I never did that and always got plenty of bark. EQ also has a lot to do with it: the bark (like the tine bell tone) is emphasized if you filter out the fundamental, which is REALLY strong on these pianos. Few instruments are that strong on fundamental. (One of the reasons Rhodes makes such a great bass instrument.)
I haven't had an opportunity to try Wasabi's sf2 yet but I am definitely looking forward to it.
-
- KVRist
- 65 posts since 23 Jan, 2006 from Wausau, WI, USA
Jeff, my general understanding is that the key differences between the early Mark I Fender Rhodes on one hand and the late Mark I Rhodes and Mark II on the other hand are in the change in tine and pickup structures, change of wood harp supports to aluminum, the felt being moved from the pedestal to the underside of the hammers, and the change to plastic hammers. The tine change in particular is reported to give the post-1975 Rhodes less midrange. When I say less "bark," I mean there is less of this midrange in the later Rhodes which makes it a little harder to drive a tube amp into signal breakup in the dominant midrange frequencies. Some may call the later Rhodes more mellow as a result, but some will refer to it as more clear and bell-like due to the stronger emphasis on the low and high ranges and less emphasis on the muddy midrange. Of course, any good Rhodes tech can adjust an early Mark I Rhodes and a Mark II Rhodes (and the similar late Mark I Rhodes) to sound pretty close to each other by doing a number of little things. Just like on an electric guitar, you are 100% correct that adjusting pickup distance to the tines is one of those tricks. Move the pickups closer and you get a stronger signal (and thus more midrange and drive for tube-amp "bark"). My 1978 Stage 73 Mark I has the pickups adjusted in the middle position so that it takes quite a bit of effort to get bark and breakup (unless I haul out the tweed Fender Champ ).
Doesn't Scarbee bypass the passive bass-boost and volume potentiometers and take the samples right off the harp? From my experience building and repairing guitars and tube amps, I would think this would likely produce a slightly stronger signal (and more bark) given that none of the signal is bleeding to ground through the pot resistance.
Just my thoughts on the subject... I admit I have been a guitarist and Rhodes wannabe longer than I have been a Rhodes owner so I could have no clue whatsoever. Frankly, any Rhodes -- Mark I, II, V -- sounds pretty good to me!
).Doesn't Scarbee bypass the passive bass-boost and volume potentiometers and take the samples right off the harp? From my experience building and repairing guitars and tube amps, I would think this would likely produce a slightly stronger signal (and more bark) given that none of the signal is bleeding to ground through the pot resistance.
Just my thoughts on the subject... I admit I have been a guitarist and Rhodes wannabe longer than I have been a Rhodes owner so I could have no clue whatsoever.
Frankly, any Rhodes -- Mark I, II, V -- sounds pretty good to me!-
- KVRian
- 500 posts since 13 Oct, 2004 from Durham, NC USA
OK, that makes sense. When I talk about Rhodes "bark", I'm talking about the sound from the piano independent of downstream distortion. I've played Rhodes directly through a mixer for decades and, while tube distortion can be sweet, it isn't at all necessary for the "bark" I'm talking about.
Moving pickups closer causes more bark for reasons other than just a stronger signal. If you look at the waveforms, they're more "distorted" looking for hard strikes when the pickups are closer. It's rather different than strings and pickups due to the different trajectory of a tine (relative to the pickup) than a string. Tone changes in interesting ways as you move the pickup in and out, much more so than on an electriv guitar (where you generally just get a volume and treble increase moving the strings closer). It's the extreme movement of the tine that's different, I suspect.
Yes, Scarbee sampled with the tone controls bypassed. (Actually, it's a passive bass cut but labeled "bass boost") bypassed. They may also have samples with that circuitry in line. Both Wasabi and I sampled this way as well. Personally, I can't hear a difference between bypassed and inline (with bass and volume turned up all the way), but I didn't do a careful A/B comparison.
Yeah, they all sound great, including the pre-Mark versions too, and I always really liked the suitcase pianos though I never owned one.
Moving pickups closer causes more bark for reasons other than just a stronger signal. If you look at the waveforms, they're more "distorted" looking for hard strikes when the pickups are closer. It's rather different than strings and pickups due to the different trajectory of a tine (relative to the pickup) than a string. Tone changes in interesting ways as you move the pickup in and out, much more so than on an electriv guitar (where you generally just get a volume and treble increase moving the strings closer). It's the extreme movement of the tine that's different, I suspect.
Yes, Scarbee sampled with the tone controls bypassed. (Actually, it's a passive bass cut but labeled "bass boost") bypassed. They may also have samples with that circuitry in line. Both Wasabi and I sampled this way as well. Personally, I can't hear a difference between bypassed and inline (with bass and volume turned up all the way), but I didn't do a careful A/B comparison.
Yeah, they all sound great, including the pre-Mark versions too, and I always really liked the suitcase pianos though I never owned one.
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 15 posts since 2 Aug, 2006 from Australia
I couldn't tell the difference between sampling from the output jack (ie through the volume and bass cut knobs with them turned up full) and sampling off the harp connector. Maybe a fraction less noise, but that's about it.
Having never played any other Rhodes apart from my own, I can't really comment about the barking issue on earlier ones. Having read a bit about setup issues on the Rhodes super site, I know I'll be doing some experimentation with the tine/pickup positions. Mine is currently setup for mainly fundamental in the note (ie tine offset horizontally from the pickup). I'll see what it sounds like with the tines a bit more in line with the pickup and a fraction closer.
Having never played any other Rhodes apart from my own, I can't really comment about the barking issue on earlier ones. Having read a bit about setup issues on the Rhodes super site, I know I'll be doing some experimentation with the tine/pickup positions. Mine is currently setup for mainly fundamental in the note (ie tine offset horizontally from the pickup). I'll see what it sounds like with the tines a bit more in line with the pickup and a fraction closer.
-
- KVRAF
- 4265 posts since 21 Oct, 2001 from my bolthole in the south pacific
I would recommend that you check them out in an audio analyser - even the Cool Edit demo does this well. You should be able to see any differences in noise floor etc.Mr_Wasabi wrote:I couldn't tell the difference between sampling from the output jack (ie through the volume and bass cut knobs with them turned up full) and sampling off the harp connector.
Last edited by egbert on Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 6490 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Rochester, NY
wow this is amazing. great work! i cant wait till we get a fuller range!!!
A++++
RonC
A++++
RonC
-
- KVRAF
- 8389 posts since 11 Apr, 2003 from back on the hillside again - but now with a garden!
thx for this - I'll be trying it when I get home
DSP
DSP
