Fender Rhodes Mark I vs. Mark II?

[fundikira]

Hi

 

How significant is the difference in tone quality between Mark I and Mark II Fender Rhodes pianos, about which I have read? Can anyone point me to some examples of the difference between the two anywhere on the internet? Do you think that the lack of the "sticky key" problem I have heard about in earlier Mark Is makes up for this loss of tone quality? In other words, should I buy a mint condition Mark II, or try to find a Mark I?

 

thanks

[clusterchord]

well there's about 100s of albums made with that "meaty" and "barking" sound of Rhodes Mark I. Going from 70s to todays acid jazz, brazilian, chill out, lounge , thievery corp stuff like that..

 

if you want that sound , that is mark I. or a suitcase (mkI w preamp/speakers).

 

I own mk I from 1973 (wodden keys and all). I'm not sure what problem are you refering to? action is fantastic, the sound this thing has calls for it.

 

some people modified if for ultra swift feeling bordering synth actions. its one of the standard rhodes mods. But first try one, and see if original suits you.

 

action is (too) light on mkII and its plastic. Its sound is brighter and thinner.

 

If you want a real wooden action MK I make sure you buy older than 1977, or even 1976 because latest MK I's had plastic as well.

Correct info on date of change can probably be found on the net.

[RicJangle]

There is a difference in sound (Mark II a little thinner in tone) however I picked up a Mark II rhodes for like 330 straight cash. I want to see someone try that nowadays with a Mark I with plastic keys, let alone one with wooden keys. The Mark II will bring you most of the way in terms of real rhodes sound and today I couldnt be happier with mine. Plus if you gig with it like I do it is nice to have the flat top of the rhodes to put synths on it instead of trying to balance a synth on the top of your sloping mark I case.

[Roald]

I have a wooden key Mk2...really only the early Mk1s had felt hammers and sounded different. The difference in sound is negligeable anyway: a Rhodes sounds the way it sounds because of the SETUP!

 

Mk2's and late Mk1's have different felts under the keys which makes the action less stiff and spongy.

 

also; you can update pretty much everything to the spec you want, except for the hammers....but really, don't bother just buy a piano, spend loads of time on the setup and you will be a happy man!

[clusterchord]

 

Originally posted by Roald The difference in sound is negligeable anyway: a Rhodes sounds the way it sounds because of the SETUP!

 

 

if you want to believe that that's fine, but it's common knowledge that you can't get mk2 to sound like mk1 ! any searching on the net can verify this.

 

I went thru like four pianos before i got this one, including the mk2, and mk1 IS the sound you hear on most of the records. It's not just me, two of my peers who've been playing rhodes far longer than I, say the same exact thing.

 

In recent yrs i cant recall a single live act or a concert i saw on tv , where they were not using a mk1 for rhodes. why?

 

i agree mk2 is more affordable, but if you're already set to go thru ordeal of handling, maintaining and using a really heavy vintage piece of equipment, are you gonna let few hundred stop you from getting the best?

 

that was my logic anyway...

[studentOfSoong]

 

Originally posted by RicJangle There is a difference in sound (Mark II a little thinner in tone) however I picked up a Mark II rhodes for like 330 straight cash. I want to see someone try that nowadays with a Mark I with plastic keys, let alone one with wooden keys.

 

 

Ha! Got my wooden-key 1973 Mark I last year for 150 euros (current rates: $183). Admittedly, the 3 highest keys and the 3 lowest don't work.

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by clusterchord if you want to believe that that's fine, but it's common knowledge that you can't get mk2 to sound like mk1 ! any searching on the net can verify this.

 

 

Well actually my friend, as someone who has been on the rhodes mailing list since 1997 (when it was on the coolist server, pre egroups) and rhodes owner since the early 90s, I believe Roald is actually quite correct, even talking with guys like Dave Ell (who worked for Rhodes in the 1970s and 80s) has confirmed this.

 

He sets up Rhodes MkIIs regularly to sound like MkIs in fact he makes a living out of it. I believe he even did Robert Walters rhodes a few years back and the people in Mogwai too...

 

The only big difference is really in the early 70s and late 60s ones with the felt hammer tips. The models up to 1975 with the wooden hammers do have an ever so slightly diferent sound, but most of the rhodes sound comes from the tine setup, escapement and the choice of amp (hence why the suitacse rhodes sounds different to a Stage).

 

I have completely taken apart rhodes right to the last bolt and put them back on MkI's and MkII's (a Stage 54) and theres really no differece. In fact the action changed in 1978 to a lighter action just because the felts were moved from the cams to the key pedestal. Simple mod really, although very time consuming (I did my rhodes MK1 a few years back)... it did make a difference too to my arms...

