<![CDATA[Chellos Keyboard Players Club - CHELLO`S SLAUGHTER BENCH]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:09:00 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[TEST OF FM ACOUSTICS (RESOLUTION SERIES) FM 255 MK2 PRE AMP (CLONE)]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-FM-ACOUSTICS-RESOLUTION-SERIES-FM-255-MK2-PRE-AMP-CLONE Sat, 25 Apr 2026 07:08:29 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-FM-ACOUSTICS-RESOLUTION-SERIES-FM-255-MK2-PRE-AMP-CLONE FM ACOUSTICS (RESOLUTION SERIES) FM 255 MK2 PRE AMP (CLONE)

Manufactured by Lyele Audio DIY, China
Price including TAX and shipping: $779.59
Norwegian import tax: $51.11
Norwegian VAT: 25% of $830.70 - $207.67
Total cost: $1,038.37
The price of the original amplifier was about $45.000
Carrier: DHL Express
Delivery time: 16 days

This amplifier exists in several original versions, and countless copy versions.
I chose the so-called Version 4, which is the most expensive.


Technical data:
Input and output fully balanced line preamplifier

● Gain / Maximum Input Level / Input Impedance: 20dB / 9V / 67-100-150kOhm
● Maximum output level/recommended load impedance: 19.5V / 600Omu
● (Phase, Stereo): Balanced (XLR) x 2, Single-ended (RCA) x 3
● Band input and output (stereo): Single-ended (RCA) x 1
● Output (stereo): balanced (XLR) x1 with single-ended output option
● Frequency response: 20HZ-40kHZ
● Power: 30W AC, 110/220V 50/60Hz
● Power consumption: 10W
● Profile size: 446 W × 92 H × 280 D mm
● Weight: 8kg with packing (!)


Original version

.png   FM 255 original.png (Size: 180.32 KB / Downloads: 14)

Lyele version

.png   FM 255 Lyele.png (Size: 247.87 KB / Downloads: 14)

Clone inside look

.png   FM255 a.png (Size: 377.25 KB / Downloads: 14)

Pure copper gold-plated RCA sockets

.png   FM255 b.png (Size: 338.63 KB / Downloads: 14)

Japanese original ALPS remote control volume potentiometer

.png   FM255 c.png (Size: 421.76 KB / Downloads: 14)

Imported original power transformer

.png   FM255 d.png (Size: 459.95 KB / Downloads: 14)

Audiophile-grade audio array capacitors

.png   FM255 e.png (Size: 417.92 KB / Downloads: 14)


The FM Acoustics FM 255 MK2 is said to be one of the best preamplifiers in the world.

FM Acoustics is known for using large resources to measure up to identical values on all components where many components must have the same value.

Lyele Audio DIY has really done everything to recreate everything as authentically as possible, and some components are actually better than the originals.

This clone has received absolutely fantastic reviews from many independent owners, who are used to very expensive equipment - it is often compared to the Mark Levinson ML-7A, and many believe that certain sessions are better reproduced with the FM 255 clone.


* I have tested FM 255 with the power amplifier FM Acoustics FM 300A.


THE TEST:
IMMEDIATE IMPRESSION DESIGN/BUILD QUALITY:
This amplifier immediately impresses out of the box; everything appears extremely well made - it is understandable that it cost $45,000 as a new original.

Everything LOOKS fantastic, but the RCA connectors are of variable precision; some are very precise, while others give a slightly looser contact - not good.

In addition, the amplifier requires that ALL other amplifiers be OFF when it is turned on, because there was a loud bang in the subwoofer because its amplifiers were on when I turned it on.
It is easy to forget this the first time, but I do not intend to make the same mistake again.

This also means that you have to be very attentive when sudden power outages occur, to remember to turn off the power amplifiers before the power comes back.

All switches and potentiometers are of the highest quality, except the Balance potentiometer, which is of standard quality.


IMMEDIATE IMPRESSION SOUND QUALITY:
I hooked it up to the FM Acoustics FM 300A power amplifier.
EVERYTHING appears unusually clear:

Something completely new (and unexpected) is that there is ALMOST no digital noise with the DAC, even though I haven't connected the USB Isolator..!
For the first time there is almost no digital noise, which means that this amplifier is exceptionally well shielded from noise - I only hear it if I form funnels with my hands over my ears without music playing with the volume control at 12 o'clock

The sub-bass goes a lot deeper - I had turned the volume down a lot, but still low frequencies (10-20Hz) are MUCH stronger, plus there are new sounds I have never heard before
The bass from the bottom up is much more clearly resolved with precise touches

All instruments are better separated from each other

All instruments appear with more detail - I perceive new details in the entire frequency range

The perspective and three-dimensionality are much wider and more precise than before

The amount of ambience around each instrument is extremely higher than before

The dynamics are insanely higher; about the same as without a preamp - actually even better..!
All this happens even at very low levels, and I can play reasonably loud without the sound becoming shrill, which is typical of horn systems.

Another unusual thing is that there is zero need to adjust bass or treble via tone controls, which has always been necessary from time to time in the past.


CONCLUSION:
This is an insanely good preamp; far better than my previous MBL.

It is also proof that there is something to be gained from using matched amplifiers from the same series - this amplifier set is well known to be one of the best on the market, and these clones are no exception.

And even better:
I don't have to adjust the speakers' crossovers, which has always been necessary before - everything works (almost) the way I want.
Only a slightly higher crossover of the JBL horns can be usefully tried to dampen human voices a little.

Also, digital noise is almost non-existent for the first time ever - it will be fun to test the sound card and hear if the same applies to this.

It is incredibly rewarding to listen to music I have listened to for decades with all kinds of equipment, and experience that there are details I have never heard before - on EVERY recording..!

This also applies to the Kronos and Pa5X - they appear even more dynamic and alive than before; even more so than with the STAX headset.


DEFINITELY RECOMMENDED !!!


.png   SOTA.png (Size: 18.67 KB / Downloads: 14) ]]> FM ACOUSTICS (RESOLUTION SERIES) FM 255 MK2 PRE AMP (CLONE)

Manufactured by Lyele Audio DIY, China
Price including TAX and shipping: $779.59
Norwegian import tax: $51.11
Norwegian VAT: 25% of $830.70 - $207.67
Total cost: $1,038.37
The price of the original amplifier was about $45.000
Carrier: DHL Express
Delivery time: 16 days

This amplifier exists in several original versions, and countless copy versions.
I chose the so-called Version 4, which is the most expensive.


Technical data:
Input and output fully balanced line preamplifier

● Gain / Maximum Input Level / Input Impedance: 20dB / 9V / 67-100-150kOhm
● Maximum output level/recommended load impedance: 19.5V / 600Omu
● (Phase, Stereo): Balanced (XLR) x 2, Single-ended (RCA) x 3
● Band input and output (stereo): Single-ended (RCA) x 1
● Output (stereo): balanced (XLR) x1 with single-ended output option
● Frequency response: 20HZ-40kHZ
● Power: 30W AC, 110/220V 50/60Hz
● Power consumption: 10W
● Profile size: 446 W × 92 H × 280 D mm
● Weight: 8kg with packing (!)


Original version

.png   FM 255 original.png (Size: 180.32 KB / Downloads: 14)

Lyele version

.png   FM 255 Lyele.png (Size: 247.87 KB / Downloads: 14)

Clone inside look

.png   FM255 a.png (Size: 377.25 KB / Downloads: 14)

Pure copper gold-plated RCA sockets

.png   FM255 b.png (Size: 338.63 KB / Downloads: 14)

Japanese original ALPS remote control volume potentiometer

.png   FM255 c.png (Size: 421.76 KB / Downloads: 14)

Imported original power transformer

.png   FM255 d.png (Size: 459.95 KB / Downloads: 14)

Audiophile-grade audio array capacitors

.png   FM255 e.png (Size: 417.92 KB / Downloads: 14)


The FM Acoustics FM 255 MK2 is said to be one of the best preamplifiers in the world.

FM Acoustics is known for using large resources to measure up to identical values on all components where many components must have the same value.

Lyele Audio DIY has really done everything to recreate everything as authentically as possible, and some components are actually better than the originals.

This clone has received absolutely fantastic reviews from many independent owners, who are used to very expensive equipment - it is often compared to the Mark Levinson ML-7A, and many believe that certain sessions are better reproduced with the FM 255 clone.


* I have tested FM 255 with the power amplifier FM Acoustics FM 300A.


THE TEST:
IMMEDIATE IMPRESSION DESIGN/BUILD QUALITY:
This amplifier immediately impresses out of the box; everything appears extremely well made - it is understandable that it cost $45,000 as a new original.

Everything LOOKS fantastic, but the RCA connectors are of variable precision; some are very precise, while others give a slightly looser contact - not good.

In addition, the amplifier requires that ALL other amplifiers be OFF when it is turned on, because there was a loud bang in the subwoofer because its amplifiers were on when I turned it on.
It is easy to forget this the first time, but I do not intend to make the same mistake again.

This also means that you have to be very attentive when sudden power outages occur, to remember to turn off the power amplifiers before the power comes back.

All switches and potentiometers are of the highest quality, except the Balance potentiometer, which is of standard quality.


IMMEDIATE IMPRESSION SOUND QUALITY:
I hooked it up to the FM Acoustics FM 300A power amplifier.
EVERYTHING appears unusually clear:

Something completely new (and unexpected) is that there is ALMOST no digital noise with the DAC, even though I haven't connected the USB Isolator..!
For the first time there is almost no digital noise, which means that this amplifier is exceptionally well shielded from noise - I only hear it if I form funnels with my hands over my ears without music playing with the volume control at 12 o'clock

The sub-bass goes a lot deeper - I had turned the volume down a lot, but still low frequencies (10-20Hz) are MUCH stronger, plus there are new sounds I have never heard before
The bass from the bottom up is much more clearly resolved with precise touches

All instruments are better separated from each other

All instruments appear with more detail - I perceive new details in the entire frequency range

The perspective and three-dimensionality are much wider and more precise than before

The amount of ambience around each instrument is extremely higher than before

The dynamics are insanely higher; about the same as without a preamp - actually even better..!
All this happens even at very low levels, and I can play reasonably loud without the sound becoming shrill, which is typical of horn systems.

Another unusual thing is that there is zero need to adjust bass or treble via tone controls, which has always been necessary from time to time in the past.


CONCLUSION:
This is an insanely good preamp; far better than my previous MBL.

It is also proof that there is something to be gained from using matched amplifiers from the same series - this amplifier set is well known to be one of the best on the market, and these clones are no exception.

And even better:
I don't have to adjust the speakers' crossovers, which has always been necessary before - everything works (almost) the way I want.
Only a slightly higher crossover of the JBL horns can be usefully tried to dampen human voices a little.

Also, digital noise is almost non-existent for the first time ever - it will be fun to test the sound card and hear if the same applies to this.

It is incredibly rewarding to listen to music I have listened to for decades with all kinds of equipment, and experience that there are details I have never heard before - on EVERY recording..!

This also applies to the Kronos and Pa5X - they appear even more dynamic and alive than before; even more so than with the STAX headset.


DEFINITELY RECOMMENDED !!!


.png   SOTA.png (Size: 18.67 KB / Downloads: 14) ]]> <![CDATA[BRIEF TEST OF KORG KRONOS 1 73]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-BRIEF-TEST-OF-KORG-KRONOS-1-73 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:40:23 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-BRIEF-TEST-OF-KORG-KRONOS-1-73 BRIEF TEST OF KORG KRONOS 1 73



.png   Korg Kronos 1 73.png (Size: 190.73 KB / Downloads: 24)




Because I have previously tested the Kronos 2 73, this will be a brief test, since most of it works the same - or does it..?

The Joysticks:
Like Kronos 2 - but OASYS is the best.
Ribbon Controller:
This one is much better than the one on Kronos 2 and OASYS..?
The Keybed:
A little lighter than Kronos 2..?
But among the absolute best on the market.
The Buttons:
Clearly better than Kronos 2; much easier to press, and better lighting. OASYS has the best buttons and the best lighting.
Rotary Potentiometers:
Clearly worse than Kronos 2; the heaviest I have ever tried, while Kronos 2 and OASYS are quite similar.
Sliders:
A little better than Kronos 2, while OASYS is quite similar.
Wheel:
A little more precise than Kronos 2 and OASYS, which are quite similar.
The Screen:
Far better and more precise touch than Kronos 2 and OASYS, but slightly limited viewing angle.
Mixing quality:
Largely worse than Kronos 2, while OASYS is the worst.
Karma functionality:
Clearly better than Kronos 2 - OASYS is almost as good as Kronos 1.
Number of split points:
Significantly less than on Kronos 2, which is better. OASYS is also somewhat better here than Kronos 2.
The U/I:
Haven't tested this, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's better than Kronos 2.
OS 3.1.3 was used in this test, but will be updated to the latest version, which can provide a basis for a statement.


CONCLUSION:
I have no doubt when I say that I prefer the Kronos 1 to the Kronos 2.

The most important reasons are:
* Much better buttons, with much better lighting
* The screen works better in terms of touch, and its somewhat limited viewing angle can be easily eliminated with a slight angle of the stand, which is automatically achieved by placing it at the top
* The programming of split points and Karma is perceived as less complex, and works better

Despite its advanced age, everything works 100% - the only thing that can be noticed is slightly varying mechanical noise of some of the keys, but this has no impact on practical use and playing.

The Kronos 1 remains in my studio.]]> BRIEF TEST OF KORG KRONOS 1 73



.png   Korg Kronos 1 73.png (Size: 190.73 KB / Downloads: 24)




Because I have previously tested the Kronos 2 73, this will be a brief test, since most of it works the same - or does it..?

The Joysticks:
Like Kronos 2 - but OASYS is the best.
Ribbon Controller:
This one is much better than the one on Kronos 2 and OASYS..?
The Keybed:
A little lighter than Kronos 2..?
But among the absolute best on the market.
The Buttons:
Clearly better than Kronos 2; much easier to press, and better lighting. OASYS has the best buttons and the best lighting.
Rotary Potentiometers:
Clearly worse than Kronos 2; the heaviest I have ever tried, while Kronos 2 and OASYS are quite similar.
Sliders:
A little better than Kronos 2, while OASYS is quite similar.
Wheel:
A little more precise than Kronos 2 and OASYS, which are quite similar.
The Screen:
Far better and more precise touch than Kronos 2 and OASYS, but slightly limited viewing angle.
Mixing quality:
Largely worse than Kronos 2, while OASYS is the worst.
Karma functionality:
Clearly better than Kronos 2 - OASYS is almost as good as Kronos 1.
Number of split points:
Significantly less than on Kronos 2, which is better. OASYS is also somewhat better here than Kronos 2.
The U/I:
Haven't tested this, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's better than Kronos 2.
OS 3.1.3 was used in this test, but will be updated to the latest version, which can provide a basis for a statement.


CONCLUSION:
I have no doubt when I say that I prefer the Kronos 1 to the Kronos 2.

The most important reasons are:
* Much better buttons, with much better lighting
* The screen works better in terms of touch, and its somewhat limited viewing angle can be easily eliminated with a slight angle of the stand, which is automatically achieved by placing it at the top
* The programming of split points and Karma is perceived as less complex, and works better

Despite its advanced age, everything works 100% - the only thing that can be noticed is slightly varying mechanical noise of some of the keys, but this has no impact on practical use and playing.

The Kronos 1 remains in my studio.]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF ROLAND V-ACCORDION FR-8XB]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-ROLAND-V-ACCORDION-FR-8XB Wed, 04 Mar 2026 15:58:24 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-ROLAND-V-ACCORDION-FR-8XB TEST OF ROLAND V-ACCORDION FR-8XB


.png   Roland FR-8Xb.png (Size: 118.5 KB / Downloads: 16)


PREFACE
It's been a few years since I had this (from 2017 to 2020), but I have a good memory and am recounting my experiences, as this is an expensive instrument that users should be warned against buying, because it does not meet expected performance.

As a long-time accordion player, I have a broad background for this type of assessment, not least because I have played many of the best models on the market.

