Kurzweil new synth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e99Z36Bm1bg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trzC7IrPBIs&feature=related

it seems from 1991 this synth is still very powerful. even 2012 Yamaha Motif Xf 8 cannot do even 5% what does this baby does from 1991.
The only thing that Yamaha did for k 2000 was to sue Kurzweil that they puted FM algorith in it. but even with out FM algorithms k 2000 could do so much more then Motif XF

p.s.
Because Yamaha cares not about from what features end users will benefir from but how much $$$ Yamaha can get or of that feature....

Hi chilly,
How’s everything going, on the Kurzweil Forum?
Hopefully you get much more respect there, than you will ever have on Motifator Forum.
But that was your doing here, not the finest of Forum, fault…

have fun with your Kurzweil equipment!!

ok, be gone

Chas

Redhotpoker - 17 May 2012 05:37 PM

Hi chilly,
How’s everything going, on the Kurzweil Forum?
Hopefully you get much more respect there, than you will ever have on Motifator Forum.
But that was your doing here, not the finest of Forum, fault…

have fun with your Kurzweil equipment!!

ok, be gone

Chas

What???

I’ve just got the Kurzweil PC3k and therefore I’ve been learning about it. So with the current (not so much) knowledge I can tell this synth has really awesome features.

First of all, with Kurzweil you get a really powerful “rompler”, a great organ emulation and a powerful “VA” synth engine. All of those integrated with Dynamic VAST. Therefore, you have more synthesis posibilities compared with Motif XF. Regarding synth engines, it’s more fair to make a comparison with Korg Kronos.

If I have to order “romplers” in order to be able to compare with Motif XF (the VA engine and organ emulator are out of scope for Motif XF), the list will be like this:
1. Kurzweil PC3k: Here you get 32 layers (ELEMENTS) for each Program, which are way more flexible than anything I’ve tried before. Each layer can have a sample or a DSP waveform. Then you build your algorithm which is like saying: I’ll begin to control pitch, then let’s apply a low pass filter, after that I put some ring modulation (having strange math rules to work, called FUN’s) and then I’ll finish with amp. You decide which DSP function goes first, you decide what to include, you decide how to connect. Also, you have cascade mode which lets you send any layer to be processed by another layer. So you can chain your filters and modulation in an endless way… certainly awesome.
2. Yamaha Motif XF: Here we have 8 ELEMENTS with hard wired DSP functions (pitch, amp, filter, LFO and so on) and we have XA which allows us to define interesting rules to decide which ELEMENT will sound. XA combined with the superb WAVEFORMS gives us great VOICES, specially acoustic sounds which have beautiful nuances to play with. Also, when using MEGAVOICES you get guitars that are just not matched by any other synth I’ve ever tried. So the important fact is that Yamaha provides many beautiful detailed WAVEFORMS, really way more that the competitors and that is clearly heard when you play.
3. Korg Kronos: This has the simplest synth engine (talking about HD-1) which gives you just 2 oscillators (ELEMENTS) and each one have up to 8 velocity layered multisamples (WAVEFORMS) You can get at most 4 multisamples sounding at once (by using layering) but you have no individual control of the pairs in that case. However, it has some interesting features like wavesequencing and AMS: a powerful form of modulation, this concept is even better than VAST IMHO and there’s a full world of difference in comparison with the CONTROL SET.

When I first tried the Kurzweil, I began with the Pianos. I must say I was underwhelmed. I even thought I had issues with my unbalanced cables (Kurzweril uses balanced outputs). I recall that some years ago (2005 or maybe less) Kurzweil praised to publish piano comparisons with many other synths, including Korg Oasys (that’s the reason I remember the year) Now I understand why they don’t publish such comparisons anymore. I really prefer Korg Kronos (SGX-1), Yamaha Motif XF, Kurzweil PC3k (in that order)

I think Kurzweil missed the subtle details available right now on the modern pianos, like the keyoff mechanical noise or the damper resonance. Also, you don’t have half-dampering AFAIK. However, the most striking fact is that Kurzweil actually has the damper resonance in the form of a chain effect which is not applied by default to the existing Programs! I only discovered that after watching instructional videos! After realizing that, I made a search of a piano with those mechanical noises and I got one. This new piano I just loaded has restored my good opinion about the (piano) Keymaps (WAVEFORMS) inside the Kurzweil PC3k. Without adding any new keymap, but just existing ones and some modeled DSP waveforms, I got great realistic keyoff noise and the soundboard resonance. What a difference I got! This tells something about the immense power you have with Dynamic VAST.

