He should have got a Roland!🤔
- Thread starter Dingo40
- Start date
Great performance (except for the last few notes).
The Roland could never match the excellent trumpet sound, so the same setup would still be needed: real trumpet with electronic accompaniment on the bass side...
The Roland could never match the excellent trumpet sound, so the same setup would still be needed: real trumpet with electronic accompaniment on the bass side...
I think Debra issued a challenge! Can any of our Roland experts recreate that trumpet sound?
The challenge is unbearable, just like the whole discussion "Roland is bad accordion, it doesn't sound like one"
I can get, what I think is a great Trumpet sound out of my 8X. By far, I am no trumpet expert, but anyone who hears my 8X through my Bose L1 Pro is amazed. I do a lot of "tuning" of my 8X to the Bose as a "system" -- MFX settings, etc. If I cancel the Bose and only use the 8X speakers, with the identical User Program, you would think I have a completely different instrument. I know my 8X trumpet tone doesn't match the sound on the video (I'm sure I don't have "triple tonguing" -- I don't know what that is). However, for the "average" folks that I play for, they think the 8X trumpet I have "tuned" is amazing.
I've said this before -- does my 8X sound exactly like my Hammond B3 with all the tonewheel crosstalk, key click, etc? No, but for anyone that hears my 8X, (I duplicate my B3 drawbar settings on the 8X) agree I have an amazing sound. The Hammond purist doesn't like the sound of the 8X, because it does not Identically duplicate the B3 sound .
I've said this before -- does my 8X sound exactly like my Hammond B3 with all the tonewheel crosstalk, key click, etc? No, but for anyone that hears my 8X, (I duplicate my B3 drawbar settings on the 8X) agree I have an amazing sound. The Hammond purist doesn't like the sound of the 8X, because it does not Identically duplicate the B3 sound .
The Roland V-accordion can produce very nice sounds, some more believable (to be the real thing) than others. A lot of the sounds are sampled from real instruments and are likely the same as used in Roland keyboards and digital pianos. The Roland is a wonderful and very versatile instrument. It is not "a bad accordion". It simply "is not an accordion", and people who can accept that can be very happy with it.The challenge is unbearable, just like the whole discussion "Roland is bad accordion, it doesn't sound like one"
For these people the only disappointment that still remains is the price.
I own a really good digital stage piano (Yamaha CP-5, a bit dated by now). When I bought it the cost was about 2.000 (euro). I believe it can play very good imitations of the sounds of other instruments, likely about as good as the Roland. The 2.000 price point is therefore my benchmark number for what a digital accordion should cost. (I do know it is more of a niche market, therefore perhaps demanding for a premium, but I cannot see why the price should be 2 to 3 times that of the digital piano.)
Snoopz
Member
I do, and here are my reasons:
- Economics of scale: Roland sells 100 digital pianos for every accordion (if not more)
- The accordions have the bellows which are probably harder to make industrially
- Assembly of the accordions is harder because of air tightness requirements and can probably only be done by hand
- Logistics are harder if you don’t sell entire containers full
You probably forgot the most important reason: lack of competition. When you have a monopoly (or almost) you can charge whatever you want.
I guess for many people having an acoustic accordion with midi built in is good enough for the non-accordion sounds. That significantly reduces the market for fully-digital accordions and there is almost nothing besides the Roland. People have to pay up because they cannot go to a competitor.
So because there is too much competition by acoustic accordions, there is too little competition by digital accordions, and one drives down the demand and the other drives up the price?
That sounds a bit like a heads I win, tails you lose argument.
My own idea is that digital instrument tend to have really high win margins, and for good reason Roland outsourced a good bit of the productions to manufacturers with experience in accordion bulding. If you want to keep your beancounters happy, you need to get somewhere in the ballpark of win margins of those instruments you produce all by yourself. Which reduces the market size. Which makes the beancounters unenthused. Now the Roland CEO who went all-in on digital accordions (basically telling the beancounters to make this work in spite of them being unenthused) has died. They've now moved production from Italy to China, addressing that pricing inflexibility. What that means for the total package remains to be seen.
RTW
Member
After watching posted video (well played trumpet) and reading the posts, my question is: can anyone post a video of a digital accordion or Roland actually playing the Trumpet sound as well as applying the techniques used in the posted video? My guess is its one thing duplicating the trumpet sound, but another thing to duplicate the techniques used on a Trumpet - unless of course you have a trumpet
Regards
RTW
Regards
RTW
Hmmm, just for clarity, is the Yamaha CP-5 “not a piano”?