Therefore, I am also extremely critical to accordions, also because an accordion is far more complex in its construction than an arranger/synth.


APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION QUALITY
From a distance everything looks great, but when you study the details, shocking things are revealed:
The color of the chassis is red - according to Roland Ferrari red, but this is not true.
The chassis parts are made of fiberglass and sanded by hand, and then painted by hand.
The work is shockingly poorly done, as the surface is full of irregularities and the paint is uneven in gloss.

The front cover can be changed to different designs, but when this is removed, poor adaptation to the chassis is revealed, and it is very difficult to put it back on.

The bellow are very badly glued and assembled with imprecise adaptation.

The screen is small - okay enough - but almost impossible to decipher and even worse to maneuver.

The rotary potentiometers work well, but the buttons for various functions are idiotically placed and very hard to press.

The buttons for changing registers are probably the worst I've seen on an accordion - they are unusually hard to press, and they have to be pressed all the way down to get a clean register, making it impossible to play fast melodies that require quick register changes.


THE KEYBEDS
One of the most important things is how well the keys work in the treble and bass, and here this model gets absolutely bottom marks:
The treble section's buttons are placed at an unusual angle, which means that all learned runs must be relearned, and you actually have to twist your wrist a little to hit anything like before, which means that your wrists and fingers are overexerted, even if you are used to playing for several hours every day..!
The buttons are also "damped" with hard rubber, while the normal ones are soft felt.
This causes significant clattering that is experienced as very annoying.
The keybed quality in the treble section is as bad as on a cheap Weltmeister.

The bass section is somewhat better, but this also has an unusual angle that means that you constantly miss runs that are very well practiced.
The buttons work as normal, as do the bass registers.


LAYOUT
Manoeuvring the screen's functions is a nightmare - you have to use rotary potentiometers that are poorly calibrated, with the result that you never hit what you want.
Various buttons have dual functions, which is also a nightmare.
The manual is of no help and must be considered completely useless.


SOUND QUALITY
The sound of the accordion model (there are many) is immediately perceived as unusually good and authentic with all details recorded with near-field technique.
The problem is that Roland has sampled from the cheapest and worst brands on the market such as Guerrini, Borsini, Hohner, Weltmeister, etc.

Why in heaven's name have they not sampled from better brands such as Excelsior, Scandalli and Zero Zette?
I have no interest in playing the worst accordions on the market, and had really expected samples from the best on the market.

Now there are also samples from instruments other than accordions such as bass, guitar, piano, harmonica etc., but these have a terribly poor sound quality; worse than ever heard before.


CONCLUSION:
This top model is quite expensive - it cost about 5000 € in 2017.
I have also had the FR-3b, which cost about half as much, but is at least as good (bad..?).
The latest top model is even more expensive - about 8000 €.

I would strongly advise against anyone buying the most expensive model - buy the cheapest one instead, and sell it if (when) you don't like it..!



PROS:
None

CONS:
As many as you never wanted

NOT RECOMMENDED !!!]]> TEST OF ROLAND V-ACCORDION FR-8XB


.png   Roland FR-8Xb.png (Size: 118.5 KB / Downloads: 16)


PREFACE
It's been a few years since I had this (from 2017 to 2020), but I have a good memory and am recounting my experiences, as this is an expensive instrument that users should be warned against buying, because it does not meet expected performance.

As a long-time accordion player, I have a broad background for this type of assessment, not least because I have played many of the best models on the market.

Therefore, I am also extremely critical to accordions, also because an accordion is far more complex in its construction than an arranger/synth.


APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION QUALITY
From a distance everything looks great, but when you study the details, shocking things are revealed:
The color of the chassis is red - according to Roland Ferrari red, but this is not true.
The chassis parts are made of fiberglass and sanded by hand, and then painted by hand.
The work is shockingly poorly done, as the surface is full of irregularities and the paint is uneven in gloss.

The front cover can be changed to different designs, but when this is removed, poor adaptation to the chassis is revealed, and it is very difficult to put it back on.

The bellow are very badly glued and assembled with imprecise adaptation.

The screen is small - okay enough - but almost impossible to decipher and even worse to maneuver.

The rotary potentiometers work well, but the buttons for various functions are idiotically placed and very hard to press.

The buttons for changing registers are probably the worst I've seen on an accordion - they are unusually hard to press, and they have to be pressed all the way down to get a clean register, making it impossible to play fast melodies that require quick register changes.


THE KEYBEDS
One of the most important things is how well the keys work in the treble and bass, and here this model gets absolutely bottom marks:
The treble section's buttons are placed at an unusual angle, which means that all learned runs must be relearned, and you actually have to twist your wrist a little to hit anything like before, which means that your wrists and fingers are overexerted, even if you are used to playing for several hours every day..!
The buttons are also "damped" with hard rubber, while the normal ones are soft felt.
This causes significant clattering that is experienced as very annoying.
The keybed quality in the treble section is as bad as on a cheap Weltmeister.

The bass section is somewhat better, but this also has an unusual angle that means that you constantly miss runs that are very well practiced.
The buttons work as normal, as do the bass registers.


LAYOUT
Manoeuvring the screen's functions is a nightmare - you have to use rotary potentiometers that are poorly calibrated, with the result that you never hit what you want.
Various buttons have dual functions, which is also a nightmare.
The manual is of no help and must be considered completely useless.


SOUND QUALITY
The sound of the accordion model (there are many) is immediately perceived as unusually good and authentic with all details recorded with near-field technique.
The problem is that Roland has sampled from the cheapest and worst brands on the market such as Guerrini, Borsini, Hohner, Weltmeister, etc.

Why in heaven's name have they not sampled from better brands such as Excelsior, Scandalli and Zero Zette?
I have no interest in playing the worst accordions on the market, and had really expected samples from the best on the market.

Now there are also samples from instruments other than accordions such as bass, guitar, piano, harmonica etc., but these have a terribly poor sound quality; worse than ever heard before.


CONCLUSION:
This top model is quite expensive - it cost about 5000 € in 2017.
I have also had the FR-3b, which cost about half as much, but is at least as good (bad..?).
The latest top model is even more expensive - about 8000 €.

I would strongly advise against anyone buying the most expensive model - buy the cheapest one instead, and sell it if (when) you don't like it..!



PROS:
None

CONS:
As many as you never wanted

NOT RECOMMENDED !!!]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF KORG GRANDSTAGE X]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-KORG-GRANDSTAGE-X Sat, 07 Feb 2026 10:26:33 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-KORG-GRANDSTAGE-X TEST OF KORG GRANDSTAGE X


.png   Grandstage X front.png (Size: 227.66 KB / Downloads: 28)


.png   Grandstage X back.png (Size: 143.55 KB / Downloads: 28)


Crafted with precision in Japan
The Grandstage X has a formidable design in classic Japanese style, and is aluminum throughout.

The side panels actually have the exact same shape as my self-designed shelves (I also have a Japanese table that I designed).

With its sloping control panel, the Grandstage X is a perfect partner for an above-ground arranger.

All previous problems with visibility and access to the functions of the bottom panel are gone, and the placement of the keybeds is much more optimal in relation to each other - they can be placed much closer to each other than otherwise.

This also opens up a redesign of my existing 2 stands, as I can build these into a single, two-part stand.
I am using existing stands for now, but will rebuild these soon.


PREFACE
Since this is a Premium Stage Piano, I expect the Grand Pianos to perform optimally.
There are also separate sound engines for El Pianos and Organs, whereupon I also expect these to be of the best quality.
If other sounds are also equally good, this will be a bonus.

So pianos and organs MUST perform as expected.

The Premium RH3 keybed is also expected to be superb, at least for pianos.
If any of the above does not meet this expectation, the Grandstage X will not pass this test.


I have chosen to describe the functions I have tested intuitively

* ON/OFF
Is unusually placed on the far right.
Startup takes just over 30 seconds.

* Pitch bend/Modulation wheels are smaller than normal, and also unusually placed, but are surprisingly easy to operate.

* SW1/SW2 buttons are programmable.

* UNISON (button and slider) is a unison effect that is actually useful for coloring the sound image.

* RHYTM section (button On/Off)
Contains 22 rhythms within different genres - Dance is omitted, with a focus on Jazz, Funk and Latin.
Generally very well made rhythms.
It is easy to select rhythm, change tempo, and adjust reverb separately for drums and bass.

* Drum kit and bass cannot be changed for rhythms
This came as a shock - this reduces the rhythm section to seem pretty worthless..!
* No velocity sensitivity for drums and bass in the rhythm section
This is very negative - Kronos has this.

* KEY TOUCH (button and slider)
Very practical and never seen before - makes it easier than ever to fine-tune your touch.

* PART CONTROL; MAIN, LAYER, SPLIT (3 buttons/3 sliders)
VERY practical; direct mixing that is very practical and usable.

* Display
Small window, but easy to read and easy to maneuver.

* SOUND SELECT (Buttons 1-10 + 100 FAVORITE)
Access to all 700 sounds, with the possibility of saving favorites.
A smart feature not seen before is that you can go from button 1 and scroll to the next ones without pressing the next one.

* REVERB/DELAY (2 buttons and 1 slider - 8 different effects)
It is now easier than ever to add Reverb/Delay and adjust the amount perfectly.

* EQ (LOW, MID & HIGH, 3 sliders)
Very limited with fixed center frequencies and no access to Q value - low EQ is practically useless.

* ANALOG TONE
Provides a tube sound that is very natural, but it also negatively affects the drum kit by masking details when too much effect is used. Properly adjusted it works more optimally.

* SETUP (dedicated button)
One of the neatest things I've seen - everything is easy to find and edit.

* Parameters that can be saved as a favorite:
• PART CONTROL
MAIN: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
LAYER: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
SPLIT: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
• UNISON (ON/OFF, DEPTH)
• REVERB/DELAY (ON/OFF, TYPE, DEPTH, TIME)
• SW1/SW2
• TRANSPOSE, SWAP SPLIT, SPLIT POINT
• PROGRAM EDIT (Octave, Tune, Release, Use Unison, Reverb Send, Sound Parameter 1-n,
Damper, SW1,2, Other Controls)

* The included Damper pedal is of the best quality; far better than Yamaha's pedals.

* Headset was supposed to come with it, but was not in the box.

* The manual is one of the best I've seen, and for the most part gives very good explanations of all functions.


CONCLUSION:
The Grandstage X is more advanced than I thought, and has many more functions hidden than those I have described in my short test.

A few hours of use without reading the manual makes it possible to figure out all the basic functions, which must be considered extremely good.
Everything is not as logical as I thought, but still easy to figure out.

All functions work brilliantly.

The keybed is at least as good as the one on the Kronos; it is a bit noisier, but perhaps this is done to make the feeling of playing a Grand Piano more realistic ?

The sound image is very detailed with particularly good dynamic details.
Only few of the included 700 sounds are good, while others are not quite of the same quality, and not acceptable.

I find a rare joy in playing on this keybed - it's like OASYS/Kronos/Nautilus at their best.
The sounds (including pianos), however, are so bad that it's a shame to call this a premium stage piano.


NOT APPROVED 


Pros:

* Japanese RH3 keybed for real hammer action response
* 7 dedicated sound engines
* 700 preset sounds
* No Aftertouch
* Slider for Split
* Slider for Layer
* Slider for Main
* Slider for EQ Low
* Slider for EQ Mid
* Slider for EQ High
* Slider for Key-Touch
* Slider for Reverb/Delay
* Slider for Unison effect
* Knob for Nutube effect
* Integrated rhythm and chord progression section for automatic accompaniments
* Possibility to create predefined chord patterns
* Many options can be stored
* Separate Reverb Send for Drums and Bass
* Exciter effect upto 24 kHz
* Non-looping samples on all keys
* Up to 12 levels of velocity switching
* Damper resonance and simulated mechanical noise
* Three-part split & layer controls
* NuTube-based Analog Tone section for authentic driven tube sounds
* Unison function for thickening any sound
* Master Reverb and Delay effects with several algorithms available
* Easy-to-navigate interface
* SD card slot (FAT16 max 4 GB/FAT32 max 32 GB)
* XLR Output
* No built-in speakers
* Includes DS-1H damper pedal
* Includes free bundle of software, including Ozone Elements, software synths from Korg, and more
* Exceptionally good and tidy manual with direct references


Cons:

* Pianos do not meet Premium standards
* Drum kit and bass cannot be changed for rhythms
* No velocity sensitivity for drums and bass in the rhythm section
* Headset connection on the back
* No built-in recording capability
* No S/PDIF Coax or Optical connection]]> TEST OF KORG GRANDSTAGE X


.png   Grandstage X front.png (Size: 227.66 KB / Downloads: 28)


.png   Grandstage X back.png (Size: 143.55 KB / Downloads: 28)


Crafted with precision in Japan
The Grandstage X has a formidable design in classic Japanese style, and is aluminum throughout.

The side panels actually have the exact same shape as my self-designed shelves (I also have a Japanese table that I designed).

With its sloping control panel, the Grandstage X is a perfect partner for an above-ground arranger.

All previous problems with visibility and access to the functions of the bottom panel are gone, and the placement of the keybeds is much more optimal in relation to each other - they can be placed much closer to each other than otherwise.

This also opens up a redesign of my existing 2 stands, as I can build these into a single, two-part stand.
I am using existing stands for now, but will rebuild these soon.


PREFACE
Since this is a Premium Stage Piano, I expect the Grand Pianos to perform optimally.
There are also separate sound engines for El Pianos and Organs, whereupon I also expect these to be of the best quality.
If other sounds are also equally good, this will be a bonus.

So pianos and organs MUST perform as expected.

The Premium RH3 keybed is also expected to be superb, at least for pianos.
If any of the above does not meet this expectation, the Grandstage X will not pass this test.


I have chosen to describe the functions I have tested intuitively

* ON/OFF
Is unusually placed on the far right.
Startup takes just over 30 seconds.

* Pitch bend/Modulation wheels are smaller than normal, and also unusually placed, but are surprisingly easy to operate.

* SW1/SW2 buttons are programmable.

* UNISON (button and slider) is a unison effect that is actually useful for coloring the sound image.

* RHYTM section (button On/Off)
Contains 22 rhythms within different genres - Dance is omitted, with a focus on Jazz, Funk and Latin.
Generally very well made rhythms.
It is easy to select rhythm, change tempo, and adjust reverb separately for drums and bass.

* Drum kit and bass cannot be changed for rhythms
This came as a shock - this reduces the rhythm section to seem pretty worthless..!
* No velocity sensitivity for drums and bass in the rhythm section
This is very negative - Kronos has this.

* KEY TOUCH (button and slider)
Very practical and never seen before - makes it easier than ever to fine-tune your touch.

* PART CONTROL; MAIN, LAYER, SPLIT (3 buttons/3 sliders)
VERY practical; direct mixing that is very practical and usable.

* Display
Small window, but easy to read and easy to maneuver.

* SOUND SELECT (Buttons 1-10 + 100 FAVORITE)
Access to all 700 sounds, with the possibility of saving favorites.
A smart feature not seen before is that you can go from button 1 and scroll to the next ones without pressing the next one.

* REVERB/DELAY (2 buttons and 1 slider - 8 different effects)
It is now easier than ever to add Reverb/Delay and adjust the amount perfectly.

* EQ (LOW, MID & HIGH, 3 sliders)
Very limited with fixed center frequencies and no access to Q value - low EQ is practically useless.

* ANALOG TONE
Provides a tube sound that is very natural, but it also negatively affects the drum kit by masking details when too much effect is used. Properly adjusted it works more optimally.

* SETUP (dedicated button)
One of the neatest things I've seen - everything is easy to find and edit.

* Parameters that can be saved as a favorite:
• PART CONTROL
MAIN: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
LAYER: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
SPLIT: ON/OFF, PROGRAM, LEVEL
• UNISON (ON/OFF, DEPTH)
• REVERB/DELAY (ON/OFF, TYPE, DEPTH, TIME)
• SW1/SW2
• TRANSPOSE, SWAP SPLIT, SPLIT POINT
• PROGRAM EDIT (Octave, Tune, Release, Use Unison, Reverb Send, Sound Parameter 1-n,
Damper, SW1,2, Other Controls)

* The included Damper pedal is of the best quality; far better than Yamaha's pedals.

