Kara-Moon Forum

I've been working on my live gig equipment.

I'm trying to recreate a simulated piano I have in the studio. I'm running an EW Bosendorfer sampled piano (tweaked) out of my PC and through my monitors (8" Behringer Truth) while using a piano patch from my Yamaha S90es through my Roland KC550. The EW has some excellent piano characteristics, while the Yamaha provides fullness the EW lacks. Seperately they're fairly good, but together, its the best piano emulation I've heard. And the dynamics/touch played from the Yamaha board is to die for.

I have the latency issue worked out fine, even out of the same amp (although it would be nice to get the double stereo effect I get in the studio). Anyway, I'll be damned if I can get the EW to sound the same through the Roland that it does through the monitors...and its not necessarily the tone, its the fine piano characteristics. No matter what I do with EQ, verb saturation, or anything else (using direct comparison), the sound out of the Roland is, for lack of a better term, hollow. It seems to lose the proper sound of the key hitting the board and the hammer striking the string....that's really the best I can explain it.

Stage pianos are usually run through a PA so I'm guessing there are some very good reasons for that. The Roland is supposed to be a decent keyboard amp, but I wondered perhaps that the monitors just work better than the amp, so I tried running my Yamaha piano patch through the monitors instead. Well, that sounded like crap...the Yamaha definitely prefers the Roland amp over the monitors.

I don't think the difference is in the audio interfaces for each PC. One is an E-MU 1616m and the other is an E-MU 0404 USB. Surely the difference in quality can't be that striking??

Now I'm thinking that maybe it just works out that these two "instruments" just happen to mate well to their individual setups.

The bi-amped Behringers are pretty loud (75 watts * 2 each), and their cheap enough, maybe I'll just buy another pair for the stage. Not totally sure if they would be loud enough. However, they are nearfield monitors, so I'm guessing they wouldn't won't work that well (push the sound) in that venue...or would they be ok?

OR, prehaps I just have too much time on my hands since I retired   ::) :D

Sorry for the large post! You guys have any thoughts?

The Emu 0404 and 1616 are different in quality, maybe you just have very very good ears and thats why you hear a difference?  ;)
I'm not sure i understand what you are saying, by 'stage piano' do you mean electric piano like a rhodes? Someone Ive played with who used a rhodes used a guitar amp to amplify the sound and then mike up the amp. I think this gives the rhodes more 'bite'.
And do you mean you only want to use the Behringers as stage amplification or just as monitors on stage? Nearfields dont have good soundcharacteristics when it comes to 'carry' the sound over a distance me thinks.

Fred,

Trying to re-create your studio sound on stage is quite a challenge.... :P

A practical strategy for good live sound is to work with a quality mixer and pair of isolation headphones to mix your instrument sources so the blend sounds good without speakers and amps, and then use a separate high quality stereo P.A. system to amplify this blend on stage. Have the sound guy mic your P.A. speakers if the room needs more volume.
Lotsa fun, eh?! :;

Oren.

Thanks for responding Alienz!  I just meant using a piano on stage vs. in the studio. And yes, the Behringers as stage amplification, keeping in mind I don't expect to find myself in large venues. Thanks for confirming my suspicision regarding nearfields sound carry abilities. I was also thinking about the possibility of micing the Behringers through a PA. That might work, but I think I would still be subject to the PA amp modeling characteristics.

I understand what you mean now Fred. I think Orens idea is the way to go but i must say from my experience in live-situations (bassguitar), a lot depends on the PA guy, no matter how good the sound on stage is standing in front of your amp, the sound the audience hears on the PA can still be horrible if he isnt mixing it right for whatever reason.

Hmmm come to think of it, it even worked the other way some times, me thinking I sound like shit and after the gig everyone complimenting me on the great sound  :D

Some PA guys are great and can do almost wonders for sound and be really really helpfull but often you just never know beforehand if you dont have your own PA guy for the band.

Hey Oren! How are you? Are you healing up ok?

Yeah, its a larger challenge than I suspected. Its at least moderately my own issue, as no matter what I do, I don't like equipment limitations. I always prefer that my own lack lack of talent show up as the first speed bump :)  I haven't even sound compared the B4 between the two amps yet...afraid of what I might learn!

Thanks for helping out! Your practical approach makes a lot of sense. I have an old Yamaha MT4X multitrack recorder and mixing board. Are those any good or do I just need to go out and buy a new one. Also, when you say quality PA system, what kind of $ tag am I looking at. Any suggestions? I could always buy one at GC and return it if it doesn't work out well, as whatever I use I'm thinking the sound would be subject to amp modeling. Other ideas I was considerering was to mic the Behringers as needed, or use both the Roland Amp and the Monitors out of mixer so i can adjust respective output to each amp, as needed, for flexibility.

Ditto to what Alienz says about the P.A. guy...  ::)

As far as a mixer goes, anything from a pro audio manufacturer is going to be just dandy. I like old stinky gear with a "been around the block" vibe, because it's cheap and looks cool, but there's a lot of good new mixers out there. It's actually hard to go wrong, it all sounds so good... :o
There's a pic of mine below - go ahead and laugh  ;D
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As to my health, I've graduated from a wheelchair, to a walker, to crutches, and will soon be using a cane (which could be cool...)
No more running, martial arts, or tossing drunks out the front door of the hostel where I work, but the manager tells me they have an electric wheelchair and a can of bear-spray ready for me when I return to look after the night shift. Gotta love that guy  :D
Here's hoping your health challenges are yielding to your excellent attitude and superior good looks.... :;
               _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, we all know I'm an idiot anyway, so here it is...its not the speakers. At least not the major issue. I hooked up the laptop, mono, to both amp/speakers and compared (something I should have thought to do a long while back!). I got pretty much the same characteristic difference.