 

If you look around on the web you'll see a lot of information about sayng early Mk1s are better and so forth but then I think theres a lot of opinions and misinformation on the web and that inevitably gets repeated... for instance people always think old = better in general.

 

I think a lot of the info about early Mk1s sounding better is generally attributed to Chick Corea and his Light as a Feather sound, however that is really down to the amp choice and pedals. He has tried to find that same amp ever since but can't find it and doesn't even know for sure what it was in the first place now I have an interview with Chick in 1978 where he says he can't find that sound now, even though he was still using his 1972 rhodes Stage... if I remember correctly it wasn't a Fender Twin, it was some noname PA head and bass cab I think, it was some odd combination he picked up on a Miles session..

 

fwiw Dave Ell also did a MkV mod for me where he modded my damper mechanism on my Mk1 to MkV standards for greater stopping power.

[Roald]

also....Mk1 != Mk1. There are many different eras that are all slightly different. Tuesday, I helped my friend Ludiwg to set up his Rhodes Mk1. It has the exact same mechanics and keyboard feel as mine (mk2 1980). We didn't get it to sound exactly like mine, this one remained more 'bell like'. I don't know why, maybe I have to spend more time with it, but I don't really look forward to adjusting somebody else's piano for days (hearing 'pling!' 'pling!').

 

another factor is equalizing! I have a wonderful MXR 10-band eq from the early 80s, and that makes a night and day difference in sound. I also demo-ed it on Ludwigs piano. he has a wonderful Fender ProSonic 210, but it sounded muddy and undefined (a disppointment!!). With the eq, we suddenly had bass and definition. The Dutch RHodes doctor Rob Coops does a mod, where you get 3 outputs on the Rhodes for each pickupgroup, to eq them separately and that is something i'd really like to have.

[bebop603]

I had an extremely beat-up Fender Rhodes Mark I Suitcase back in high-school. It must have been gigged alot..there was a lot of shaggy black carpet attached to the back.

 

The Fender part of the name was actually dropped for the new Mark I in 1975. It's the newer Mark I that had the more mellow, less bell-like sound. That's because the hammer actually did a small double-strike on the tines, damping the sound somewhat. This was "fixed" in the Mark II.

 

Wish the internet had been around back then and I could have learned about the Rhodes action mod. The action was terrible!

I could play some chords and a melody line slowly, and that was about it. Forget improv...totally killed my jazz playing.

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by bebop603 The Fender part of the name was actually dropped for the new Mark I in 1975. It's the newer Mark I that had the more mellow, less bell-like sound. That's because the hammer actually did a small double-strike on the tines, damping the sound somewhat. This was "fixed" in the Mark II.

 

The old rhodes (1966-71ish) had a different material for the tines and felt hammers. However, they kept breaking tines so a solution needed to be found, and I think the change happened in 71/72.. they kept the wooden cams until 75 but I doubt the wooden would have any real impact on the sound as its the rubber tips that actually hit the tines.

 

Also the double strike is just a symptom of a badly setup rhodes, it will even happen on a badly setup MkV (1985 rhodes)

[bebop603]

I did read about the double-strike in the early Mark I's somewhere. Just can't find the reference. Apparently, Rhodes engineers used high-speed photography to show that the hammer made a quick second strike that muted the tone a bit.

Anyway, here's an interesting page about Rhodes history and development.

 

http://www.fenderrhodes.com/

[ElectricPianoCo]

This is an old thread that hasn't been posted in a while but in case anyone is looking for more information about the difference b/w a Mark I and Mark II I have recently written a blog post about it here:

 

The Chicago Electric Piano Co :: Fender Rhodes Mark I vs. Rhodes Mark II

 

It's worth noting that Mark I and Mark II Stage models will be the most identical. The biggest difference, apart from the felt tips of the first year or two of Mark I production mentioned in this thread, is between the Peterson and Janus preamps used in the Rhodes Suitcase models. This further blurs the differences between a Mark I and II because the change happened two years before the Mark II. If you have a stage model, your Mark II will be nearly perfectly identical to a post-1976 Mark I besides its cosmetic differences.

 

If you want to learn more about the series of changes that the Mark I went through over its decade of production, the blog post above highlights the most significant changes. As the other responses to this thread have stated, 90% of the tone does come from setup but there are a few key factors that make up that last 10%.

[The Real MC]

I landed a 1967 Rhodes with the original hammers replaced with 1970s hybrid hammers. I've owned four Rhodes over the last thirty plus years and this is the best one I have ever laid hands on.