* Headset was supposed to come with it, but was not in the box.

* The manual is one of the best I've seen, and for the most part gives very good explanations of all functions.


CONCLUSION:
The Grandstage X is more advanced than I thought, and has many more functions hidden than those I have described in my short test.

A few hours of use without reading the manual makes it possible to figure out all the basic functions, which must be considered extremely good.
Everything is not as logical as I thought, but still easy to figure out.

All functions work brilliantly.

The keybed is at least as good as the one on the Kronos; it is a bit noisier, but perhaps this is done to make the feeling of playing a Grand Piano more realistic ?

The sound image is very detailed with particularly good dynamic details.
Only few of the included 700 sounds are good, while others are not quite of the same quality, and not acceptable.

I find a rare joy in playing on this keybed - it's like OASYS/Kronos/Nautilus at their best.
The sounds (including pianos), however, are so bad that it's a shame to call this a premium stage piano.


NOT APPROVED 


Pros:

* Japanese RH3 keybed for real hammer action response
* 7 dedicated sound engines
* 700 preset sounds
* No Aftertouch
* Slider for Split
* Slider for Layer
* Slider for Main
* Slider for EQ Low
* Slider for EQ Mid
* Slider for EQ High
* Slider for Key-Touch
* Slider for Reverb/Delay
* Slider for Unison effect
* Knob for Nutube effect
* Integrated rhythm and chord progression section for automatic accompaniments
* Possibility to create predefined chord patterns
* Many options can be stored
* Separate Reverb Send for Drums and Bass
* Exciter effect upto 24 kHz
* Non-looping samples on all keys
* Up to 12 levels of velocity switching
* Damper resonance and simulated mechanical noise
* Three-part split & layer controls
* NuTube-based Analog Tone section for authentic driven tube sounds
* Unison function for thickening any sound
* Master Reverb and Delay effects with several algorithms available
* Easy-to-navigate interface
* SD card slot (FAT16 max 4 GB/FAT32 max 32 GB)
* XLR Output
* No built-in speakers
* Includes DS-1H damper pedal
* Includes free bundle of software, including Ozone Elements, software synths from Korg, and more
* Exceptionally good and tidy manual with direct references


Cons:

* Pianos do not meet Premium standards
* Drum kit and bass cannot be changed for rhythms
* No velocity sensitivity for drums and bass in the rhythm section
* Headset connection on the back
* No built-in recording capability
* No S/PDIF Coax or Optical connection]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF YAMAHA MODX M8]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-MODX-M8 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:58:37 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-MODX-M8 TEST OF YAMAHA MODX M8


.png   MODX M8.png (Size: 224.21 KB / Downloads: 46)

Yamaha has really done us users a great service when they developed the MODX M, because this is a GIG version of the Montage M; it is built on the same DNA, and all data from the Montage M can be transferred to the MODX M and vice versa.

It is also extremely light, and the buttons and layout are almost identical to the Montage M; the only differences are really that the cabinet is made of plastic, the keybed and the screen has a slightly lower sensitivity and the hardware a slightly lower resolution.

It is assumed that those who already have a Montage M will use this in their studio, and a MODX M for GIGs.

I will not list all the technical data, but rather choose to refer to https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.co...ing-MODX-M where everything is described in detail.


A little about this test:
This is not an in-depth test, but is based on my immediate first impressions.
More tests will probably follow after some time, which go into more depth.


First impression before use:
This is one of the nicest synths I've ever seen, and even though the cabinet is made of plastic - it can be safely lifted in every conceivable way, without any negative movements being noticed in the cabinet. It seems very solid and well-damped.
All buttons and similar look the same as those on the Montage M, but they are said to have a slightly different pressing moment.
There is a very advanced LED lighting of all buttons with varying colors - very nice to look at.


First Time Start-Up:
The startup is very fast - just under 30 seconds.


Intuitive use/Layout:
In the videos everything appeared logical, but in practical use everything became chaotic and not logical at all.
The multi-functions of the buttons make reading the manual absolutely necessary - it is simply impossible to start using this synth just by trying it out.
For comparison, I have made advanced edits with the Pa5X - without reading the manual - everything was intuitively understandable.


Mechanical quality:
All buttons and sliders appear to be of high quality and work well, but the data wheel feels like it has too large a working area - it's not exactly easy to scroll carefully, as a small movement causes a big jump.
The Pitch & Modulation wheels are difficult to maneuver due to their location high up on the chassis, but they work perfectly.


The screen:
I have placed the MODX M above the Pa5X, because it is too big to stand under.
This position does not work well, because the screen has a medium resolution, and is quite critical to the viewing angle - it is not exactly easy to interpret, and feels too small.
It is very problematic to select something by pressing the screen, both because everything is too small and because the screen requires precise hitting.

The screen can still be considered as good, because I am spoiled by the best on the market - the Pa5X's.


The keybed:
This is one of the most important things - if the keybed is not good enough, everything else is dragged down.
The keybed is an improved GHS version of the one used on the MODX, and it has been compared to the one on the DGX-670.
I find no similarity, as this is much softer with less hammer effect, and is better damped; it is exceptionally quiet.

Playing it is not as expected; it feels kind of heavy and slow - It requires a certain amount of force, and those who are used to synth-weighted keybeds will probably have to play for a while to build up the necessary strength in their fingers.

I notice that fast movements such as triplets and such are not registered if you do this very quickly.
This is to some extent to be expected from a piano-weighted keybed, and must be considered acceptable.

But I already notice that I am starting to master this keybed, which is undoubtedly very well made.


Rear Panel/Connections:
All connections appear to be of good quality, but are recessed underneath, which Yamaha says is a good thing, but I don't share their enthusiasm, because everything becomes difficult to see, and they are too close to each other.
The On/Off button is a small round button, which is placed close to Out, which makes it almost impossible to use.


Playing Parts & Scenes:
It is not possible to play Parts with intro, variations, fills and ending at all.
I have not found any pre-recorded sequences for this - it seems that Parts has to be created by the user from scratch.

Scenes, on the other hand, are very well laid out, with many Performances having up to 8 scenes each.
I have a strong suspicion that Yamaha got the idea from the Korg Nautilus, which had a Configurable arpeggiator engine with 4 instantly switchable scenes - the MODX M has 8 instantly switchable scenes, which must be said to be a significant improvement over the Nautilus.

The scenes are insanely well made with great variations, which Nautilus certainly weren't.
Stopping a Scene is very problematic, as the Arp button is too far from the keybed, right next to the modulation wheel.


Sound Quality:
My immediate impression of the sound quality was very variable, but after trying many Performances it appears to be absolutely acceptable; on par with Kronos & Co or even better.
The soundstage is very homogeneous, and a bit "American" with an emphasis on heavy, dynamic details, while the uppers are very controlled and a bit withdrawn.

Heavy rock becomes a rare experience, and is actually better made than those on Kronos.
Movie effects-based Performances are the best I've heard, with a level of velocity that will shock audiences.


Quality Of Mixing:
Almost all Yamaha's arrangers are extremely poorly mixed, but with this synth Yamaha proves that they can mix properly - everything fits together very well in terms of level, and the choice of sounds is very well thought out - better than on the Pa5X.

The Superknob allows mixing to be made more complex than ever before, and is a fantastic tool for everyday use.


Degree of playing pleasure:
This synth is incredibly fun to play with its countless Performances - I like it better than both OASYS, Kronos and Nautilus.
Although its layout is unfamiliar and takes some getting used to, everything works very well once you find the right button.


Compability:
The MODX M is compatible with all previous MODX and Montage models, and all data is interchangeable, dramatically expanding its usability.

Expanded Softsynth Plugin (ESP) will be available in January 2026. 
With this you can edit and customize everything exactly as you do on the physical MODX M, and transfer it directly from PC to MODX M.


MIDI 2.0 support: Key controllers that benefit from MIDI 2.0 support on the MODX M include note velocity, Super Knob, and pitch bend.
This is probably the direct reason why the degree of velocity is perceived as greater than before.


Pros:
* Very good keybed
* Very high sound quality
* Very high mixing quality
* Built-in audio interface, functioning as a 24-bit 10-input/4-output USB audio and MIDI interface
* MIDI 2.0 support
* Expanded Softsynth Plugin (ESP) - available in January 2026
* Configurable arpeggiator engine with 8 instantly switchable scenes
* Ability to create Parts like on an arranger with intro, variations, fills and ending
* SSS Seamless Sound Switching


Cons:
* The screen should have been larger with the option of tilting, because the viewing angle is limited and it is difficult to see many details. The resolution could also have been better
* The Pitch & Modulation wheels are difficult to maneuver due to their location high up on the chassis
* The Arp button's location by the modulation wheel makes stopping Scene very problematic - it's too far from the keybed
* The layout is very complex and messy, and will probably take a long time to get used to.
The many multi-function buttons and changing multi-colors are confusing
* No Aftertouch (Some people don't like this, but I think it's an advantage)
* No Optical or SP/DIF connection
* USB connection only on the back
* Headphone connection on the back
* ON/OFF on the back - very difficult to access
* The data wheel feels like it has too large a working area - it's not exactly easy to scroll carefully, as a small movement causes a big jump
* Connection via the rear panel is difficult due to its recessed location, and the ON/OFF button is almost impossible to reach
* Messy and incomplete manual (online Operation Manual) - there is a complete lack of an overview of the panel's contents and the rear panel's connections, and it begins strangely without a description of the panel's basic functions, but has an over-focus on using the screen


FINAL CONCLUSION:
I consider the MODX M to be nothing less than a Game Changer, because you are essentially getting a Montage M for a fraction of the price and a fraction of the weight.

Everything that is made for the Montage M can be used on the MODX M.

With a keybed that is among the best and a sound quality that is even better, I predict that many will get rid of their old synth and switch to the MODX M.

Yamaha was once famous for its DX-7, Motif and Montage - Korg for its OASYS and Kronos.


Yamaha will once again be famous for its MODX M.

CAN ABSOLUTELY BE RECOMMENDED - WITH RESERVATIONS ABOUT A VERY MESSED LAYOUT]]> TEST OF YAMAHA MODX M8


.png   MODX M8.png (Size: 224.21 KB / Downloads: 46)

Yamaha has really done us users a great service when they developed the MODX M, because this is a GIG version of the Montage M; it is built on the same DNA, and all data from the Montage M can be transferred to the MODX M and vice versa.

It is also extremely light, and the buttons and layout are almost identical to the Montage M; the only differences are really that the cabinet is made of plastic, the keybed and the screen has a slightly lower sensitivity and the hardware a slightly lower resolution.

It is assumed that those who already have a Montage M will use this in their studio, and a MODX M for GIGs.

I will not list all the technical data, but rather choose to refer to https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.co...ing-MODX-M where everything is described in detail.


A little about this test:
This is not an in-depth test, but is based on my immediate first impressions.
More tests will probably follow after some time, which go into more depth.


First impression before use:
This is one of the nicest synths I've ever seen, and even though the cabinet is made of plastic - it can be safely lifted in every conceivable way, without any negative movements being noticed in the cabinet. It seems very solid and well-damped.
All buttons and similar look the same as those on the Montage M, but they are said to have a slightly different pressing moment.
There is a very advanced LED lighting of all buttons with varying colors - very nice to look at.


First Time Start-Up:
The startup is very fast - just under 30 seconds.


Intuitive use/Layout:
In the videos everything appeared logical, but in practical use everything became chaotic and not logical at all.
The multi-functions of the buttons make reading the manual absolutely necessary - it is simply impossible to start using this synth just by trying it out.
For comparison, I have made advanced edits with the Pa5X - without reading the manual - everything was intuitively understandable.


Mechanical quality:
All buttons and sliders appear to be of high quality and work well, but the data wheel feels like it has too large a working area - it's not exactly easy to scroll carefully, as a small movement causes a big jump.
The Pitch & Modulation wheels are difficult to maneuver due to their location high up on the chassis, but they work perfectly.


The screen:
I have placed the MODX M above the Pa5X, because it is too big to stand under.
This position does not work well, because the screen has a medium resolution, and is quite critical to the viewing angle - it is not exactly easy to interpret, and feels too small.
It is very problematic to select something by pressing the screen, both because everything is too small and because the screen requires precise hitting.

The screen can still be considered as good, because I am spoiled by the best on the market - the Pa5X's.


The keybed:
This is one of the most important things - if the keybed is not good enough, everything else is dragged down.
The keybed is an improved GHS version of the one used on the MODX, and it has been compared to the one on the DGX-670.
I find no similarity, as this is much softer with less hammer effect, and is better damped; it is exceptionally quiet.

Playing it is not as expected; it feels kind of heavy and slow - It requires a certain amount of force, and those who are used to synth-weighted keybeds will probably have to play for a while to build up the necessary strength in their fingers.

I notice that fast movements such as triplets and such are not registered if you do this very quickly.
This is to some extent to be expected from a piano-weighted keybed, and must be considered acceptable.

But I already notice that I am starting to master this keybed, which is undoubtedly very well made.


Rear Panel/Connections:
All connections appear to be of good quality, but are recessed underneath, which Yamaha says is a good thing, but I don't share their enthusiasm, because everything becomes difficult to see, and they are too close to each other.
The On/Off button is a small round button, which is placed close to Out, which makes it almost impossible to use.


Playing Parts & Scenes:
It is not possible to play Parts with intro, variations, fills and ending at all.
I have not found any pre-recorded sequences for this - it seems that Parts has to be created by the user from scratch.

Scenes, on the other hand, are very well laid out, with many Performances having up to 8 scenes each.
I have a strong suspicion that Yamaha got the idea from the Korg Nautilus, which had a Configurable arpeggiator engine with 4 instantly switchable scenes - the MODX M has 8 instantly switchable scenes, which must be said to be a significant improvement over the Nautilus.

The scenes are insanely well made with great variations, which Nautilus certainly weren't.
Stopping a Scene is very problematic, as the Arp button is too far from the keybed, right next to the modulation wheel.


Sound Quality:
My immediate impression of the sound quality was very variable, but after trying many Performances it appears to be absolutely acceptable; on par with Kronos & Co or even better.
The soundstage is very homogeneous, and a bit "American" with an emphasis on heavy, dynamic details, while the uppers are very controlled and a bit withdrawn.

Heavy rock becomes a rare experience, and is actually better made than those on Kronos.
Movie effects-based Performances are the best I've heard, with a level of velocity that will shock audiences.


Quality Of Mixing:
Almost all Yamaha's arrangers are extremely poorly mixed, but with this synth Yamaha proves that they can mix properly - everything fits together very well in terms of level, and the choice of sounds is very well thought out - better than on the Pa5X.

The Superknob allows mixing to be made more complex than ever before, and is a fantastic tool for everyday use.


Degree of playing pleasure:
This synth is incredibly fun to play with its countless Performances - I like it better than both OASYS, Kronos and Nautilus.
Although its layout is unfamiliar and takes some getting used to, everything works very well once you find the right button.


Compability:
The MODX M is compatible with all previous MODX and Montage models, and all data is interchangeable, dramatically expanding its usability.

Expanded Softsynth Plugin (ESP) will be available in January 2026. 
With this you can edit and customize everything exactly as you do on the physical MODX M, and transfer it directly from PC to MODX M.


MIDI 2.0 support: Key controllers that benefit from MIDI 2.0 support on the MODX M include note velocity, Super Knob, and pitch bend.
This is probably the direct reason why the degree of velocity is perceived as greater than before.