By now, I also have some knowledge that allow me compare the Setup (PERFORMANCE/MASTER) mode on Kurzweil. This time, I think Kurzweil has a great approach to this. Here you can layer up to 16 Programs (such amount is only available on a MIXING for Motif XF) and each Program can have its arpeggio or riff simultaneously playing (Motif XF will allow 4 at most). Each zone (PART) can play on its own MIDI channel and you can remap (or disable) every performance controller to any MIDI CC you wish so each individual controller can send different MIDI CC on each MIDI channel simultaneously. I find this even better than MASTER mode, except that you can put there anything you want: PROGRAM, PERFORMANCE, SONG or PATTERN. I begin to understand why Kurzweil PC3k is such a great controller (originally, PC was abbreviation of Performance Controller). Regarding the effects section, it’s quite different compared with Motif XF. I still don’t fully understand Effects mode, but here you have 16 units of effects which are shared between the Programs on the Setup. Therefore, if a Program has consumed many effects units, you’ll have issues combining it with other Programs and you’ll be forced to begin deactivating effects. While this is a more flexible approach, I have never liked it (the same with Korg)

I still don’t know too much about computer integration, but on this one Motif XF is the best option around (Kronos is also inferior on this one), specially when using the FW16E. AFAIK Kurzweil will only provide 32 MIDI channels (16 for “normal” MIDI communication and 16 for usage with the PC3 Editor), but nothing about Remote mode for controlling DAW/VST and no digital audio in/out traveling by USB (you don’t have Firewire).

Kurzweil PC3k lacks sampler, but you can import WAV files to build new Programs.

For the Sequencer (SONG/PATTERN), I really have minimal information, so I won’t compare by now…

So in conclusion, I think Kurzweil is really a great synth and nothing compares to Dynamic VAST. If you need flexibility and power, this is Kurzweil with no hesitation. However, this isn’t for everyone. I had the luck to begin with the easier (and less powerful) Korg (AI, HI, HD-1, EDS), then I moved to Yamaha (AWM2) which I didn’t find that complex because previous experience, and now I’m moving to Kurzweil where you need to have solid concepts and experience with synthesis in general if you really pretend to fully utilize (or at least understand) that power.

I think Kurzweil is old fashion in the sense that they still have a “staggering” 64 MB of ROM and 128 MB of Flash RAM for user samples. Honestly, this seems pretty ridiculous by the present standards. However, Kurzweil is able to sound really really great because the keymaps are superb and you have real unmatched synthesis power. However, I’m missing detailed keymaps for every subtle nuance for acoustic instruments (like the missing details for the Piano keymaps), at least this is what I have been able to see. So there is the synthesis power, but the raw material (keymaps) may be missing (lacking). I must say I’m far away to know what keymaps are really available, because I think those are not categorized as they’re on Motif XF and when you add the tiny interface (monochromatic screen), this kind of exploration becomes a real issue, which can be somewhat solved if you use the PC3k Editor. Yamaha has a great detailed selection of superb WAVEFORMS. However, the Kurzweil PC3k Orchestal sounds are great and you have more detail in a single Program, compared with what you can get with a full PERFORMANCE. The Pianos can sound great if you correctly tweak and design, and I personally prefer the organ emulator over the CX-3 (Korg Kronos), but organs are not really the kind of sounds I use the most. If Kurzweil updates the keymaps to present standards and they redesign the user interface to what we’re used those days like big color screens and even with touchscreen, then we’ll get a great workstation which won’t be easily defeated.