[JeffLearman]

First, that's the wrong question, simply because the ONLY differences between the last Mark I's and first Mark II's are:

 

* the flat top on Mark II

* the graphics

 

Period. The division between Mark I and Mark II was entirely marketing (and that useful new top).

 

There were a number of changes through the lifetime of the Mark I / II series. To get a good idea, check the history section at fenderrhodes.com.

 

To evaluate a given piano you're interested in, you have to get the date stamp.

 

Here are some of the major changes, not necessarily in order.

 

- square tubular resonators replaced with flat steel ones. Big change in tone. This was definitely in the Fender era, pre Mark I.

- evolution of the resonators, including the holes in the low ones, and adding the twist. Pre Mark I, I believe.

- Raymac tines replaced by modern ones - Big change in tone. This may have happened before the first Mark I.

- wood hammers replaced with plastic ones (happened in stages, including replacing felt tips with neoprene)

- loss of the speed bump on the action -- makes the action slower but fixable with the "miracle mod"

- pedestal revision, moving the felt from the pedestal to the hammer (affects the action)

- restoration of the speed bump on the pedestal (just before Mark II)

- wood keys replaced with plastic keys (Mark II era)

 

The vast majority of Rhodes pianos available are mid-to-late Mark I or Mark II, and there is very little difference in tone; as mentioned above, the setup matters a lot more than the year of manufacture. Action varies more than tone, but as I said you can fix the biggest action issue (other than the fact that it's a Rhodes and will always play like one -- fine for me but not for everyone.)

[goldphinga]

A lot of good info on this thread but some additions too. Tine makeup continually changed from year to year, including the metal used and the way the tune mounts to the mounting block- this has a big effect on sound. so not all mk1s and 2s are cut from the same cloth, there are many subtle differences. also the pickups with white tape (on as used in the mk2s and 5's) do sound different and have a greater failure rate than those used in the mk1 pianos. as has been said though late mk1s and early mk2s are very similar and can be setup to sound like each other.

[JeffLearman]

A lot of good info on this thread but some additions too. Tine makeup continually changed from year to year, including the metal used and the way the tune mounts to the mounting block- this has a big effect on sound.

Can you elaborate or substantiate that? I wasn't aware of any significant changes in the tine since they abandoned the old Raymac tines (which were very different sounding). Over the years I've bought replacement tines for broken ones, and I've never noticed a bit of difference between the stock ones on my 1977 piano and the replacements. In fact, I now can't tell which tines I've replaced, though I suppose with a microscope I could examine the ends to tell machine cut ones from ones I'd cut and then filed by hand. Perhaps these changes you're referring to happened prior to 1977, but even then I hadn't heard about it.

 

The change from Raymac to new tines was significant. The old tines had a characteristic sound that was lovely, but they broke way too easily. The new ones are said to be 4 times as strong.

 

so not all mk1s and 2s are cut from the same cloth, there are many subtle differences. also the pickups with white tape (on as used in the mk2s and 5's) do sound different and have a greate failure rate than those used in the mk1 pianos. as has been said though late mk1s and early mk2s are very similar and can be setup to sound like each other.

I have little hands-on experience with Mark IIs and didn't know they'd changed the pickups, or that the newer ones had white tape. Another interesting historical tidbit! Here's proof, from Vintage Vibe:

 

[JeffLearman]

Here's how to find the manufacture date: http://www.fenderrhodes.com/#3

[The Real MC]

Can you elaborate or substantiate that? I wasn't aware of any significant changes in the tine since they abandoned the old Raymac tines (which were very different sounding). Over the years I've bought replacement tines for broken ones, and I've never noticed a bit of difference between the stock ones on my 1977 piano and the replacements. In fact, I now can't tell which tines I've replaced, though I suppose with a microscope I could examine the ends to tell machine cut ones from ones I'd cut and then filed by hand. Perhaps these changes you're referring to happened prior to 1977, but even then I hadn't heard about it.

 

The evolution of tines was Raymac (1965 to 1971), Torrington (1971 to 197?), then Schagler. Yup, early MkIs had Raymacs. As they progressed they got more durable, with Schagler still going strong after 6,000,000 hammer blows. The early Raymacs didn't have the taper at the tine mount and were more fragile. Later Raymacs with the taper - as on my piano - survived better.

 

Flat steel resonators first appeared in 1969 so there was a short era with flat steel resonators AND Raymacs.