Pros:
* Very good keybed
* Very high sound quality
* Very high mixing quality
* Built-in audio interface, functioning as a 24-bit 10-input/4-output USB audio and MIDI interface
* MIDI 2.0 support
* Expanded Softsynth Plugin (ESP) - available in January 2026
* Configurable arpeggiator engine with 8 instantly switchable scenes
* Ability to create Parts like on an arranger with intro, variations, fills and ending
* SSS Seamless Sound Switching


Cons:
* The screen should have been larger with the option of tilting, because the viewing angle is limited and it is difficult to see many details. The resolution could also have been better
* The Pitch & Modulation wheels are difficult to maneuver due to their location high up on the chassis
* The Arp button's location by the modulation wheel makes stopping Scene very problematic - it's too far from the keybed
* The layout is very complex and messy, and will probably take a long time to get used to.
The many multi-function buttons and changing multi-colors are confusing
* No Aftertouch (Some people don't like this, but I think it's an advantage)
* No Optical or SP/DIF connection
* USB connection only on the back
* Headphone connection on the back
* ON/OFF on the back - very difficult to access
* The data wheel feels like it has too large a working area - it's not exactly easy to scroll carefully, as a small movement causes a big jump
* Connection via the rear panel is difficult due to its recessed location, and the ON/OFF button is almost impossible to reach
* Messy and incomplete manual (online Operation Manual) - there is a complete lack of an overview of the panel's contents and the rear panel's connections, and it begins strangely without a description of the panel's basic functions, but has an over-focus on using the screen


FINAL CONCLUSION:
I consider the MODX M to be nothing less than a Game Changer, because you are essentially getting a Montage M for a fraction of the price and a fraction of the weight.

Everything that is made for the Montage M can be used on the MODX M.

With a keybed that is among the best and a sound quality that is even better, I predict that many will get rid of their old synth and switch to the MODX M.

Yamaha was once famous for its DX-7, Motif and Montage - Korg for its OASYS and Kronos.


Yamaha will once again be famous for its MODX M.

CAN ABSOLUTELY BE RECOMMENDED - WITH RESERVATIONS ABOUT A VERY MESSED LAYOUT]]> <![CDATA[ONGOING TEST OF PA5X STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-ONGOING-TEST-OF-PA5X-STYLE-CREATOR-BOT-SCB Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:34:03 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-ONGOING-TEST-OF-PA5X-STYLE-CREATOR-BOT-SCB ONGOING TEST OF PA5X STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)

This is a very extensive test that will continue for a while, and I have chosen to post my 26 questions that I am seeking answers to.

These will be answered as I can reasonably be sure to give an answer; either with red or green text - negative or positive.

This also makes it easy to see what has been covered during the test.


1: Can both format 0 and 1 be used, or only one ?
It seems that both format 0 and 1 can be used, because the version for Pa4X kept giving messages about the wrong format, while this one has not done this so far, and I have tested several hundred midi files from different origins

2: Can all types of midi files be used, or only GM ?
All formats work

3: How well are the different formats such as GM, GM2, GS, NX and XG handled ?
GM2 and NX work OK, while GS is the closest to GM, which works best of all.
XG works poorly, and here it's interesting to mention DOO midi files, which are supposedly GM, but are actually XG converted to GM.
This results in a lot of missing parameters, which makes these the worst of all.
DOO gets paid well to fool people..!

4: Are there built-in copyright restrictions ?
YES - I have experienced this several times, but most midi files can be loaded.
When a midi file is restricted by Copyright, this causes the keyboard to restart when you try to convert.
This is a bad solution chosen by Korg - they could have simply stated that the file is Copy protected.

5: Are there (other) hidden limitations ?
It must be called a limitation when a file cannot be converted and the message Conversion failure! appears, without giving the reason, which is probably that the file is Copy Protected

6: Are there any editing options ?
No - automatic conversion only

7: To what extent is SCB able to make correct transpositions ?
Bad - most of the approximately 50 midi files I have tested get the wrong transposition in Intro 1 and Ending 1. Several styles have incorrect transposition in either Intro 1 or Ending 1 - or both.
These can usually be corrected on the keyboard, but not always.
Occasionally, incorrect transposition also occurs in a Variation track, but this cannot be corrected.

8: How well does SCB manage to exclude MEL tracks from Variations ?
This varies greatly - in many cases MEL tracks are included in Variations - sometimes this works well, others not

9: Is SCB capable of creating usable styles from very simple midi files that only have drums, bass and piano ?
No - the piano has a melody role (MEL), and SCB is not able to interpret this as Playback

10: Is SCB capable of handling complex midi files with 16 tracks ?
Yes; this seems to work without any problems

11: To what extent are complex midi files converted with a good result ?
This varies greatly - if the midi file contains many complex chords that change frequently, this goes very badly. The same happens with unusual time signatures, or if the time signature changes along the way - songs like Money by Pink Floyd crash completely. Nevertheless, SCB often surprises by managing to create working styles from complex midi files

12: How many bars are chosen for Variations - 4 or 8 or more ?
For the most part, 4 bars are used, which is to be expected, simply because most songs are in 4/4. Many have both 2 and 4 bars, but there are several examples where 8 bars are also used. In addition, I have noted that 2 bars are occasionally used in Fills

13: Does SCB create all parts (all intros, variations, fills/break and endings) or just some ?
Yamaha's version never does a complete job
Yes; all parts are created - without exception. Here SCB outclasses Yamaha's version

14: Is SCB able to vary the choice of active instruments for individual style elements ?
Yes; I have seen some examples of this being done

15: Do all parts start and stop at the correct bar ?
In the vast majority of cases, all Variations and Fills start correctly. However, it is very common for Intro 1 and Ending 2 to start and stop at the wrong bar, which is due to too few bars in these.

* In a few cases it happens that the style does not work at all - nothing happens when a part is pressed.
* It has also happened that everything hangs when a style is started, and the keyboard has to be restarted.
* Errors such as incorrect start and stop times can also occur, but this is due to natural causes such as complex time signatures or poor synchronization of the midi file, which is actually quite widespread.
SCB must be said to work very satisfactorily, after all

16: Are all levels optimized, or do they follow the midifile`s levels or a fixed value ?
Very surprisingly, SCB corrects all levels, and this is mostly done very well

17: Are the correct sounds selected ?
Yes; everyone I've checked has had identical sounds to the midi file

18: Are the correct Keyboard Sets selected, and are their levels correct ?
Keyboard Sets are generally very well composed, of the levels are generally well adapted to the style
Note:
Keyboard Sets work surprisingly well, but seem to follow a very limited layout, which repeats itself for almost every style.

19: Are the correct MultiPads selected, and are their levels correct ?
No, this varies a lot - many times pads are chosen that don't fit the style at all, and sometimes they aren't synchronized correctly

20: Is the Chord Sequence created correctly ?
No; in fact, not a single Chord Sequence has been created correctly, and all of them are, to put it mildly, chaotically composed and completely useless

21: Are all parts created so that the harmonization is correct ?
This varies depending on the quality of the midi file and the complexity of the harmonies - many have incorrect harmonization, but there are several examples where this works brilliantly and without any errors

22: Are Intro 2 and Ending 2 made neutral, like Pa internal styles ?
Yes; all styles have neutral Intro 2 and Ending 2, and these work very well

23: How well does SCB convert DOO midi files ?
These are some of the worst I've tested - they all sound terrible no matter what instruments are changed, and they are full of flaws.
DOO midi files are definitely not recommended, because they are below average quality

24: Does SCB keep the original key of the midi file, or does it change it to C ?
The original key is retained, which should probably be changed, because this causes errors during the process.

25: Does SCB recreate effects that are present in the midi file ?
Values are translated to Master Effects FX1 and FX2 for each file, but the effect itself is most often omitted

26: Does SCB create effects for style parts, Keyboard Sets or MultiPads ?
Yes - SCB creates effects for both style parts, Keyboard Sets and MultiPads when these are present in the midi file, as well as values for these.]]> ONGOING TEST OF PA5X STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)

This is a very extensive test that will continue for a while, and I have chosen to post my 26 questions that I am seeking answers to.

These will be answered as I can reasonably be sure to give an answer; either with red or green text - negative or positive.

This also makes it easy to see what has been covered during the test.


1: Can both format 0 and 1 be used, or only one ?
It seems that both format 0 and 1 can be used, because the version for Pa4X kept giving messages about the wrong format, while this one has not done this so far, and I have tested several hundred midi files from different origins

2: Can all types of midi files be used, or only GM ?
All formats work

3: How well are the different formats such as GM, GM2, GS, NX and XG handled ?
GM2 and NX work OK, while GS is the closest to GM, which works best of all.
XG works poorly, and here it's interesting to mention DOO midi files, which are supposedly GM, but are actually XG converted to GM.
This results in a lot of missing parameters, which makes these the worst of all.
DOO gets paid well to fool people..!

4: Are there built-in copyright restrictions ?
YES - I have experienced this several times, but most midi files can be loaded.
When a midi file is restricted by Copyright, this causes the keyboard to restart when you try to convert.
This is a bad solution chosen by Korg - they could have simply stated that the file is Copy protected.

5: Are there (other) hidden limitations ?
It must be called a limitation when a file cannot be converted and the message Conversion failure! appears, without giving the reason, which is probably that the file is Copy Protected

6: Are there any editing options ?
No - automatic conversion only

7: To what extent is SCB able to make correct transpositions ?
Bad - most of the approximately 50 midi files I have tested get the wrong transposition in Intro 1 and Ending 1. Several styles have incorrect transposition in either Intro 1 or Ending 1 - or both.
These can usually be corrected on the keyboard, but not always.
Occasionally, incorrect transposition also occurs in a Variation track, but this cannot be corrected.

8: How well does SCB manage to exclude MEL tracks from Variations ?
This varies greatly - in many cases MEL tracks are included in Variations - sometimes this works well, others not

9: Is SCB capable of creating usable styles from very simple midi files that only have drums, bass and piano ?
No - the piano has a melody role (MEL), and SCB is not able to interpret this as Playback

10: Is SCB capable of handling complex midi files with 16 tracks ?
Yes; this seems to work without any problems

11: To what extent are complex midi files converted with a good result ?
This varies greatly - if the midi file contains many complex chords that change frequently, this goes very badly. The same happens with unusual time signatures, or if the time signature changes along the way - songs like Money by Pink Floyd crash completely. Nevertheless, SCB often surprises by managing to create working styles from complex midi files

12: How many bars are chosen for Variations - 4 or 8 or more ?
For the most part, 4 bars are used, which is to be expected, simply because most songs are in 4/4. Many have both 2 and 4 bars, but there are several examples where 8 bars are also used. In addition, I have noted that 2 bars are occasionally used in Fills

13: Does SCB create all parts (all intros, variations, fills/break and endings) or just some ?
Yamaha's version never does a complete job
Yes; all parts are created - without exception. Here SCB outclasses Yamaha's version

14: Is SCB able to vary the choice of active instruments for individual style elements ?
Yes; I have seen some examples of this being done

15: Do all parts start and stop at the correct bar ?
In the vast majority of cases, all Variations and Fills start correctly. However, it is very common for Intro 1 and Ending 2 to start and stop at the wrong bar, which is due to too few bars in these.

* In a few cases it happens that the style does not work at all - nothing happens when a part is pressed.
* It has also happened that everything hangs when a style is started, and the keyboard has to be restarted.
* Errors such as incorrect start and stop times can also occur, but this is due to natural causes such as complex time signatures or poor synchronization of the midi file, which is actually quite widespread.
SCB must be said to work very satisfactorily, after all

16: Are all levels optimized, or do they follow the midifile`s levels or a fixed value ?
Very surprisingly, SCB corrects all levels, and this is mostly done very well

17: Are the correct sounds selected ?
Yes; everyone I've checked has had identical sounds to the midi file

18: Are the correct Keyboard Sets selected, and are their levels correct ?
Keyboard Sets are generally very well composed, of the levels are generally well adapted to the style
Note:
Keyboard Sets work surprisingly well, but seem to follow a very limited layout, which repeats itself for almost every style.

19: Are the correct MultiPads selected, and are their levels correct ?
No, this varies a lot - many times pads are chosen that don't fit the style at all, and sometimes they aren't synchronized correctly

20: Is the Chord Sequence created correctly ?
No; in fact, not a single Chord Sequence has been created correctly, and all of them are, to put it mildly, chaotically composed and completely useless

21: Are all parts created so that the harmonization is correct ?
This varies depending on the quality of the midi file and the complexity of the harmonies - many have incorrect harmonization, but there are several examples where this works brilliantly and without any errors

22: Are Intro 2 and Ending 2 made neutral, like Pa internal styles ?
Yes; all styles have neutral Intro 2 and Ending 2, and these work very well

23: How well does SCB convert DOO midi files ?
These are some of the worst I've tested - they all sound terrible no matter what instruments are changed, and they are full of flaws.
DOO midi files are definitely not recommended, because they are below average quality

24: Does SCB keep the original key of the midi file, or does it change it to C ?
The original key is retained, which should probably be changed, because this causes errors during the process.

25: Does SCB recreate effects that are present in the midi file ?
Values are translated to Master Effects FX1 and FX2 for each file, but the effect itself is most often omitted

26: Does SCB create effects for style parts, Keyboard Sets or MultiPads ?
Yes - SCB creates effects for both style parts, Keyboard Sets and MultiPads when these are present in the midi file, as well as values for these.]]> <![CDATA[PA5X: FIRST TEST OF STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-PA5X-FIRST-TEST-OF-STYLE-CREATOR-BOT-SCB Tue, 29 Jul 2025 16:42:51 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-PA5X-FIRST-TEST-OF-STYLE-CREATOR-BOT-SCB PA5X: FIRST TEST OF STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)

No edits are possible - only automatic conversion to style.

I first tried a midi (Autumn Leaves) then another (Desirè) - both gave terrible results; MEL tracks were included, which almost never works. Pads and Keyboard Sets were lousy, and Chord Sequences were useless.

Then I tried a third midi - Night Love with Jeff Lorber, which is used here as an example, and I have also worked with it in Style Works to compare.


.png   Night Love.png (Size: 68.88 KB / Downloads: 17)


All 3 midis are of unknown origin and of average quality, and contain chords that typically cause problems.
All instruments were translated correctly - I get the same with Style Works.

Piano is interpreted as CHD, as in Style Works, but this is actually MEL in some places (from 50 to 66 in Style Works).
SCB has chosen 2, 4, 4 and 4 bars for Variations, while I would have chosen 8, 8, 8 and 16 bars.
SCB has chosen the sequence 50 to 54 bars for VAR 3, while I would have chosen this from 66 to 82 bars - then the piano would have worked - it does not work with 50 to 54 bars, because here it has a MEL role, which you can hear from 1:00 onwards.

.mp3   Night Love - Jeff Lorber.mp3 (Size: 4.85 MB / Downloads: 24)
No edits have been made.

Otherwise it doesn't sound that bad at all - this style is very difficult to create manually, but SCB has actually surprised positively.

Intros and Endings are OK, and Intro 2 and Ending 2 are neutral, just like on the internal styles.
Fills are OK.
Keyboard Sets are OK.
Pads are OK.
General volume mixing is OK.
The Chord Sequence is useless.
No effects or EQ were added.

All style parts start and stop as they should, and the harmonies work as they should, except for the piano in VAR 3.
SCB has also actually managed to get Overdrive Gt to work, even though this is MEL.

The next test will probably be a DOO midi.

.mid   Night Love - Jeff Lorber.mid (Size: 63.03 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> PA5X: FIRST TEST OF STYLE CREATOR BOT (SCB)

No edits are possible - only automatic conversion to style.

I first tried a midi (Autumn Leaves) then another (Desirè) - both gave terrible results; MEL tracks were included, which almost never works. Pads and Keyboard Sets were lousy, and Chord Sequences were useless.

Then I tried a third midi - Night Love with Jeff Lorber, which is used here as an example, and I have also worked with it in Style Works to compare.


.png   Night Love.png (Size: 68.88 KB / Downloads: 17)


All 3 midis are of unknown origin and of average quality, and contain chords that typically cause problems.
All instruments were translated correctly - I get the same with Style Works.