Then what the hell is it? Both softsynths are updated to the same level and both are set to exact same parameters. Could the soundcard make that big of a difference? I thought the EMU 0404 USB and the EMU 1616m had basically the same specs. If its not the sound card, I'm stumped...what the heck else could it be?

By process of elimination, the soundcard looks to be the only variable. Why?... I don't have a clue (but I'm used to that... ;))

That's funny Oren! I too, resemble that remark.

One can not actually hear the difference between an SN of 117 and an SN of 120?

Ignoring stuff is not my strong suit, but I think I'm ready to call it a day on this issue.

Hihi, like i said before Fred, maybe you should take this as something positive, maybe you are able to hear the difference in soundcards, you got very good ears man!  O0
As I understood it (but i might be wrong, there was a lengthy discussion about it on KVR not too long ago), the 0404, being the cheapest one of the emu series, doesnt have a certain (probably more expensive) chipthinghy on it. I still regret not buying the 1212  but back then I just really couldnt afford it. A friend of mine also has both and says he does hear the difference.

Thanks for the positive spin Alienz!

I could still return it and buy something else. But, I'm limited to FW or USB as its a laptop. I've already tried the Presonus Firebox, but the lowest stable latency I could get was 8ms...not quite good enough. When I look at the reviews for various AIs, I'm not convinced there's a clear winner out there. The other two I considered was the M-audio fast track ultra and the Edirol UA-25ex.

I get 5ms with the 0404 which is good enough in that respect. So I really don't know what I would try next.

Anyone here have a solid experience with a laptop AI?

There you have it Fred. Thankyou, Alienz! Mystery solved...give the man a cigar...!... 8)

(I'm going for an M-Audio USB soundcard when it's time to go laptop, just because my other two computers use M-Audio, and the software is very Linux-friendly.)

Thanx for the cigar but what if Fred buys a new soundcard now and the sound isnt improving!  :D
Im really no techhead and my memory isnt that good anymore!
But thanx for the info on the 0404 usb version, my brother is looking for a card for his laptop too and I always wondered if you really could get such a low latency via USB connection.
Isnt there a USB version of the 1212 or 1616?

Yeah the 0404 is the top of the line USB for EMU. Oh well!

Thanks for trying to help, I appreciate it. Its just gonna have to be good enough for now.

Hey Fred,

I've got the 1212m myself..and near as I can remember, they used to spec the 0404 @ 24/96, and the 1616m @ 24/192.

The 'm' designation stands for mastering grade..the same a/d - d/a chips as Protools HD 192 interface.

Also the 0404 used to be listed as 111 s/n and 116 s/n ratio..one for a/d and the other for d/a..but I forget which is which.

I'm wondering if your patchmix settings are exactly the same as each other?  Are there any fx applied to one and not the other? ..yeah I know that is like asking you if it's plugged in,  :P  but that could make a whale of a difference.

8)

Wyatt

Oren,

I'm so glad to hear you are making progress.

Hang in there, man.   ;)

8)

Wyatt♦

I think that pro-tools chip was the difference i heard about, so am I right in assuming that the 0404 doesnt have that chip and it can sound different because of that?
I'm a bit surprised EMU only offers the 0404 as USB version.

That's a new on on me, and I'm glad you brought that up.

The specs I was trying to remember this morning are for the pci card version. That one used to be of a lesser quality audio.

I don't know about the USB model.

8)

Wyatt

Yeah, they are definitely different. The SN for the 1616m is 120. The 0404 USB is 113 A/D and 117 D/A. It is rated 24/192 however. The 0404 is their newer 2.0 USB AI. The 0202 is a 1.1 device and rated to 24/96.

So what I'm listening to is 24 bit with an SN of 117. Just not that big of a difference. It doesn't seem logical that I could hear that. I'll just keep an eye/ear out as I move forward.

Wyatt, that's a good call on the patch mix, but I don't use the DSP effects on the 1616m and both cards are set at 24/44.1. The 0404 doesn't use the patch mix. Which, incidently, I don't mind all that much!!

You dont need the patchmix for the 0404 USB version?  ???

The 0404 has a simplified control panel. Patchmix is probably the most complicated of any AI software. There's a hefty learning curve that is a consideration for purchase. Most owners would say "its pretty good once you get your head around it". The DSP effects are helpful for recording as you can add effects in the recording process without using PC resources. I personnally don't use it as I like the control of adding effects to the audio afterward.

Anyway, that's my take on patchmix.

Thats actually quite good news, simpler means it will be easier for my brother to start recording etc if he does buy a 0404 USB since he's quite a novice at computing and even I still dont understand the patchmix, I'm with you there :)

..btw..I simply loathe patchmix. >:(


8)

Wyatt

 ;D Why not just tell us exactly how you feel, Wyatt :D

Correction, the 0202 is also a USB 2.0 device. Either that's a newer model or I was just mistaken. Specs are close to that of the 0404.

Also, Alienz, recording is at 0-latency monitoring. So should work ok for your brother.

Sorry for beating around the bush.   :P :D

8)

Wyatt

Thanx for the info Fred, aprreciate it :)
I know about the 0202 but its a lighter version of the 0404 as I understood it, i think it has no MIDI or something, and my brother does need that.
I;m starting to have really fun with the 0404 recently, I had it for almost three years i think but due to circumstances and illness I hadnt plugged my bassguitar into it yet but now i did a few weeks ago and must say its a whole new world opening up. Im starting to build up songs very differently because of it, it becomes much more playing than programming music now, it really has me speechless sometimes... :o
I also found my electric guitar again which in itself is not very good but with some computer added fx it doesnt sound that bad all ! O0

Its time to rock out, Alienz :;