CME UF80 CLASSIC Review / Initial Impression

http://soundcloud.com/sigasa/cme-uf80-c...al/s-P3uzk

the above links to a demo attempting to depict the evenness of the CME UF80 CLASSICS [PHYSICAL] touch.

I play some chromatic runs and scale(s) at speed a an audio representation of this evenness.

There are some audible velocity inconsistencies, but the don't pose a problem.

Kindest Regards,

Chris

I wonder if the O/P, kind sir, might indulge me a query. Have you ascertained the range of MIDI note-on velocities that the keybed is capable of?

If you use Kontakt, there is a script which cumulatively displays the velocities as you attack a note repeatedly legermente to pesante. A more tedious way is simply to note down the velocity data as monitored by a MIDI utility such as MIDI-OX. The reason I ask is here: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1595.

While the Fatar VMK188+ is serviceable for me as a piano keyboard, the absence of a full 0..127 note-on MIDI velocity response is a distinct limitation on expressive emulation of other virtual instruments I have, and I would like to rectify that.

But which keyboards output a full response? There seems to be something of a conspiracy of silence -- buyers don't know to ask, sellers know nothing ("no, senor, no-one has ever asked me that before"), manufacturers won't tell -- and neither will embarrassed owners who subsequently learn the truth about their their proud new purchase.

I fear if I persist in being like Shakespeare's Richard III ("a horse, a horse, my kingdom for horse"), things could end up equally badly ;-(

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

First of all, I must say I was sorely tempted to start a be thread with the headline subject 'News Flash'! However, I resisted.

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

Hey 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

Actually, cracked her open for the first time today. Straight forward to get into unlike some boards. My Yamaha P120 was a nightmare in this regard!

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

well.. i should really read your post, huh? thanks...

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

Thank you Sebastion, very useful info.

Kindest Regards,

Chris

Chris, are you also photographing or videoing the steps involved?
Can you share more info on the amount of work involved?
thx
Hans