Hello Marlb.
Let me start at first, i realy hate ur avatar!!!
but other then that i think u are a nice guy.

Speaking about Kurzweil.
Yes i really liked VAST system and all flexibility u had and
Yes i do agree that Kurzweil has very intresting and unique features that nobody has, but note that 95 % of that what is in todays Kurzweil pc3k was developed in early 90s, but now at my opinion Kurzweil is to lazy to invent and make something trully ground breaking!!!

p.s.
Well i will be more then happy if i am wrong and Kurzweil will go back to it’s past glory and new k 3000 will be matching sound vise to VST world or better, but for now sold my Kurzweil keyboard and i am sticking to my computer and i am really really happy now.

Computers suck, all the soft synths are really soft and thin, all the finished music songs they make mostly sound boxed up and compressed aside from a few very expensive exceptions like UAD Appollo etc. The latency on computer synths and music really suck big time, the future of music has been railroaded to a computer box. The future of music keyboard technology was and is the keyboard sampler, too bad music won’t experience that unlimited universe of sounds and performance.

kday - 06 June 2012 05:04 AM

Computers suck, all the soft synths are really soft and thin, all the finished music songs they make mostly sound boxed up and compressed aside from a few very expensive exceptions like UAD Appollo etc. The latency on computer synths and music really suck big time, the future of music has been railroaded to a computer box. The future of music keyboard technology was and is the keyboard sampler, too bad music won’t experience that unlimited universe of sounds and performance.

g

Thank you for your detailed comparison, Mr MarPabl.
If I had to choose another synth alongside the XF, the PC3k would be the one i´d pick without hesitation.

Maybe you just forgot to mention one thing: -like yamaha-, their synths are HIGH QUALITY hardware… (This matters to me)

I completely agree with the sound rom, it shouldn´t be so expensive to develop a soundrom of more than 64 mb of ROM nowadays…

Anyway, there will be new synths in some time…

kday - 06 June 2012 05:04 AM

Computers suck, all the soft synths are really soft and thin, all the finished music songs they make mostly sound boxed up and compressed aside from a few very expensive exceptions like UAD Appollo etc. The latency on computer synths and music really suck big time, the future of music has been railroaded to a computer box. The future of music keyboard technology was and is the keyboard sampler, too bad music won’t experience that unlimited universe of sounds and performance.

Well to be short : Stop using “Steinberg by Yamaha” software!!!

Because other then Cubase this comany is made to make plugins whichsound like 64k mp3 just to turn people back to Motif.

P.s. There are many very high uquality pluging out there , u just need to spend extra time to find them. Yes they might not cost 10 $ for each but they pay u back soon anough with there mind blowing sound quality and possibilities, while with Yamaha eybiards u cannot expand or upgrade anything at all, awry 2-3 years u have to star over and buy their keyboards again from goud up

chilly - 15 June 2012 07:48 PM

P.s. There are many very high uquality pluging out there , u just need to spend extra time to find them. Yes they might not cost 10 $ for each but they pay u back soon anough with there mind blowing sound quality and possibilities, while with Yamaha eybiards u cannot expand or upgrade anything at all, awry 2-3 years u have to star over and buy their keyboards again from goud up

You’re not understanding the point.

Software don’t sound thicker than it’s hardware counterpart. Software sorta softens the sound, smooths it out from the ruff hard edges we’ve come to love in analog hardware.

And that’s in all processing or synthesis.

No matter how much money you spend for a software synth or plugin. It will never go through the actual hardware components of an all hardware synthesizer or Effect processors. So software will never ever be as rich as the hardware it’s trying to emulate. Emulators are only imitators you need the real deal component to give you actual you’re trying to duplicate. Hardware does something to sound that software tries to emulate. So therefore hardware will always be more desirable and more richer and thicker in sound quality. Software is just number crunching. Maybe in another 20 years they get closer to emulating the exact analog sound processing structure.