Piano is interpreted as CHD, as in Style Works, but this is actually MEL in some places (from 50 to 66 in Style Works).
SCB has chosen 2, 4, 4 and 4 bars for Variations, while I would have chosen 8, 8, 8 and 16 bars.
SCB has chosen the sequence 50 to 54 bars for VAR 3, while I would have chosen this from 66 to 82 bars - then the piano would have worked - it does not work with 50 to 54 bars, because here it has a MEL role, which you can hear from 1:00 onwards.

.mp3   Night Love - Jeff Lorber.mp3 (Size: 4.85 MB / Downloads: 24)
No edits have been made.

Otherwise it doesn't sound that bad at all - this style is very difficult to create manually, but SCB has actually surprised positively.

Intros and Endings are OK, and Intro 2 and Ending 2 are neutral, just like on the internal styles.
Fills are OK.
Keyboard Sets are OK.
Pads are OK.
General volume mixing is OK.
The Chord Sequence is useless.
No effects or EQ were added.

All style parts start and stop as they should, and the harmonies work as they should, except for the piano in VAR 3.
SCB has also actually managed to get Overdrive Gt to work, even though this is MEL.

The next test will probably be a DOO midi.

.mid   Night Love - Jeff Lorber.mid (Size: 63.03 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> <![CDATA[SHORT TEST OF LOGITECH MX KEYS MINI & MX MASTER 2S]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-SHORT-TEST-OF-LOGITECH-MX-KEYS-MINI-MX-MASTER-2S Thu, 15 May 2025 14:52:17 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-SHORT-TEST-OF-LOGITECH-MX-KEYS-MINI-MX-MASTER-2S SHORT TEST OF LOGITECH MX KEYS MINI & MX MASTER 2S



.png   Logitech MX Keys Mini.png (Size: 149.05 KB / Downloads: 30)   
.png   Logitech MX Master 2S.png (Size: 53.05 KB / Downloads: 30)



I have been using the Logitech k830 keyboard & Logitech MX Master mouse for many years now, both of which have worked very well.
There are two reasons why I had to replace them:
The batteries no longer accept charging, and the illuminated keys are worn out and unreadable.

The set being tested is the next generation of what I had.
It is relatively expensive - about 200€.


Connection:
The set should be able to connect via Bluetooth, but this turned out to be impossible, even though I have a fairly new (and advanced) PC and updated system.
I had to go to the store and explain the problem to them, and their technician said that I needed a Trust Bluetooth - Wireless mouse/keyboard receiver, which I bought for 15€.

It turned out to be impossible to get the set to work with this - never trust the store's "experts".

The set also did not work with any of the old Logi wireless mouse/keyboard receivers I had; only the mouse.
After some searching I found that it would work with the Logi Bolt - Wireless Mouse/Keyboard Receiver, which cost an additional €20.
This had to be ordered online, and it took a week before I received it.


Only the keyboard works with the Logi Bolt - Pairing Mode does not work, and the mouse was not found by the system.
An update to the Logi Bolt did not fix the problem.

So I have to use a receiver for each device; the old Logi for the mouse and the Logi Bolt for the keyboard.

Both otherwise work very well, and are very ergonomically adapted; the best set I have ever tried.

The lighting can be adjusted in 7 steps, which is a significant improvement from the previous set.
The perimeter of the buttons is also illuminated.


CONCLUSION:
This set is very good, and "mouse finger" becomes an unknown problem in daily use due to a well-thought-out ergonomic design.
Recommended with the reservation of problematic connection.

PROS:
* Excellent ergonomics
* Excellent lighting
* Excellent precision for both keyboard and mouse

CONS:
* Not possible to connect via Bluetooth, although this should be possible
* Not possible to connect via Pairing Mode with only one receiver
* Requires 2 receivers (no receiver is included and must be purchased separately)


FINAL CONCLUSION:
RECOMMENDED]]> SHORT TEST OF LOGITECH MX KEYS MINI & MX MASTER 2S



.png   Logitech MX Keys Mini.png (Size: 149.05 KB / Downloads: 30)   
.png   Logitech MX Master 2S.png (Size: 53.05 KB / Downloads: 30)



I have been using the Logitech k830 keyboard & Logitech MX Master mouse for many years now, both of which have worked very well.
There are two reasons why I had to replace them:
The batteries no longer accept charging, and the illuminated keys are worn out and unreadable.

The set being tested is the next generation of what I had.
It is relatively expensive - about 200€.


Connection:
The set should be able to connect via Bluetooth, but this turned out to be impossible, even though I have a fairly new (and advanced) PC and updated system.
I had to go to the store and explain the problem to them, and their technician said that I needed a Trust Bluetooth - Wireless mouse/keyboard receiver, which I bought for 15€.

It turned out to be impossible to get the set to work with this - never trust the store's "experts".

The set also did not work with any of the old Logi wireless mouse/keyboard receivers I had; only the mouse.
After some searching I found that it would work with the Logi Bolt - Wireless Mouse/Keyboard Receiver, which cost an additional €20.
This had to be ordered online, and it took a week before I received it.


Only the keyboard works with the Logi Bolt - Pairing Mode does not work, and the mouse was not found by the system.
An update to the Logi Bolt did not fix the problem.

So I have to use a receiver for each device; the old Logi for the mouse and the Logi Bolt for the keyboard.

Both otherwise work very well, and are very ergonomically adapted; the best set I have ever tried.

The lighting can be adjusted in 7 steps, which is a significant improvement from the previous set.
The perimeter of the buttons is also illuminated.


CONCLUSION:
This set is very good, and "mouse finger" becomes an unknown problem in daily use due to a well-thought-out ergonomic design.
Recommended with the reservation of problematic connection.

PROS:
* Excellent ergonomics
* Excellent lighting
* Excellent precision for both keyboard and mouse

CONS:
* Not possible to connect via Bluetooth, although this should be possible
* Not possible to connect via Pairing Mode with only one receiver
* Requires 2 receivers (no receiver is included and must be purchased separately)


FINAL CONCLUSION:
RECOMMENDED]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF STAX SR-L300 & SRM-252S (ADVANCED LAMBDA SERIES)]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-STAX-SR-L300-SRM-252S-ADVANCED-LAMBDA-SERIES Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:42:50 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-STAX-SR-L300-SRM-252S-ADVANCED-LAMBDA-SERIES TEST OF STAX SR-L300 & SRM-252S (ADVANCED LAMBDA SERIES)


.png   STAX set.png (Size: 220.73 KB / Downloads: 7)


I've had this set for a couple of years now, and thought I had done a review that I had presented, but I haven't.
That's why I'm doing it now.

The SR-L300 is said to be the gateway to true HiFi, and costs quite a bit more than regular headsets - about $455 for the headset, plus about $545 for the required amplifier STAX SRM-252S - about $1,000 in total.

Here are the specifications:

* Type: Push-Pull electrostatic oval sound element, Open-Air type enclosure
* Frequency Response: 7 - 41,000Hz
* Capacitance: 110pF (including cable)
* Sensitivity: 101dB / 100V r.m.s. 1 kHz
* Bias Voltage: 580V DC
* Left & Right Channel Identification: 'L' and 'R' indicated on the arc assembly, solid line (left) and dotted line (right) on cable
*Ear Pads: High-quality synthetic leather
* Cable: OFC parallel 6-strand, low-capacity wide cable, 2.5m full length
* Ambient Temperature & Humidity: 0 to 35ºC / 90% max. without condensation
* Weight: 11.4oz without cable / 15.8oz with cable


I tried STAX Lambda (as this actually is) already 40 years ago - these were in solid aluminum, while the new ones are in simple plastic.

The world was never the same again, because the sound was so infinitely better than everything else, with a sub-bass that almost tore my head off and a perspective and details that shocked with their precision.
What a dynamics !

The new version gives the same impression, and my otherwise quite good beyerdynamic T70s have no chance against this set !

So the sound experience is absolutely fantastic, but they are not very user-friendly:
They require a special connection via LINE OUT or PRE OUT, and cannot be connected directly like other sets can.
This presents some challenges in terms of connection.

They are also quite clumsy to use, as they sit loosely on the head and change position easily.

The cable is a nightmare with its flat wide design; it wraps around the legs, and often gets caught in them when you stand up, which results in the set falling to the floor, which in turn reveals how weak the frame is - the arc breaks after a few falls.
The arc is also an expensive spare part.


CONCLUSION:
Despite all this, the Lambda set corresponds to some of the best on the market in terms of sound and has to get my recommendation - if you once hear Lambda, you will never consider buying (or using) anything else.


PROS:
* A heavenly sound experience in top class - State of the Art

CONS:
* Cannot be connected as normal
* Clumsy cable
* Weak chassis that breaks easily


FINAL CONCLUSION:
RECOMMENDED


.png   SOTA.png (Size: 18.67 KB / Downloads: 7) ]]> TEST OF STAX SR-L300 & SRM-252S (ADVANCED LAMBDA SERIES)


.png   STAX set.png (Size: 220.73 KB / Downloads: 7)


I've had this set for a couple of years now, and thought I had done a review that I had presented, but I haven't.
That's why I'm doing it now.

The SR-L300 is said to be the gateway to true HiFi, and costs quite a bit more than regular headsets - about $455 for the headset, plus about $545 for the required amplifier STAX SRM-252S - about $1,000 in total.

Here are the specifications:

* Type: Push-Pull electrostatic oval sound element, Open-Air type enclosure
* Frequency Response: 7 - 41,000Hz
* Capacitance: 110pF (including cable)
* Sensitivity: 101dB / 100V r.m.s. 1 kHz
* Bias Voltage: 580V DC
* Left & Right Channel Identification: 'L' and 'R' indicated on the arc assembly, solid line (left) and dotted line (right) on cable
*Ear Pads: High-quality synthetic leather
* Cable: OFC parallel 6-strand, low-capacity wide cable, 2.5m full length
* Ambient Temperature & Humidity: 0 to 35ºC / 90% max. without condensation
* Weight: 11.4oz without cable / 15.8oz with cable


I tried STAX Lambda (as this actually is) already 40 years ago - these were in solid aluminum, while the new ones are in simple plastic.

The world was never the same again, because the sound was so infinitely better than everything else, with a sub-bass that almost tore my head off and a perspective and details that shocked with their precision.
What a dynamics !

The new version gives the same impression, and my otherwise quite good beyerdynamic T70s have no chance against this set !

So the sound experience is absolutely fantastic, but they are not very user-friendly:
They require a special connection via LINE OUT or PRE OUT, and cannot be connected directly like other sets can.
This presents some challenges in terms of connection.

They are also quite clumsy to use, as they sit loosely on the head and change position easily.

The cable is a nightmare with its flat wide design; it wraps around the legs, and often gets caught in them when you stand up, which results in the set falling to the floor, which in turn reveals how weak the frame is - the arc breaks after a few falls.
The arc is also an expensive spare part.


CONCLUSION:
Despite all this, the Lambda set corresponds to some of the best on the market in terms of sound and has to get my recommendation - if you once hear Lambda, you will never consider buying (or using) anything else.


PROS:
* A heavenly sound experience in top class - State of the Art

CONS:
* Cannot be connected as normal
* Clumsy cable
* Weak chassis that breaks easily


FINAL CONCLUSION:
RECOMMENDED


.png   SOTA.png (Size: 18.67 KB / Downloads: 7) ]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF JBL 2445JPL Compression Drivers with horns]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-JBL-2445JPL-Compression-Drivers-with-horns Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:47:44 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-JBL-2445JPL-Compression-Drivers-with-horns TEST OF JBL 2445JPL Compression Drivers with horns

I got them from my son Arius, and they cost about $900 (plus shipping) on the used market.

The horns mounted on these drivers are not original, and are much larger than these - 47cm x 29cm x 33cm (W x H x D).
They also weigh considerably: 13.8kg without horns (16kg with horns).


I placed them on top of my existing horns, so now each speaker weighs about 90kg, and towers well in the landscape with its 55cm x 155cm x 80cm (W x H x D).

I have not measured them yet, but studied available measurements, which showed that they can play very loud (118dB).

The resistance is unusual - 12 to 16 Ohm.

The frequency range is 500Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB.
I made a simple crossover filter that cuts at 550Hz with 6dB per octave with a Sidereal capacitor of 18µF (400V).

The unusually high resistance should theoretically make them less effective together with my 8 Ohm horns.


But how do they sound ?

WOW!
Details I had never heard before appeared crystal clear (too clear?) - all instruments got more detail, and especially the double bass and brushes were reproduced as well as I have heard on the best equipment ever.

But 2 things happened that I didn't like:
The bass disappeared !

And human voices became a little shrill; but extremely clear and dynamic.
At moderate volume the voices were unproblematic, but when the volume was increased, the tendency also increased.

It is absolutely wild that these drivers are as detailed far up in the frequency range just like my Fountek NeoPro 5i..!

I got the sound image a little less shrill by pushing the JBLs back a little, and will probably achieve some improvement when I connect the Philips horns, which are disconnected for the occasion.
I am in the process of rebuilding these so that they can be placed inside the main horns, and I will also make new dipoles for these, which is very difficult.

I fixed the bass by adjusting the subwoofer:
Before I installed the JBLs I could barely adjust the volume before it became too loud.

That says a bit about how effective the JBLs are, when I can now adjust it up to 12 o'clock for the bass to be just as powerful, but now the sub range is also much more powerful than before.

This test will be followed up with another one when I have finished making the Philips horns, and I will also make dipoles for the JBLs as an experiment, largely because they have been given quite a harsh treatment and have many ugly marks that will be hidden by the dipoles.

PS:
I've never heard a drum crash so explosively rendered before, and the Pa5X also sounds much more dynamic than before..!



.jpg   Horns with JBL.JPG (Size: 263.48 KB / Downloads: 34)



.jpg   JBL horns.JPG (Size: 183.95 KB / Downloads: 33) ]]> TEST OF JBL 2445JPL Compression Drivers with horns

I got them from my son Arius, and they cost about $900 (plus shipping) on the used market.

The horns mounted on these drivers are not original, and are much larger than these - 47cm x 29cm x 33cm (W x H x D).
They also weigh considerably: 13.8kg without horns (16kg with horns).


I placed them on top of my existing horns, so now each speaker weighs about 90kg, and towers well in the landscape with its 55cm x 155cm x 80cm (W x H x D).

I have not measured them yet, but studied available measurements, which showed that they can play very loud (118dB).

The resistance is unusual - 12 to 16 Ohm.

The frequency range is 500Hz - 20kHz +/- 3dB.
I made a simple crossover filter that cuts at 550Hz with 6dB per octave with a Sidereal capacitor of 18µF (400V).

The unusually high resistance should theoretically make them less effective together with my 8 Ohm horns.


But how do they sound ?

WOW!
Details I had never heard before appeared crystal clear (too clear?) - all instruments got more detail, and especially the double bass and brushes were reproduced as well as I have heard on the best equipment ever.

But 2 things happened that I didn't like:
The bass disappeared !

And human voices became a little shrill; but extremely clear and dynamic.
At moderate volume the voices were unproblematic, but when the volume was increased, the tendency also increased.

It is absolutely wild that these drivers are as detailed far up in the frequency range just like my Fountek NeoPro 5i..!

I got the sound image a little less shrill by pushing the JBLs back a little, and will probably achieve some improvement when I connect the Philips horns, which are disconnected for the occasion.
I am in the process of rebuilding these so that they can be placed inside the main horns, and I will also make new dipoles for these, which is very difficult.

I fixed the bass by adjusting the subwoofer:
Before I installed the JBLs I could barely adjust the volume before it became too loud.

That says a bit about how effective the JBLs are, when I can now adjust it up to 12 o'clock for the bass to be just as powerful, but now the sub range is also much more powerful than before.

This test will be followed up with another one when I have finished making the Philips horns, and I will also make dipoles for the JBLs as an experiment, largely because they have been given quite a harsh treatment and have many ugly marks that will be hidden by the dipoles.

PS:
I've never heard a drum crash so explosively rendered before, and the Pa5X also sounds much more dynamic than before..!



