Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 The pic ups don't "saturate". There is nothing to saturate. The sound you are hearing is the shape of the tine during a hard hit. This shape (waveform) is picked up by the pic up.....extreme flexing has it's own sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 The Real MC wrote: 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. There is another pic up. It's after the second one. It has a 1/2 inch magnet which yeilds more sustain due to reduced tine pull. Also, tines varied era to era, I don't care what anyone says. Not all Raymacs sounded the same. Not all Torringtions sounded the same. Not all shcallers sounded the same. There is ANOTHER...Singer. I have worked more Rhodes than anyone on the west coast. Hit me up if you want to know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 orangefunk wrote: 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. You are right, for the most part. Some techs will tell you otherwise but they are wrong. Yes, a late mk1 will sound like an early mk2. But even then, no way does a '79 sound exactly like an '81 mk2. Now, an early mk1 vs a mk2....not even close. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 ElectricPianoCo wrote: 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%. Mostly false. Perhaps the spirit of what your are trying to say is close to the truth, but no, you are way off. I have worked on over 700 pianos in 25 years and fully restored over 300. For example: A late '75 to very early '77 will have tines that have more highs then what came before, but less less highs then what came after. There is more of pronouced click attack in say a mk2 then a '76 due to the tines. The '76's will sound less 3d and less click, tips notwithstanding. Action is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 Roald wrote: I have a wooden key Mk2...really only the early Mk1s had felt hammers and sounded different. 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! Not so fast. Early mk1's, say from '70 to early '75, sound different than a mk2., hammer tips notwithstanding. You are 100% right about getting a piano and working on it. But, THIS IS LAW....It will only be as good as the tech that worked on it. If you are the tech, well there you go..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redforman Posted May 7, 2013 Members Share Posted May 7, 2013 clusterchord wrote: 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. You are more on target than any other poster my friend. This is coming from a veteran tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.