Ventura
Been here for ages!
ummm.. they did not outsource until they closed Roland Europe,
then they had to make a choice and took the less costly short term path
originally they built them in their Factory in Italy (formerly SIEL) using
their own tooling and employee's, using chips and boards
designed, created and produced by Roland Japan
then they had to make a choice and took the less costly short term path
originally they built them in their Factory in Italy (formerly SIEL) using
their own tooling and employee's, using chips and boards
designed, created and produced by Roland Japan
Ventura
Been here for ages!
i have had some luck with trumpet and big band instrument sounds,
mostly because the music/sounds i am emulating are deep in my head
but even with the detested mariachi setting, if you play quickly
some Herb Alpert tune it can be very pleasing and authentic sounding..
just don't sit on the keys for more than a heartbeat
for solo runs, when i want to do some Chet Baker or Harry James, i have
typically blended a patch together built upon a Flugelhorn foundation
with a brilliant high Elkhart Indiana type Trumpet.. i have done
Bert Kaempfert and Al Hirt and Bunny Berrigan stuff for 50 years now.
again your attack is what makes all the difference in whether the
crowd will "believe" it with their ears and memories or not
i have even routed such a blend through a WaWa pedal
for "do you know what it means to Miss New Orleans"
to include the "good evening friends" tag
it sounds authentic if you play the songs authentically
mostly because the music/sounds i am emulating are deep in my head
but even with the detested mariachi setting, if you play quickly
some Herb Alpert tune it can be very pleasing and authentic sounding..
just don't sit on the keys for more than a heartbeat
for solo runs, when i want to do some Chet Baker or Harry James, i have
typically blended a patch together built upon a Flugelhorn foundation
with a brilliant high Elkhart Indiana type Trumpet.. i have done
Bert Kaempfert and Al Hirt and Bunny Berrigan stuff for 50 years now.
again your attack is what makes all the difference in whether the
crowd will "believe" it with their ears and memories or not
i have even routed such a blend through a WaWa pedal
for "do you know what it means to Miss New Orleans"
to include the "good evening friends" tag
it sounds authentic if you play the songs authentically
Walker
🪗
I've not always been overly impressed by digital accordions...
However, the Roland V accordion IS an accordion - it's just a different type of accordion, a modern one that uses electronics instead of reeds. When people constantly undermine other members of the same community by lacing their comments with phrases to point-score, this inevitably leads to resentment. It's one thing making a point, but to constantly drive it home at every opportunity is not cool.
United we stand divided we fall.
However, the Roland V accordion IS an accordion - it's just a different type of accordion, a modern one that uses electronics instead of reeds. When people constantly undermine other members of the same community by lacing their comments with phrases to point-score, this inevitably leads to resentment. It's one thing making a point, but to constantly drive it home at every opportunity is not cool.
United we stand divided we fall.
A bit of nitpickery: the Roland does not use electronics instead of reeds, it uses electronics for reproducing recorded reeds. Old style Electroniums were using electronics instead of reeds (namely as oscillators), as did old-style electronic organs. But the Rolands don't generate the sounds in their electronics, they use digital circuits as a medium to reproduce it from samples. I mean, I don't say "when you play a violin concerto on a CD player, it uses electronics instead of gut strings for generating sound". It doesn't really compare to a violin regarding sound production but rather to record players (for example). There were some analog electronic instruments also working with samples on magnetic tape loops. They are comparable in technology.
So once we get over the production/reproduction stuff, the question is what distinguishes an accordion? I have no qualms calling a Roland a "digital accordion", like I don't have qualms calling something a "digital piano". That implies both a physical controller resembling the instrument in question as well as sound generation resembling the instrument in question. I'd balk at calling a Roland a "digital saxophone", and I'd balk at calling something sounding like a saxophone "accordion music". Once you use orchestral sounds, what you have is more an accordion-shaped controller and sound generator than an accordion. If you play it "as accordion", I don't mind calling it that.
By the way, you chose to call generating sounds by electronics rather than reeds to be what a "modern accordion" does. That insinuates that an acoustic accordion is not modern. When we are picking nits about how not to offend other people, that may not be the best choice of words either.
All that being said: who cares? In the end, we are talking about somewhat different skill sets required to bring out the best from each family of instruments. And obviously one wants to get the best out of what one has available.
Last edited:
RTW
Member
On the original post of trumpet sound ( which BTW was well played by the poster), im still waiting for a video of a digital version of a trumpet sound and equally important if it can duplicate techniques of the trumpet in video. If provided it may answer the pros (or cons) of digital accordion
Regards
RTW
Regards
RTW
The Yamaha CP-5 is or is not a piano in the same way the Roland V-accordion is or is not an accordion. But regardless of what you call it, its shape and the way you play it suggests that the CP-5 will do the piano sounds best and the Roland will do the accordion sounds best. All other sounds I consider just "a bonus". When I first tried the CP-5 I was very happy with the piano sound, a good imitation of the Yamaha grand piano. Likewise I for instance also tried a Kawai digital piano and was disappointed but found out that it did a good imitation of the Kawai grand piano which I also do not like. The Roland V-accordion apparently does not try to sound just like a particular acoustic accordion. I don't know what it's supposed to be like, but every time I tried one or heard one I didn't like the accordion sound. But it's fine if other people do like its accordion sounds.
Last edited:
I think it is typical to call something a "digital piano" if it looks and sounds like a piano but call it a "digital keyboard" or just "keyboard" if one uses different sounds. A JankĂł piano does not look like having a piano keyboard but is still called a "piano". One would not call it a "keyboard". Things like clavichords and harpsichords are obviously not called "keyboards" nor "pianos" but run under "keyboard instruments" to insinuate that they are acoustic instruments with a keyboard as control. That logic would make "keyboard" a term just describing the human interface, but if a keyboard does not include a sound generator, it is not called a keyboard but a controller.
With that kind of terminology jumble regarding piano keyboards, it's hard to derive a "correct" term for classifying a Roland.
Similar threads