.jpg   Horns with JBL.JPG (Size: 263.48 KB / Downloads: 34)



.jpg   JBL horns.JPG (Size: 183.95 KB / Downloads: 33) ]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF YAMAHA HS-5 ACTIVE SPEAKERS]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-HS-5-ACTIVE-SPEAKERS Thu, 03 Apr 2025 14:14:30 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-HS-5-ACTIVE-SPEAKERS TEST OF YAMAHA HS-5 ACTIVE SPEAKERS


.png   HS-5 front.png (Size: 95.13 KB / Downloads: 27)    
.png   HS-5 back.png (Size: 105.11 KB / Downloads: 27)


Description:
* 5-inch active studio monitors  70W (45W LF + 25W HF)
* Two-way bass-reflex bi-amplified nearfield monitor
* 74Hz to 24kHz –3dB (with 10dB-down points at 54Hz and 30kHz)
* Room control and high trim control for room optimisation
* Tweeter with waveguide
* Cabinet material: MDF


Assembly / preparation for use:
The speakers come in two very solid boxes, and are easy to place.
Very high production quality - a direct comparison with the Tannoy Gold 5 shows that Yamaha has a higher standard.
Good, detailed manual included.
All connections are of good quality.


Equipped with 2 connections:
XLR and TRS phone jack inputs accept balanced or unbalanced signals
Cables:
Unusually sturdy and soft quality power cable


Adjustment possibilities on the front:
NONE


Adjustment options on the back:
LEVEL Control (+4dB / Centre Click)
HIGH TRIM Switch (+/-2dB at HF)
ROOM CONTROL Switch (0/-2/-4dB under 500Hz)
Non-slip rubber mat NOT included


1st start-up:
Fortunately, these monitors do not have AUTO-STANDBY, so once they are turned on they are on all the time, something you are never in doubt about due to the clear white LED in the logo under the bass unit.
There is no audible blop when turning on/off.


Briefly about daily use:
There is none background noise when they are turned on.
So no noise - the amplifiers are well shielded, and not like the Tannoy Gold 5 was.


Sound quality:
The Yamaha HS series is said to be designed by the same person who developed the legendary NS-10 (Akira Nakamura), and several audio professionals compare the HS series to the NS-10.

I have heard the NS-10, and if these monitors have even a little of the NS-10's qualities, they will impress greatly.


FIRST TEST:
I first tried with the treble neutrally adjusted to 0 and the bass to -4dB.
My immediate impression was that my Jamo Cornet 145 is more natural, but the HS-5 has more detail all the way through.
The Jamo has an airier and more natural treble, while the HS-5 goes deeper into the bass, and is cleaner. The midrange is exceptional  for both.


SECOND TEST:
I then used the Pa5X's parametric EQ to locate any problem areas:
With the Q value set to a minimum of 0.40 there was an audible effect all the way down to 16Hz (!), while there was a clear effect at 40Hz.
Very unexpected from such a small pair of cabinets..!

There was an audible effect at 24.548Hz, while there was a clear effect at 14.597Hz.
The area just above 6kHz was very susceptible to adjustments, and appeared somewhat sharp while at the same time lacking some depth - brushes became too sharp and lacked a bit of punch.


THIRD TEST:
By adjusting the Q value to a maximum of 3.97, I tried to find the minimum and maximum frequencies (problem areas), and there was an audible increase from 40Hz, which became very clear at 54Hz, which fits perfectly with Yamaha's stated lower limit frequency which is precisely 54Hz..!
It is worth noting that they deliver bass all the way down to 40Hz.
There was no audible effect above 10kHz with this Q value, while it became noticeable at 9kHz and below.

Very unusually, I found NO problem areas anywhere in the frequency range; almost ALL speakers have at least one problem area at least around the crossover frequency, but the HS-5 plays smoothly throughout; it is actually the best I have ever tested in this respect.


FOURTH TEST:
When I increased HIGH TRIM from -2dB to +2dB this would normally have resulted in too sharp treble, but this did not happen - the details were only slightly emphasized.
Very unusual, and very positive.
When I increased ROOM CONTROL from -4dB to 0dB this would normally have resulted in too strong bass reproduction, but this did not happen either - but the lower cut-off frequency became lower - with a Q of 0.40 there was an audible response at 16Hz at +10dB; even stronger at 20Hz and very strong at 30Hz..!


FIFTH TEST:
Playing selected high-quality Mp3 files did not give any unexpected experiences other than an unusually detailed sound (maybe a little too detailed ?), but without this actually being negative.
At the same time, the lowest frequencies from the reflex port were a little colored, but this will always be the case with bass reflex.
That is why I insist that monitors should be closed without any port.
They will probably sound even better if I block the ports, but this is by no means required.


SIXTH TEST:
But how is the perspective reproduced ?
I had used the same setup as for the Tannoy Gold 5, which probably constitutes too close a placement of the monitors.

By chance I leaned forward over the keyboard, so that my head came between the monitors, which gave a VERY unusual experience:
I was now in the middle of all the instruments !

The sound image appeared extremely holographic in a way that I have only experienced once before, when I had a pair of Dali monitors set up on stands on either side of the chair I was sitting in.
I will try different setups to try to preserve as much of this holographic perspective as possible.


SEVENTH TEST:
How good are the amplifier sections ?
I have played very loudly, and have pushed them to reproduce very low frequencies, without having registered any problems in the form of distortion or shifts of perspective before maximum volume is reached.
The bass reflex port must be said to function optimally, as there are never any audible noises or resonances.
No other tested active speakers have passed this test as convincingly.



CONCLUSION:
The Yamaha HS-5 appear to be the best monitors I have tested to date, and even surpass the Jamo Cornet 145 in most areas - Jamo is only better in the reproduction of brushes.
They have many of the qualities of the famous NS-10, and deliver an uncolored midrange that few others can.
At the same time, the bass reproduction is shockingly good far down in the frequency range, all the way down to 40Hz.
Who would have thought that this was possible from a pair of small cabinets ?

The most impressive thing is the perspective, which is holographic in a way I have hardly heard before from regular speakers - only my horns have been able to do this.


Pros:
* Very detailed and homogeneous soundstage
* Very holographic perspective
* Superb bass reproduction far below the expected frequency range
* The most competent amplifiers ever tested
* Very high production quality
* Very good manual


Cons:
* NO NEGATIVE REMARKS
* The treble range between 6kHz and 10kHz is a bit too emphasized, but this is minimal, and may even be an advantage in terms of mixing.



Final conclusion:
RECOMMENDED

These monitors are the best I've tested to date, and they're cheap too.
Run and buy !!!]]> TEST OF YAMAHA HS-5 ACTIVE SPEAKERS


.png   HS-5 front.png (Size: 95.13 KB / Downloads: 27)    
.png   HS-5 back.png (Size: 105.11 KB / Downloads: 27)


Description:
* 5-inch active studio monitors  70W (45W LF + 25W HF)
* Two-way bass-reflex bi-amplified nearfield monitor
* 74Hz to 24kHz –3dB (with 10dB-down points at 54Hz and 30kHz)
* Room control and high trim control for room optimisation
* Tweeter with waveguide
* Cabinet material: MDF


Assembly / preparation for use:
The speakers come in two very solid boxes, and are easy to place.
Very high production quality - a direct comparison with the Tannoy Gold 5 shows that Yamaha has a higher standard.
Good, detailed manual included.
All connections are of good quality.


Equipped with 2 connections:
XLR and TRS phone jack inputs accept balanced or unbalanced signals
Cables:
Unusually sturdy and soft quality power cable


Adjustment possibilities on the front:
NONE


Adjustment options on the back:
LEVEL Control (+4dB / Centre Click)
HIGH TRIM Switch (+/-2dB at HF)
ROOM CONTROL Switch (0/-2/-4dB under 500Hz)
Non-slip rubber mat NOT included


1st start-up:
Fortunately, these monitors do not have AUTO-STANDBY, so once they are turned on they are on all the time, something you are never in doubt about due to the clear white LED in the logo under the bass unit.
There is no audible blop when turning on/off.


Briefly about daily use:
There is none background noise when they are turned on.
So no noise - the amplifiers are well shielded, and not like the Tannoy Gold 5 was.


Sound quality:
The Yamaha HS series is said to be designed by the same person who developed the legendary NS-10 (Akira Nakamura), and several audio professionals compare the HS series to the NS-10.

I have heard the NS-10, and if these monitors have even a little of the NS-10's qualities, they will impress greatly.


FIRST TEST:
I first tried with the treble neutrally adjusted to 0 and the bass to -4dB.
My immediate impression was that my Jamo Cornet 145 is more natural, but the HS-5 has more detail all the way through.
The Jamo has an airier and more natural treble, while the HS-5 goes deeper into the bass, and is cleaner. The midrange is exceptional  for both.


SECOND TEST:
I then used the Pa5X's parametric EQ to locate any problem areas:
With the Q value set to a minimum of 0.40 there was an audible effect all the way down to 16Hz (!), while there was a clear effect at 40Hz.
Very unexpected from such a small pair of cabinets..!

There was an audible effect at 24.548Hz, while there was a clear effect at 14.597Hz.
The area just above 6kHz was very susceptible to adjustments, and appeared somewhat sharp while at the same time lacking some depth - brushes became too sharp and lacked a bit of punch.


THIRD TEST:
By adjusting the Q value to a maximum of 3.97, I tried to find the minimum and maximum frequencies (problem areas), and there was an audible increase from 40Hz, which became very clear at 54Hz, which fits perfectly with Yamaha's stated lower limit frequency which is precisely 54Hz..!
It is worth noting that they deliver bass all the way down to 40Hz.
There was no audible effect above 10kHz with this Q value, while it became noticeable at 9kHz and below.

Very unusually, I found NO problem areas anywhere in the frequency range; almost ALL speakers have at least one problem area at least around the crossover frequency, but the HS-5 plays smoothly throughout; it is actually the best I have ever tested in this respect.


FOURTH TEST:
When I increased HIGH TRIM from -2dB to +2dB this would normally have resulted in too sharp treble, but this did not happen - the details were only slightly emphasized.
Very unusual, and very positive.
When I increased ROOM CONTROL from -4dB to 0dB this would normally have resulted in too strong bass reproduction, but this did not happen either - but the lower cut-off frequency became lower - with a Q of 0.40 there was an audible response at 16Hz at +10dB; even stronger at 20Hz and very strong at 30Hz..!


FIFTH TEST:
Playing selected high-quality Mp3 files did not give any unexpected experiences other than an unusually detailed sound (maybe a little too detailed ?), but without this actually being negative.
At the same time, the lowest frequencies from the reflex port were a little colored, but this will always be the case with bass reflex.
That is why I insist that monitors should be closed without any port.
They will probably sound even better if I block the ports, but this is by no means required.


SIXTH TEST:
But how is the perspective reproduced ?
I had used the same setup as for the Tannoy Gold 5, which probably constitutes too close a placement of the monitors.

By chance I leaned forward over the keyboard, so that my head came between the monitors, which gave a VERY unusual experience:
I was now in the middle of all the instruments !

The sound image appeared extremely holographic in a way that I have only experienced once before, when I had a pair of Dali monitors set up on stands on either side of the chair I was sitting in.
I will try different setups to try to preserve as much of this holographic perspective as possible.


SEVENTH TEST:
How good are the amplifier sections ?
I have played very loudly, and have pushed them to reproduce very low frequencies, without having registered any problems in the form of distortion or shifts of perspective before maximum volume is reached.
The bass reflex port must be said to function optimally, as there are never any audible noises or resonances.
No other tested active speakers have passed this test as convincingly.



CONCLUSION:
The Yamaha HS-5 appear to be the best monitors I have tested to date, and even surpass the Jamo Cornet 145 in most areas - Jamo is only better in the reproduction of brushes.
They have many of the qualities of the famous NS-10, and deliver an uncolored midrange that few others can.
At the same time, the bass reproduction is shockingly good far down in the frequency range, all the way down to 40Hz.
Who would have thought that this was possible from a pair of small cabinets ?

The most impressive thing is the perspective, which is holographic in a way I have hardly heard before from regular speakers - only my horns have been able to do this.


Pros:
* Very detailed and homogeneous soundstage
* Very holographic perspective
* Superb bass reproduction far below the expected frequency range
* The most competent amplifiers ever tested
* Very high production quality
* Very good manual


Cons:
* NO NEGATIVE REMARKS
* The treble range between 6kHz and 10kHz is a bit too emphasized, but this is minimal, and may even be an advantage in terms of mixing.



Final conclusion:
RECOMMENDED

These monitors are the best I've tested to date, and they're cheap too.
Run and buy !!!]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF TANNOY GOLD 5 ACTIVE SPEAKERS]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF%C2%A0TANNOY-GOLD-5-ACTIVE-SPEAKERS Wed, 05 Mar 2025 03:49:54 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF%C2%A0TANNOY-GOLD-5-ACTIVE-SPEAKERS

.png   Tannoy Gold 5 front.png (Size: 131.86 KB / Downloads: 27)    
.png   Tannoy Gold 5 back.png (Size: 133.51 KB / Downloads: 26)


Description:
From the manufacturer's marketing:
Premium 200-Watt Bi-Amplified Nearfield Studio Reference Monitor with Proprietary 5" Dual Concentric Point Source Technology
Type: Bassreflex
Cabinet material: Plastic-based composite (not MDF !)


Assembly / preparation for use:
The speakers come in two solid boxes, and are easy to place.
The speakers look much nicer in reality than in pictures, and the build quality is impressively good.
Good, detailed manual included.
All connections are of good quality.


Equipped with 4 connections:
INPUT jack accepts AUX stereo audio over a 3.5 mm mini-jack cable
MONITOR LINK connects a speaker pair and transmits the input mini-jack audio to the additional speaker over a 3.5 mm mini-jack
INPUTS section allows you to connect up to two audio sources using balanced cables with XLR or 1/4" TRS plugs
Cables:
Good quality power cable
Poor quality 1/4" TRS plug cable


Adjustment possibilities on the front:
INPUT TRIM adapts optimally to the input and sets the overall audio level
HF TRIM (+2dB/-2dB) knob allows you to adapt the monitor`s treble frequency response to suit the characteristic of your monitoring space
POWER LED changes to red when overloaded


Adjustment options on the back:
BASS ADJUST (+2dB/-4dB) switch adapts the monitor's bass response to accommodate room requirements
SPEAKER POSITION (L/R) switch determines whether the speaker plays audio for the left or right stereo channel from the AUX audio source (e.g. mp3 player, smartphone)
AUTO-STANDBY (selectable ON/OFF)
The underside of the speakers is provided with a high quality non-slip rubber mat


1st start-up:
I have been testing them for almost 1 week in a temporary setup, and today I finished with the stands that are placed behind the OASYS.


Briefly about daily use:
Fortunately, it is possible to turn off the AUTO-STANDBY function, so that edits can be made without it turning off at any time.

When connected to the Pa5X's output terminals there is a significant noise from the Pa5X in the speakers, but there is absolutely no noise when it has started up, and only a faint blop is heard when the Pa5X is turned on or off.


Sound quality:
Gold 5 has received very varying reviews, but consistently very good reviews from serious magazines.

The immediate impression with a preliminary and not ideal setup was that the midrange and bass were exceptionally detailed.
The treble also improved significantly by turning it up by +2dB, but at the same time became a little too sharp.
The bass was surprisingly powerful; in fact too powerful with the default setting.
The sound image was clearly stereo in front of the keyboard, but there was a certain perspective from the normal listening position just over 2 meters away.


After having made the necessary stands and placed the speakers above the OASYS so that the units came at the correct ear height, I could conduct a more precise test.


.png   Monitor stands.png (Size: 116.29 KB / Downloads: 27)


I placed the stands so that the distance between them was 66cm between the centers of the units.
This can (and should) probably be experimented with a bit, because there was a certain perspective, but at the same time an audible stereo effect, which I don't want.