 

The change from Raymac to new tines was significant. The old tines had a characteristic sound that was lovely, but they broke way too easily. The new ones are said to be 4 times as strong. I have little hands-on experience with Mark IIs and didn't know they'd changed the pickups, or that the newer ones had white tape. Another interesting historical tidbit! Here's proof, from Vintage Vibe:

 

Interesting little feature I discovered about the green pickup on my sparkletop. As I was voicing the piano by adjusting the pickups, I noticed as I got closer the pickup would saturate. With optimal pickup position, I happened upon a setting that with hard hits I would saturate the pickups which would generate a pleasant transient THUMP that sounded great. The newer pickups on the other Rhodes I used to own didn't do that.

 

Knowing that the Raymacs don't withstand hard blows too much, I adjusted the pickups so I don't have to play TOO hard to get that effect. Having the pedestal bump really helped the fast action.

 

By the time I finished voicing my sparkletop, I had a piano with nice dynamic control of timbre - bell tone with soft playing gradually morphing to that lovely MkI BARK with greater velocity. The Raymacs coupled with the square resonators contribute a lot to that. I was NEVER able to get that kind of control out of my other three Rhodes.

[hogger]

Thanks for all the Rhodes info in this thread. It's very informative. I'm seeing a lot of info here that's not found on the Rhodes supersite, and there's a LOT of info there.

 

Is there an easy way to tell if my MKI has the "bump"? It's a late 1976 suitcase 88 model. About 46th week if I recall correctly.

[The Real MC]

 

Is there an easy way to tell if my MKI has the "bump"? It's a late 1976 suitcase 88 model. About 46th week if I recall correctly.

 

 

You'll know right away when you play one. It doesn't feel soggy and you can play fast runs.

 

If you can't play it in person, only a pic of the pedestal will tell you.

 

The pedestal bumps were revived 1978 or 1979, not sure which year. Just DON'T get the keys with shanks made from plastic. If you don't see wood, it ain't no good.

[hogger]

 

You'll know right away when you play one. It doesn't feel soggy and you can play fast runs. If you can't play it in person, only a pic of the pedestal will tell you. The pedestal bumps were revived 1978 or 1979, not sure which year. Just DON'T get the keys with shanks made from plastic. If you don't see wood, it ain't no good.

 

Thanks. That got me pointed in the right direction. As many times is the case, Vintage Vibe has a video answering my question: [video=youtube;9UVcRvnolQQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UVcRvnolQQ

 

I'll look at my Rhodes when I get home tonight. I suspect it doesn't have the bump. I'm also kinda anxious to look at my Vintage Vibe EP and see if they put the bump on their EPs.

[JeffLearman]

1976 won't have the bump, but you can add it. My 1977 piano is the same design as shown in the video above, with the bumpless wood pedestal and all-plastic hammer, and the felt on the hammer cam rather than the pedestal. I installed the bumps and I like them. It still feels like a Rhodes, but a bit livelier, faster.

 

 

The evolution of tines was Raymac (1965 to 1971), Torrington (1971 to 197?), then Schagler.

I was unaware of the Schlager. Unless they're nearly indistinguishable from Torrington, the replacements I got in the early 80's were the Torringtons.

 

Anyone know what year Mark I started? The supersite says they dropped the Fender name in 1975. I thought they dropped "Fender" at the same time they adopted "Mark I", but 1975 seems too late.

 

I wish there was a Wiki page someplace where people could give the date stamp on their pianos and identify all the characteristics (pedestal, tines, etc.) No doubt there would be apparent contradictions, because date stamps don't always tell everything, and when switchovers happen, "older" pianos sometimes get the newer design elements. Regardless, it would help nail down all the incremental changes over the years.

[goldphinga]

[video=youtube;HowpTSh0erI]

 

Heres a little vid i made of my 1980 mk2 (now sold) and my 2010 mk7 73 active midi, so you can hear the characters. Both great pianos, though like i was saying earlier about 15 of the white pickups on the mk2 failed and had to be replaced. The pickups on the mk7 also saturate for that thunk sound on the attack and the tines are great too. Note there have been no pickup failures and only 3 recorded broken tines in the 5 yrs that the mk7's were made. This is the iphone mic so the quality isn't as good as direct but you get the idea. PS lets leave any mk7 related politics out of this, im just showing different pianos side by side thats all.

 

PS you know that Vintage Vibe now have the original Torrington Tine machine and are using the Torrinton tines on their new pianos? Scroll down under the link below.

 

http://http://www.vintagevibe.com/c-16-vintage-fender-rhodes-tines.aspx

[redforman]

Lots of mis information about Rhodes here....just a heads up.

[redforman]

There is another pic up just after the second one. It's basicaly the same but with a shorter (1/2 in.) magnet. This yeilds more sustain due to less pull on the tine during decay.