Again all the computer box music being made today still retain that digital copy emulation sound when you hear it, if you’re used to knowing what a $3000 dollar digital software computer recording studio versus a $1 million recording analog studio sounds like.

You get what you pay for. The more money you spend the better the sound will be. People who can afford $5000 hardware processors will not settle for $500 digital plugins instead. People who can afford $4000 hardware synths won’t settle for $500 software synthesizers based on sound quality.

kday - 17 June 2012 09:28 AM

chilly - 15 June 2012 07:48 PM

P.s. There are many very high uquality pluging out there , u just need to spend extra time to find them. Yes they might not cost 10 $ for each but they pay u back soon anough with there mind blowing sound quality and possibilities, while with Yamaha eybiards u cannot expand or upgrade anything at all, awry 2-3 years u have to star over and buy their keyboards again from goud up

You’re not understanding the point.

Software don’t sound thicker than it’s hardware counterpart. Software sorta softens the sound, smooths it out from the ruff hard edges we’ve come to love in analog hardware.

And that’s in all processing or synthesis.

No matter how much money you spend for a software synth or plugin. It will never go through the actual hardware components of an all hardware synthesizer or Effect processors. So software will never ever be as rich as the hardware it’s trying to emulate. Emulators are only imitators you need the real deal component to give you actual you’re trying to duplicate. Hardware does something to sound that software tries to emulate. So therefore hardware will always be more desirable and more richer and thicker in sound quality. Software is just number crunching. Maybe in another 20 years they get closer to emulating the exact analog sound processing structure.

Again all the computer box music being made today still retain that digital copy emulation sound when you hear it, if you’re used to knowing what a $3000 dollar digital software computer recording studio versus a $1 million recording analog studio sounds like.

You get what you pay for. The more money you spend the better the sound will be. People who can afford $5000 hardware processors will not settle for $500 digital plugins instead. People who can afford $4000 hardware synths won’t settle for $500 software synthesizers based on sound quality.

Well i strongly disagree with u but u have a right for ur opinion. and in the same time i do not quite understand u…
Are u saying that Motif XF sounds better then any VST pluging because Motif XF is a hardware?

Well Motif XF is the same as any VST plugins and it consist of Midi controler, Audio interfaces, CPU, Memory and etc which runns
algorithms in a digital software domain. and with a coputer u have the same but in different box.

The only difference is that Motif Xf internal hardware is very- very old, probably from early 90s so as result in cannot runn complex digital algorythms which in addition Yamaha does not even have. I am pretty shure if Motif Xf would be relised with all it’s functionaly as VST puging the price would vary from 50-150 dollars

VST world is really really got far and advanced that what u get in hardware world even Korg Kronos is a peace of shame in comparison.
If u speaking about VA , then there are really mind blowing software which emulate thouse old Analog synthsizers and the sound really really good.
here are two of them which are made by talanted and creative people i am familiar with

1) http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=62
2) http://www.u-he.com/cms/ace

Thouse plugins can be heavy on CPU but they are really “a big deal”!!! also in addition to high end algorithms they have , they can be runned at very high sound resolution and even up to 32x oversamling far bayod that most will need because even at 1x oversampling they sound pretty good.

chilly - 17 June 2012 03:46 PM

Are u saying that Motif XF sounds better then any VST pluging because Motif XF is a hardware?

Well I’m saying the Motif AD converters sound better than direct digital computer box software for the same exact sized sounds in memory.

Motif playing 2Gb of sound will sound better coming from the keyboard hardware AD converters versus coming from the computer box directly.

I can tell a computer box sounds and recordings instantly upon hearing them. The sounds are not as dense as analog or hardware equipment, usually distinctive and digital sounding.

kday - 18 June 2012 10:03 AM

chilly - 17 June 2012 03:46 PM

Are u saying that Motif XF sounds better then any VST pluging because Motif XF is a hardware?

Well I’m saying the Motif AD converters sound better than direct digital computer box software for the same exact sized sounds in memory.

Motif playing 2Gb of sound will sound better coming from the keyboard hardware AD converters versus coming from the computer box directly.

