A short demo of first octave key levelling completed

Kindest Regards,

Chris

Kindest Regards,

Chris

If you're still searching for a quieting/damping material I can recommend these ones:
http://ace-ace.com/wEnglisch/pages/Prod...eGroup=453

I used them to stop the hammers in my piano action and as a new material for the hammers to rest on. They are specially designed to damp collisions and thus reduce noise and bumping around of the hammers. Maybe you can use it to reduce the back bumping of your keys, if this isn't already in perfect shape!

regards,
Sebastian

if anyone else needs the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek74gcEsMKY

thx
hans

Anyways, I have begun the process of fine tuning the touch i.e. getting the point at which the hammer hits it's limiting cushion to exactly match the point at which the key meets bottom. This is very simple to do on the CME UF80 CLASSIC as the kind designers at CME made the trigger easily removable and even left some shims under the triggers for me to use! Though strangely these shims seem to be just one-size-fits-all affairs in that the keyboard is far from accurately regulated (which of course is why I am doing it now).

Special thanks goes to the creator of the video entitled 'inside my UF8' found in a previous google search.

I've contacted a speaker DIY site on the .net asking what the most suitable sound quieting material would be for use inside a piano controller keyboard. Hopefully they'll have a very good idea. In the mean time, any suggestions from you knowledgeable guys?!

Kindest Regards,

Chris

nice demo...
I've tried your settings for UF80 and Pianoteq, but for the way I play I seem to be lacking some sensitivity then...
It's quite possible that it's more even using your suggestion, but I tend to play notes with lower velocity that are sort of compressed then..
I went back to my original settings is which curve 1 on CME and default inPianoteq...
Obviously it's very much possible that I adapted my style of playing to this setting, having used it all this time now, and that I should invest time getting adapted to your settings but being the lazy #$#@ that I am, I won't do that :-)

I am glad that you like the CME by the way!!!
We are starting to grow into sort of evangelists for it :-)

cheers
Hans

Here you'll find my first demo utilising the settings mentioned above. Comments coveted!

I am absolutely delighted at the perfect evenness of my CME UF80 CLASSIC, both mechanically and audibly. I had made a mistake in thinking I had the correct velocity curves settings - both within PianoTeq and on board the UF80 CLASSIC. I didn't. So when I stated this particular thread and after having got to know the board a little, I was of the generally accepted view that there were velocity issues with it. There were - but there aren't now! And that's without opening her up!

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO CME UF80 CLASSIC OWNERS/PLAYERS

(PLEASE AT LEAST TRY THIS WITH YOUR CME UF80 CLASSIC)

Set your internal keyboard curve to '002' and PianoTeq's curve to the default for 'soft keyboard'. Those of you who try this (who haven't already!), please leave comments on you findings here, thank you.

I played the UF80 CLASSIC this morning for some time and to be absolutely honest, I couldn't fault the velocity response AT ALL! Had I realised the correct settings for this board with PianoTeq, I would have used them from day one. And had I known that this was possible with a board from CME, I would have bought one years ago (although back then there may have actually been genuine inconsistencies velocity wise. I Amos happy to have found this out so early on with board. I'm also glad I hadn't tried to rectified the 'percieved' velocity differences which I now know were the result of not having set her (the board) up correctly. Demo to follow,

Kindest and Most Delighted Regards,

Chris

Hello Sigasa,

so did you abandon your numa nero pnoscan project finally? or did you just want to try another digital piano?

Interesting that keyboards don't output all possible velocity values, I'll check my EPiCK for holes in the midi range.

Actually I reached a point where the physical Keybed was extremely uneven. This was because of all the trial and error/research and development inflicted upon it. PNOscan is a exceptional piece of kit - extremely accurate. I think most of the problems I encountered we're those I created for myself through inaccurate setup etc.. If I were to do it again, I would definitely use a Keybed in which the pivot points were staggered. This would mean that I would not have to deal with variations on the force/velocity ratio between black and white keys.

My advice to anyone wishing to take the plunge with PNOscan would be to seek advice from your local QRS rep before going ahead. Please don't make the same mistakes as I did!

Kindest regards,

Chris