With the new stands, the speakers also came quite close to the sloping back wall, which resulted in an even stronger (and colored) bass reproduction.
Even though I adjusted from the standard +2dB to -4dB, the bass was far too powerful.
These speakers are very sensitive to placement against a back wall, and need some air between them to avoid getting a colored bass reproduction. The test setup had about 50cm to the back wall, which also gives too much bass.
This makes them very problematic to place in my studio, as I don't have enough space available.

But how does the rest sound ?
(What is now being said should be paid special attention to, because I had forgotten that I had adjusted the treble to +2dB, which should absolutely be avoided)

Not as good as the first impression; upper bass and midrange was too powerful, while the upper treble (from 10kHz and up) WAS there, but it was too weak.
The details high up in the frequency range was there too, but they lacked level.
After testing all types of styles, I put my favorite Mp3s on a USB stick, and played these to assess the quality against my horns.

What a letdown !
But this is also to be expected..?

The Mp3s I use are of an unusually high quality, and revealed clear shortcomings in the entire frequency range in a direct comparison:
The bass was unclear and muddy and too powerful, the midrange was too dominant and a little too sharp, but detailed, while the treble was quite withdrawn, but detailed.


These speakers obviously require some EQ correction to perform at their best, and I therefore tried a few changes:
Audible response is actually achieved from 16Hz all the way up to 24kHz, which was surprising.
However, what was missing was the punch that should have been present down in the frequency range - this was completely missing, resulting in a boxy sound.

It turned out that a reduction in the area around 100Hz reduced the boxy sound somewhat, but it was still there, anyway.
A boost in the upper frequency range was also not good, because the sound only becomes sharper and unnatural.
I tried all frequency ranges to make the Snare Drum explosive, but this one would not not sound as it should no matter what I did; it completely lacked punch. VERY surprising.
A double bass was perceived as muddy, while the Snare Drum (via Drum Editor) sounded more like a cymbal, but without its power.

The same changes while listening with the headset or horns, gave an dramatic effect and was incredibly effective.


This made me think that something must be wrong, because serious reviewers can't be that wrong ?

Then I came up with a possible reason:
I had turned up the treble by +2dB !

What if I reduced it by -2dB instead ?


Both the bass and treble controls are not made as we are used to, because they work within a much larger range (wide):

High frequency adjustment is carried out in the declared range of ±2 dB at frequencies from 1 kHz and above.
Low frequency adjustment is carried out in the declared range of -2dB to -4dB from 200 Hz and below.

This means that they do not work like old-fashioned ones, which only affect the area closest to the center frequency they are set to.


When I set the treble control to -2dB, the soundscape became very different:

The dynamics in the midrange and treble were dramatically improved, and the Snare Drums responded more normally to EQ with the Drum Editor, and now sound more like they should.

The details were also much better reproduced than in the first setup - the Gold 5 really impresses in terms of detail from the midrange and up..!

I found a measurement of the frequency response for the Gold 5 and the Yamaha HS5, and the Gold 5 gives a nicer curve, but the graph also shows what I hear; that there is too high an output in the range of 80Hz to about 110Hz.


.png   Tannoy vs Yamaha.png (Size: 111.13 KB / Downloads: 27)


When I applied a reduction of (only) 1.1dB for 81Hz and 108Hz with the Pa5X's MaxxAudio and adjusted the Q value, I was able to completely eliminate the box sound.
Another thing is that there is absolutely no noise from the bass reflex port regardless of volume.


The accompanying data sheet in the manual also shows that the Gold 5 has a bass response down to 49Hz (-10dB), but my ears say that they go deeper with a much lower dB loss.

I should be able to achieve a pretty good sub-bass with moderate amplification, and the built-in amplifiers have no problem handling low frequencies at high volumes; neither do the units.


Pros:
* Very detailed sound from midrange and up
* A certain three-dimensionality provides usable perspective
* Unusually good bass reproduction with minimal EQ correction
* Very competent amplifiers
* Good adjustment options
* Good connectivity options - possibility to connect up to two audio sources
* Very high build quality
* Plastic-based composite based  cabinet (not MDF !)
* Very good manual
* Stable base


Cons:
* Extremely poorly designed bass reflex port
* Difficult to place, as they require a certain distance to the back wall
* Significant box sound without external EQ
* Very poorly shielded amplifiers that induces significant noise via their connections to the sound card - a USB isolator DOES NOT solves the problem



Final conclusion:
NOT RECOMMENDED - SEE LATEST REVIEW

These monitors live up to their name and are a goldmine among monitors.

With minimal EQ correction they deliver a sound that is equivalent to far more expensive monitors, and are also able to provide a certain perspective, something I have never experienced with active studio monitors.

With their extremely competent built-in amplifiers they can also play loud without audible problems.]]>

.png   Tannoy Gold 5 front.png (Size: 131.86 KB / Downloads: 27)    
.png   Tannoy Gold 5 back.png (Size: 133.51 KB / Downloads: 26)


Description:
From the manufacturer's marketing:
Premium 200-Watt Bi-Amplified Nearfield Studio Reference Monitor with Proprietary 5" Dual Concentric Point Source Technology
Type: Bassreflex
Cabinet material: Plastic-based composite (not MDF !)


Assembly / preparation for use:
The speakers come in two solid boxes, and are easy to place.
The speakers look much nicer in reality than in pictures, and the build quality is impressively good.
Good, detailed manual included.
All connections are of good quality.


Equipped with 4 connections:
INPUT jack accepts AUX stereo audio over a 3.5 mm mini-jack cable
MONITOR LINK connects a speaker pair and transmits the input mini-jack audio to the additional speaker over a 3.5 mm mini-jack
INPUTS section allows you to connect up to two audio sources using balanced cables with XLR or 1/4" TRS plugs
Cables:
Good quality power cable
Poor quality 1/4" TRS plug cable


Adjustment possibilities on the front:
INPUT TRIM adapts optimally to the input and sets the overall audio level
HF TRIM (+2dB/-2dB) knob allows you to adapt the monitor`s treble frequency response to suit the characteristic of your monitoring space
POWER LED changes to red when overloaded


Adjustment options on the back:
BASS ADJUST (+2dB/-4dB) switch adapts the monitor's bass response to accommodate room requirements
SPEAKER POSITION (L/R) switch determines whether the speaker plays audio for the left or right stereo channel from the AUX audio source (e.g. mp3 player, smartphone)
AUTO-STANDBY (selectable ON/OFF)
The underside of the speakers is provided with a high quality non-slip rubber mat


1st start-up:
I have been testing them for almost 1 week in a temporary setup, and today I finished with the stands that are placed behind the OASYS.


Briefly about daily use:
Fortunately, it is possible to turn off the AUTO-STANDBY function, so that edits can be made without it turning off at any time.

When connected to the Pa5X's output terminals there is a significant noise from the Pa5X in the speakers, but there is absolutely no noise when it has started up, and only a faint blop is heard when the Pa5X is turned on or off.


Sound quality:
Gold 5 has received very varying reviews, but consistently very good reviews from serious magazines.

The immediate impression with a preliminary and not ideal setup was that the midrange and bass were exceptionally detailed.
The treble also improved significantly by turning it up by +2dB, but at the same time became a little too sharp.
The bass was surprisingly powerful; in fact too powerful with the default setting.
The sound image was clearly stereo in front of the keyboard, but there was a certain perspective from the normal listening position just over 2 meters away.


After having made the necessary stands and placed the speakers above the OASYS so that the units came at the correct ear height, I could conduct a more precise test.


.png   Monitor stands.png (Size: 116.29 KB / Downloads: 27)


I placed the stands so that the distance between them was 66cm between the centers of the units.
This can (and should) probably be experimented with a bit, because there was a certain perspective, but at the same time an audible stereo effect, which I don't want.

With the new stands, the speakers also came quite close to the sloping back wall, which resulted in an even stronger (and colored) bass reproduction.
Even though I adjusted from the standard +2dB to -4dB, the bass was far too powerful.
These speakers are very sensitive to placement against a back wall, and need some air between them to avoid getting a colored bass reproduction. The test setup had about 50cm to the back wall, which also gives too much bass.
This makes them very problematic to place in my studio, as I don't have enough space available.

But how does the rest sound ?
(What is now being said should be paid special attention to, because I had forgotten that I had adjusted the treble to +2dB, which should absolutely be avoided)

Not as good as the first impression; upper bass and midrange was too powerful, while the upper treble (from 10kHz and up) WAS there, but it was too weak.
The details high up in the frequency range was there too, but they lacked level.
After testing all types of styles, I put my favorite Mp3s on a USB stick, and played these to assess the quality against my horns.

What a letdown !
But this is also to be expected..?

The Mp3s I use are of an unusually high quality, and revealed clear shortcomings in the entire frequency range in a direct comparison:
The bass was unclear and muddy and too powerful, the midrange was too dominant and a little too sharp, but detailed, while the treble was quite withdrawn, but detailed.


These speakers obviously require some EQ correction to perform at their best, and I therefore tried a few changes:
Audible response is actually achieved from 16Hz all the way up to 24kHz, which was surprising.
However, what was missing was the punch that should have been present down in the frequency range - this was completely missing, resulting in a boxy sound.

It turned out that a reduction in the area around 100Hz reduced the boxy sound somewhat, but it was still there, anyway.
A boost in the upper frequency range was also not good, because the sound only becomes sharper and unnatural.
I tried all frequency ranges to make the Snare Drum explosive, but this one would not not sound as it should no matter what I did; it completely lacked punch. VERY surprising.
A double bass was perceived as muddy, while the Snare Drum (via Drum Editor) sounded more like a cymbal, but without its power.

The same changes while listening with the headset or horns, gave an dramatic effect and was incredibly effective.


This made me think that something must be wrong, because serious reviewers can't be that wrong ?

Then I came up with a possible reason:
I had turned up the treble by +2dB !

What if I reduced it by -2dB instead ?


Both the bass and treble controls are not made as we are used to, because they work within a much larger range (wide):

High frequency adjustment is carried out in the declared range of ±2 dB at frequencies from 1 kHz and above.
Low frequency adjustment is carried out in the declared range of -2dB to -4dB from 200 Hz and below.

This means that they do not work like old-fashioned ones, which only affect the area closest to the center frequency they are set to.


When I set the treble control to -2dB, the soundscape became very different:

The dynamics in the midrange and treble were dramatically improved, and the Snare Drums responded more normally to EQ with the Drum Editor, and now sound more like they should.

The details were also much better reproduced than in the first setup - the Gold 5 really impresses in terms of detail from the midrange and up..!

I found a measurement of the frequency response for the Gold 5 and the Yamaha HS5, and the Gold 5 gives a nicer curve, but the graph also shows what I hear; that there is too high an output in the range of 80Hz to about 110Hz.


.png   Tannoy vs Yamaha.png (Size: 111.13 KB / Downloads: 27)


When I applied a reduction of (only) 1.1dB for 81Hz and 108Hz with the Pa5X's MaxxAudio and adjusted the Q value, I was able to completely eliminate the box sound.
Another thing is that there is absolutely no noise from the bass reflex port regardless of volume.


The accompanying data sheet in the manual also shows that the Gold 5 has a bass response down to 49Hz (-10dB), but my ears say that they go deeper with a much lower dB loss.

I should be able to achieve a pretty good sub-bass with moderate amplification, and the built-in amplifiers have no problem handling low frequencies at high volumes; neither do the units.


Pros:
* Very detailed sound from midrange and up
* A certain three-dimensionality provides usable perspective
* Unusually good bass reproduction with minimal EQ correction
* Very competent amplifiers
* Good adjustment options
* Good connectivity options - possibility to connect up to two audio sources
* Very high build quality
* Plastic-based composite based  cabinet (not MDF !)
* Very good manual
* Stable base


Cons:
* Extremely poorly designed bass reflex port
* Difficult to place, as they require a certain distance to the back wall
* Significant box sound without external EQ
* Very poorly shielded amplifiers that induces significant noise via their connections to the sound card - a USB isolator DOES NOT solves the problem



Final conclusion:
NOT RECOMMENDED - SEE LATEST REVIEW

These monitors live up to their name and are a goldmine among monitors.

With minimal EQ correction they deliver a sound that is equivalent to far more expensive monitors, and are also able to provide a certain perspective, something I have never experienced with active studio monitors.

With their extremely competent built-in amplifiers they can also play loud without audible problems.]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF YAMAHA 9000 PRO]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-9000-PRO Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:23:00 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-9000-PRO TEST OF YAMAHA 9000 PRO

Intuitive use/Layout:
For those used to Yamaha's later models, the 9000 Pro will be perceived as confusing and different, because nothing is arranged in the same way.

The buttons are different, the menus are different, and everything is positioned differently.

If you are used to Korg Pa, you will recognize the separate buttons for Fills/Break, which in my opinion is a better solution than integrating the functions in Mains without separate buttons.

The buttons for Mains, Fills, Intros, Endings and more are black, with characters recessed into the button, making them very difficult to operate - you can't see what's what.

Hidden among these is the button for TAP - there is no +/- like normal, which makes tempo very difficult to change correctly - the wheel is better suited.

The buttons for Pads are blue and oval, and well placed, in addition there is nearby buttons to change pads directly - especially well thought out.

There is also a direct button for the Mixing Console.

All advanced functions are easily accessed via 3 buttons near the screen.

Something exceptional is that so far I have found all advanced functions quite quickly without looking in the manual.

Certain functions have buttons that are blue or orange, which make operation easier.

The screen is not particularly good, with poor resolution, poor contrast and limited viewing angle, but becomes significantly easier to read when the keyboard is angled in a stand.

The wheels for Pitch Bend and Modulation are angled, which makes operation a lot easier.


Mechanical quality:
The keybed is something in itself - it is exactly the same as the one used on the OASYS - Yamaha FS-E76.
This is probably the best of all keybeds, and is 1 mm narrower than standard, and better noise dampened than the version on OASYS.

This keybed is so-called synth weighted, and easier to press down than anything else.
At the same time, aftertouch is super fast.

All buttons are of a superb quality that surpasses anything else I've tried - they respond to the slightest pressure, and are absolutely precise even after 25 years.
All buttons work 100%, and without any kind of noise.
All lamps work 100%.

Everything I've tested on the back panel works 100%.

So the 9000 Pro is definitely mechanically (and electrically) solid..!


Degree of playing pleasure:
No arranger I've had has given a comparable playing pleasure, and this can largely be attributed to the exceptionally good keybed.

But there are several things that contribute to this:
Consistently good mixing, well-composed pads and OTS should be mentioned.

There aren't that many styles, but they are very well made, and many sounds are also extremely good.
There are many drum kits, and Live! drums have built-in ambience that makes them more authentic than those on the Pa5X..!


Sound quality:
How is the sound experience from a 25-year-old keyboard ?
Many would think that most newer models are better, but this is not the case:
I will use the experience I had with Kronos as an example:
Analogue versus optical gives a sound difference like night and day with Kronos; it's like two different instruments.
I have had many of the best models, and am now used to OASYS, Audya and Pa5X.

Nevertheless:
When I connected the 9000 Pro, the sound was more dynamic and open than ever, much like Kronos at its best.
Drums and bass hit you in the midriff, and the perspective is exactly like a good recording; the sound never comes from the speakers.

Something absolutely outstanding is the amount of expression/velocity for all voices, with a punch never before experienced on an arranger; hardly enough with Kronos.

Also, there are plenty of effects; even Reverb Room (dual reverb) - all effects can be added separately for each track - and no compression problems like with the Pa5X.

There is also a parametric EQ which is better than the one on the Pa5X, because it has Q value steps of 0.1 instead of 0.5.
This makes it easy to find the best width of the filter.



Pros:
* The world's best keybed - Yamaha FS-E76
* Better sound than any other arranger regardless of year of manufacture
* Professionally mixed
* Super sensitive buttons
* The best basic setup for Pads I've tried
* Angled wheels for Pitch Bend and Modulation


Cons:
* Low screen resolution with poor contrast and limited viewing angle
* Only TAP and wheel for adjusting tempo; no +/- buttons
* Special layout that requires getting used to
* Poorly labeled buttons for basic functions


Final conclusion:
Even without any edits, the 9000 Pro appears to be the best I've tried, and not just on one point, but on all.