I can tell a computer box sounds and recordings instantly upon hearing them. The sounds are not as dense as analog or hardware equipment, usually distinctive and digital sounding.

Yes that build in sound cards are very bad even the best computer manufactor in the world which is Apple does not have a good build in sound card that’s why u need to use external sound card like( i had expiriense with RME Fireface UFX, Lynx Hilo, Meric Halo ULN8 or Lio8) and they have very very good converters, my current favorit audio interfae is Lynx Hilo with Avalon M5 preamp and they sound miles ahead than thouse converters in Motif Xf

The Kurzweil VAST can do so much that most people have not used
the full power of it. Because it can go beyond just a puch button machine like many of the new system just coming out people don’t think it has the same power. Oh how wrong they are mmy friends.
It has Mystical Powers beyond your dreams. It doesn’t need large
chunks of memory like Kronos etc its more like the Rolands
way of thinking to create sounds but take it even farther with VAST so you can do many things with the sounds. I think of it as a
sound effects machine that can create any sound you want.
If Kurzweil comes out with a new whole system they will let you trade-in the one you just bought a few months before they came out with the new monster. Sounds fair to me. Till the new monster
the VAST will be creating sounds the real way. You don’t have to be satisfied with regular sounds, make your own custom sounds that
no one has or can just go buy. Be diffrent.

videorov - 09 November 2012 10:20 PM

The Kurzweil VAST can do so much that most people have not used
the full power of it. Because it can go beyond just a puch button machine like many of the new system just coming out people don’t think it has the same power. Oh how wrong they are mmy friends.
It has Mystical Powers beyond your dreams. It doesn’t need large
chunks of memory like Kronos etc its more like the Rolands
way of thinking to create sounds but take it even farther with VAST so you can do many things with the sounds. I think of it as a
sound effects machine that can create any sound you want.
If Kurzweil comes out with a new whole system they will let you trade-in the one you just bought a few months before they came out with the new monster. Sounds fair to me. Till the new monster
the VAST will be creating sounds the real way. You don’t have to be satisfied with regular sounds, make your own custom sounds that
no one has or can just go buy. Be diffrent.

Yes i agree with u about Kurzweil i like that u can creat ur own sounds because Kurzweil VAST system is super flexible and bayond anything what u can find in conventional sunthesizers like for example Yamaha Motif Xf.
Because for example with conventionl synthezers u will sound exectly the same as that guy next door which own the same keyboard and the same as thousands orhers who own the same keyboard but with Kurzweil VAST u have so deep editing which is buyond anything that u can do on conventional synthesizers.

P.s.
How ever right now i found the program which is called Reactor from NI and it has the same concept as Kurzweil VAST but much, much more advenced. And in Reaktor Core you can get down even that deep as to real DSP level, with z^-1 blocks, memory management, and whatnot)

I am not shure if is true but Yamaha a time ago wanted to purchase Reactor but NI saied Yamaha somthing as “go away!!!” but in more rude form.

Because awrybody knows what Yamaha did to FM synthesise and countless other inventions. Yamaha did not develop thouse things but they just bought thouse technologies and creat monopoly in the market and then Yamaha hardly utilize them in their own products but they also suppress others from using it and improving it. So for example FM synthesis was not realy imroved since it was invented, until Yamaha owning right expired after 20 years , and after that happened some creative minds started to improve FM recently. I am pretty shure that that guy who original invented FM was realy pissed of what Yamaha did to FM , because FM synthesis was really stubborn for 20 years and while Yamaha hardly used it in their own products, they even did not let anybody else to improve it.

There are lot of the crupp with Yamaha, the most resent i am aware off is that Yamaha bought Bösendorfer company. They had super unique technology which is called CEUS which lets the real piano to play midi very acurately on the real piano. But since Yamaha bought it, there was no real improvements to this super unique technology until this day and probably will never until Yamaha owns it. And as with FM, right now Yamaha hardly use CEUS, if at all in their own product and will not let anybody else to improve it and use it.