It gives a playing pleasure like no other, and even though I have both OASYS, Audya and Pa5X, without a doubt I prefer the 9000 Pro to play on.

I can guarantee that I will try to get hold of a 9000 Pro that is in the best possible condition (appearance-wise), as well as all the accessories that are available.

Maybe I'll sell the others..?  27 ]]> TEST OF YAMAHA 9000 PRO

Intuitive use/Layout:
For those used to Yamaha's later models, the 9000 Pro will be perceived as confusing and different, because nothing is arranged in the same way.

The buttons are different, the menus are different, and everything is positioned differently.

If you are used to Korg Pa, you will recognize the separate buttons for Fills/Break, which in my opinion is a better solution than integrating the functions in Mains without separate buttons.

The buttons for Mains, Fills, Intros, Endings and more are black, with characters recessed into the button, making them very difficult to operate - you can't see what's what.

Hidden among these is the button for TAP - there is no +/- like normal, which makes tempo very difficult to change correctly - the wheel is better suited.

The buttons for Pads are blue and oval, and well placed, in addition there is nearby buttons to change pads directly - especially well thought out.

There is also a direct button for the Mixing Console.

All advanced functions are easily accessed via 3 buttons near the screen.

Something exceptional is that so far I have found all advanced functions quite quickly without looking in the manual.

Certain functions have buttons that are blue or orange, which make operation easier.

The screen is not particularly good, with poor resolution, poor contrast and limited viewing angle, but becomes significantly easier to read when the keyboard is angled in a stand.

The wheels for Pitch Bend and Modulation are angled, which makes operation a lot easier.


Mechanical quality:
The keybed is something in itself - it is exactly the same as the one used on the OASYS - Yamaha FS-E76.
This is probably the best of all keybeds, and is 1 mm narrower than standard, and better noise dampened than the version on OASYS.

This keybed is so-called synth weighted, and easier to press down than anything else.
At the same time, aftertouch is super fast.

All buttons are of a superb quality that surpasses anything else I've tried - they respond to the slightest pressure, and are absolutely precise even after 25 years.
All buttons work 100%, and without any kind of noise.
All lamps work 100%.

Everything I've tested on the back panel works 100%.

So the 9000 Pro is definitely mechanically (and electrically) solid..!


Degree of playing pleasure:
No arranger I've had has given a comparable playing pleasure, and this can largely be attributed to the exceptionally good keybed.

But there are several things that contribute to this:
Consistently good mixing, well-composed pads and OTS should be mentioned.

There aren't that many styles, but they are very well made, and many sounds are also extremely good.
There are many drum kits, and Live! drums have built-in ambience that makes them more authentic than those on the Pa5X..!


Sound quality:
How is the sound experience from a 25-year-old keyboard ?
Many would think that most newer models are better, but this is not the case:
I will use the experience I had with Kronos as an example:
Analogue versus optical gives a sound difference like night and day with Kronos; it's like two different instruments.
I have had many of the best models, and am now used to OASYS, Audya and Pa5X.

Nevertheless:
When I connected the 9000 Pro, the sound was more dynamic and open than ever, much like Kronos at its best.
Drums and bass hit you in the midriff, and the perspective is exactly like a good recording; the sound never comes from the speakers.

Something absolutely outstanding is the amount of expression/velocity for all voices, with a punch never before experienced on an arranger; hardly enough with Kronos.

Also, there are plenty of effects; even Reverb Room (dual reverb) - all effects can be added separately for each track - and no compression problems like with the Pa5X.

There is also a parametric EQ which is better than the one on the Pa5X, because it has Q value steps of 0.1 instead of 0.5.
This makes it easy to find the best width of the filter.



Pros:
* The world's best keybed - Yamaha FS-E76
* Better sound than any other arranger regardless of year of manufacture
* Professionally mixed
* Super sensitive buttons
* The best basic setup for Pads I've tried
* Angled wheels for Pitch Bend and Modulation


Cons:
* Low screen resolution with poor contrast and limited viewing angle
* Only TAP and wheel for adjusting tempo; no +/- buttons
* Special layout that requires getting used to
* Poorly labeled buttons for basic functions


Final conclusion:
Even without any edits, the 9000 Pro appears to be the best I've tried, and not just on one point, but on all.

It gives a playing pleasure like no other, and even though I have both OASYS, Audya and Pa5X, without a doubt I prefer the 9000 Pro to play on.

I can guarantee that I will try to get hold of a 9000 Pro that is in the best possible condition (appearance-wise), as well as all the accessories that are available.

Maybe I'll sell the others..?  27 ]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF YAMAHA PSR-3000]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-PSR-3000 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:27:23 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-YAMAHA-PSR-3000 TEST OF YAMAHA PSR-3000

I bought this convinced that it is one of the best of the previous models.
Maybe it is, but it's very different to work with, and the layout is messy compared to what I'm used to today.
The layout is also messy and different from all Yamaha models I've had.
Everything has to be relearned in a way.

The first thing I noticed when I unpacked it was that the keybed is incredibly easy to press, quite like the Tyros1; actually easier.
And very silent.

I noticed that the keys are also narrower than standard; 1 mm narrower - like Tyros1.
Very good, but it is still quite common to play when a style is started.

The next thing was the screen, which was almost unreadable when the keyboard was placed at an angle in the stand above the Pa5X.

Regardless of the contrast adjustment, this keyboard must be placed on a standard stand for the screen to be readable.

The screen is the worst I've seen to date, even worse than the Technics KN-7000 in a stand above another.
Mounted normally, the screen is much better, but has a very limited viewing angle.

Starting a style was also a shock, because it was as if there was a thick blanket hanging in front of the speakers - the sound was devoid of detail and lifeless.

This was with factory settings with everything in the neutral position.

The selection of styles is very limited, and Yamaha's own built-in demo demonstrates styles that are not found on the PSR-3000.
Shame on you, Yamaha.

The mixing quality is surprisingly poor, but still far better than on newer models.
All OTS generally have too high a level, and are partly very poorly composed.
MultiPads are almost inaudible, and useless, as they only consist of drums and perc and are not loop based.

A very positive thing is the parametric equalizer, which has adjustable Q values in steps of 0.1 instead of 0.5 - from 16Hz to 16kHz.
I haven't seen this before, and even the Pa5X is limited to steps of 0.5.
Very, very good - this allows for very precise setting of the EQ.

I tried to make double drum kits with the Assembly function, but had to give up, because everything was hopelessly explained.
It seemed that it could only be copied from the same style that was being worked with..?
Idiotic.

Various instruments were not experienced as satisfactory, and electric pianos in particular were miserable.

There are surprisingly good connection options for USB Host, USB stick and SD card.
However, getting a USB stick to work was very problematic, as none of the ones I tried worked.
The SD card connection is also of the 3.3 volt type, which can be obtained, but at a high price.

Electrically, not everything is of the best quality, because the Main 4 did not work until after repeated presses, and still needs to be pressed harder than the others to work.
The volume control also scratches a little.

Built-in speakers can only be disconnected by plugging in a TRS plug.


CONCLUSION:
The PSR-3000 is probably a good keyboard for its period and can be quite good with simple edits, but it is a mid-range model with limited options for edits.

I thought it was better, but is far from comparable to the DGX-670.
The difference is significant.


This keyboard doesn't quite live up to my expectations, but maybe the reason is that I'm used to the best.]]> TEST OF YAMAHA PSR-3000

I bought this convinced that it is one of the best of the previous models.
Maybe it is, but it's very different to work with, and the layout is messy compared to what I'm used to today.
The layout is also messy and different from all Yamaha models I've had.
Everything has to be relearned in a way.

The first thing I noticed when I unpacked it was that the keybed is incredibly easy to press, quite like the Tyros1; actually easier.
And very silent.

I noticed that the keys are also narrower than standard; 1 mm narrower - like Tyros1.
Very good, but it is still quite common to play when a style is started.

The next thing was the screen, which was almost unreadable when the keyboard was placed at an angle in the stand above the Pa5X.

Regardless of the contrast adjustment, this keyboard must be placed on a standard stand for the screen to be readable.

The screen is the worst I've seen to date, even worse than the Technics KN-7000 in a stand above another.
Mounted normally, the screen is much better, but has a very limited viewing angle.

Starting a style was also a shock, because it was as if there was a thick blanket hanging in front of the speakers - the sound was devoid of detail and lifeless.

This was with factory settings with everything in the neutral position.

The selection of styles is very limited, and Yamaha's own built-in demo demonstrates styles that are not found on the PSR-3000.
Shame on you, Yamaha.

The mixing quality is surprisingly poor, but still far better than on newer models.
All OTS generally have too high a level, and are partly very poorly composed.
MultiPads are almost inaudible, and useless, as they only consist of drums and perc and are not loop based.

A very positive thing is the parametric equalizer, which has adjustable Q values in steps of 0.1 instead of 0.5 - from 16Hz to 16kHz.
I haven't seen this before, and even the Pa5X is limited to steps of 0.5.
Very, very good - this allows for very precise setting of the EQ.

I tried to make double drum kits with the Assembly function, but had to give up, because everything was hopelessly explained.
It seemed that it could only be copied from the same style that was being worked with..?
Idiotic.

Various instruments were not experienced as satisfactory, and electric pianos in particular were miserable.

There are surprisingly good connection options for USB Host, USB stick and SD card.
However, getting a USB stick to work was very problematic, as none of the ones I tried worked.
The SD card connection is also of the 3.3 volt type, which can be obtained, but at a high price.

Electrically, not everything is of the best quality, because the Main 4 did not work until after repeated presses, and still needs to be pressed harder than the others to work.
The volume control also scratches a little.

Built-in speakers can only be disconnected by plugging in a TRS plug.


CONCLUSION:
The PSR-3000 is probably a good keyboard for its period and can be quite good with simple edits, but it is a mid-range model with limited options for edits.

I thought it was better, but is far from comparable to the DGX-670.
The difference is significant.


This keyboard doesn't quite live up to my expectations, but maybe the reason is that I'm used to the best.]]> <![CDATA[TEST OF TOPPING HS02 USB ISOLATOR]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-TOPPING-HS02-USB-ISOLATOR Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:13:43 +0000 Chello]]> https://chellos-keyboard-players-club.com/Thread-TEST-OF-TOPPING-HS02-USB-ISOLATOR TEST OF TOPPING HS02 USB ISOLATOR


.png   USB Isolator.png (Size: 58.58 KB / Downloads: 9)


PREFACE
Ever since the CD was introduced in 1983, I have been fascinated by the absolute silence and extreme dynamics that suddenly became apparent with CD.
Back then I had a very good music system, with good speakers, a very good turntable and a state of the art amplifier.
The noise was still there, because everything was analogue.
With CD, everything became quiet - completely quiet.

In 1994 I bought my first PC, which was Intel-based and without USB.
It was heavenly to be able to play all the music without any noise.
In 1998 I bought an AMD based PC with USB, which turned everything upside down:
The noise was back !

This was also a type of noise that I found much more bothersome than the analogue one, because the more the processor and the internet connection worked, the more noise there was.
I tried all possible solutions but nothing helped.

The strange thing is that the problem has gotten worse and worse over the years as my music system has improved.
Only very recently was I able to detect what is largely the cause of the problem:

I had always wanted a tube amplifier, and bought a relatively expensive one.
Then something strange happened:
The noise was louder than ever !
I knew that tube amps have almost no shielding against noise, but still...

I then tried hooking up my Tandberg amplifier set, but the noise was still unbearably loud (because the Tandberg set is also poorly shielded).
Finally, I connected my XTZ amplifier, which is very well shielded, and the noise became significantly lower, but still very audible.

If I moved the amplifier away from the PC, the noise decreased, but I have to have the equipment close together.
I tried making different ground loops, without this having any effect whatsoever.
If everything had been analog, this would have solved the problem effectively.

Next, I tried to connect everything to an older Intel-based PC WITH USB, and here there was also some noise, but less than with my new AMD-based PC.

Then it struck me that it is not the type of processor that makes the noise, but the USB connection(s) - if no devices are connected to the USB there is no noise at all.
Several well-informed pundits thought that switching to a very expensive super-shielded USB cable would solve the problem, but this had absolutely no effect.

There had to be a way to solve the problem then ?
Everyone I asked thought there must be something wrong with my setup, but I've had the problem since 1998, and have changed all equipment several times as well as changed residence.
So they are all wrong !

One day I met a friend I hadn't spoken to in years:
He had the same problem for years but had solved it !
He tipped me off to a "magic" box that removed all the noise, and that didn't cost a fortune (about €100).


This was an extensive preface, but here comes the test:  27

The connection is very simple Plug & Play (for those who do not have constant Senior moments..!), and is done in seconds.

I connected the box's USB 2.0 cable to one of the PC's USB 2.0 connections, and my DAC to the box's USB 2.0 input. (and set both switches in the relevant position).

VOILA!

All became quiet; even at fairly high volume.
Only at very high volume could I hear a little noise, but this is absolutely beyond all expectations and completely satisfactory.

This box is a miracle box and is definitely worth £100 !


.png   Recommended.png (Size: 34.18 KB / Downloads: 8) ]]> TEST OF TOPPING HS02 USB ISOLATOR


.png   USB Isolator.png (Size: 58.58 KB / Downloads: 9)


PREFACE
Ever since the CD was introduced in 1983, I have been fascinated by the absolute silence and extreme dynamics that suddenly became apparent with CD.
Back then I had a very good music system, with good speakers, a very good turntable and a state of the art amplifier.
The noise was still there, because everything was analogue.
With CD, everything became quiet - completely quiet.

In 1994 I bought my first PC, which was Intel-based and without USB.
It was heavenly to be able to play all the music without any noise.
In 1998 I bought an AMD based PC with USB, which turned everything upside down:
The noise was back !

This was also a type of noise that I found much more bothersome than the analogue one, because the more the processor and the internet connection worked, the more noise there was.
I tried all possible solutions but nothing helped.

The strange thing is that the problem has gotten worse and worse over the years as my music system has improved.
Only very recently was I able to detect what is largely the cause of the problem:

I had always wanted a tube amplifier, and bought a relatively expensive one.
Then something strange happened:
The noise was louder than ever !
I knew that tube amps have almost no shielding against noise, but still...

I then tried hooking up my Tandberg amplifier set, but the noise was still unbearably loud (because the Tandberg set is also poorly shielded).
Finally, I connected my XTZ amplifier, which is very well shielded, and the noise became significantly lower, but still very audible.

If I moved the amplifier away from the PC, the noise decreased, but I have to have the equipment close together.
I tried making different ground loops, without this having any effect whatsoever.
If everything had been analog, this would have solved the problem effectively.

Next, I tried to connect everything to an older Intel-based PC WITH USB, and here there was also some noise, but less than with my new AMD-based PC.

Then it struck me that it is not the type of processor that makes the noise, but the USB connection(s) - if no devices are connected to the USB there is no noise at all.
Several well-informed pundits thought that switching to a very expensive super-shielded USB cable would solve the problem, but this had absolutely no effect.

There had to be a way to solve the problem then ?
Everyone I asked thought there must be something wrong with my setup, but I've had the problem since 1998, and have changed all equipment several times as well as changed residence.
So they are all wrong !

One day I met a friend I hadn't spoken to in years:
He had the same problem for years but had solved it !
He tipped me off to a "magic" box that removed all the noise, and that didn't cost a fortune (about €100).


This was an extensive preface, but here comes the test:  27

The connection is very simple Plug & Play (for those who do not have constant Senior moments..!), and is done in seconds.

I connected the box's USB 2.0 cable to one of the PC's USB 2.0 connections, and my DAC to the box's USB 2.0 input. (and set both switches in the relevant position).

VOILA!

All became quiet; even at fairly high volume.
Only at very high volume could I hear a little noise, but this is absolutely beyond all expectations and completely satisfactory.

This box is a miracle box and is definitely worth £100 !


.png   Recommended.png (Size: 34.18 KB / Downloads: 8) ]]>