
A new type of piano keyboard: The Seaboard - jellyksong
http://www.weareroli.com/
======
Tekker
Although the comments seem against it, I'm for it - I've played piano (and
organ) for some 45 years now. You have to remember that the piano is mainly a
percussion instrument, and there are few options to temper the sound, outside
of sustain and such.

Synthesizers have had the same capability as shown in the video, but you had
to reach to the side and twirl a wheel to get the same effect, which detracts
from the playability.

Initially, this is not suited for traditional classical (probably better for
jazz) but who's to say someone couldn't write a new classical based on this
instrument (although goodness knows what the musical notation would be).

------
the_cat_kittles
I love the idea of creating new instruments that are sensitive to new and
different parameters. I think the seaboard is pretty cool, and it looks like
there are some things you can do with it that you can't do with traditional
midi keyboards (velocity modulation after initial keypress- i think that is
called aftertouch in midi land) and key specific pitch bending.

But it also reminds me of one reason why analogue (acoustic) instruments can
so incredibly powerful: they are ultimately extensible! You don't need to
explicitly describe how the thing will react to input, and its not ignorant
(though maybe not very responsive) of any physical input. Throughout history,
people have been continually discovering new techniques on so many different
instruments, even though some of those instrument's designs have changed very
little. This is, of course, all predicated on a good initial instrumental
design, but it makes me appreciate the wonders of, say, a guitar or piano even
more.

~~~
triplesec
I agree that a great analogue instrument is still greater, but here, given an
electric predicate, this works with what keyboardists already can do, and
makes it not just a percussion instrument (piano, harpsichord), or a timed
note (synth), or a timed note with initial attack control (tracker action pipe
organ). In other words pactically the same interface provides much more
control of more variables much more easily. Whether great playing, music
making and improvising can and does ensue is another issue, but I hope so.

~~~
the_cat_kittles
Its true, you can kind of think of this thing as a pareto improvement over the
current midi keyboards (if you dont mind the different action)

------
gtani
People might want to check out Roger Linn, Ed Goldfarb, Geert Bevin (I'd
really like to have a continuum and eigenharp), and actuated instruments site.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1s-neJs8IY>

<http://actuatedinstruments.com/>

______________________

Also "That 1 guy" "Haaken continuum", Wessel's touchpads (a better
Kaossilator, if you will, and Fluid Piaano

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ci6TmR29OI>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBhR8RLJN8>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_mtCZqN0Ms>

<http://thefluidpiano.com/>

_______________________

(I don't have any nonstandard instruments (except maybe fretless guitar) but
I've thought about this as amateur player of piano/keys, guitar, strings
(cello), woodwinds and former mallet percussionist, how you could combine
mouthpiece and foot controllers with keyboard, how to do glisses, tremolo,
vibrato etc, i.e. shape the attack/decay, timbre and pitch (continuously or as
in Don Ellis' quarter tone music) like you can with cello and clarinet

------
ChuckMcM
I assume it's the way it was shot that not all of the notes that are being
played start or end with movements and/or touches of the keyboard. (not being
snarky, its just noticeable is all) I think its great that people are doing
alternative instruments like this. For a while we've had synthesizers
providing the tone generator for recreated inputs (like the laser harp) but
this gives us more input options.

There is another such "keyboard" which is more like a horizontal bass/chello
fret than a keyboard. I played around on it when it was being demoed at Guitar
Center in San Jose. As a former Trombone player it felt similar in the 'feel'
of the intonation was there rather than explicitly hitting a particular key.
And the ability to 'slide up' or 'slide down' into the correct not if you were
close but not quite. Something I've never been able to do on a keyboard
(although I have heard folks do that)

One of my instruments is an Arrick synth [1] which has a 1V/octave keyboard
(and input) which is handy for prototyping unusual types of input.

[1] <http://www.synthesizers.com>

~~~
coldtea
> _I assume it's the way it was shot that not all of the notes that are being
> played start or end with movements and/or touches of the keyboard. (not
> being snarky, its just noticeable is all)_

So you noticed that but you didn't notice that there is a track playing, and
the performer lays another on top of it?

~~~
ChuckMcM
No I did not notice that they were in the process of laying down additional
tracks. Here on Sunday the site seems to be down but the youtube video
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-bEy9ISpM>) it still there. Listening to
the upper register track (the 'white' room) I still feel the mis-match between
my ear and my eyes (ignoring the base line). Its not a big deal I just noted
it. There has been a lot of 'fakery' in the synth market and so that twitch is
perhaps stronger than it would be for other things.

When I had a Yamaha DX-11 for a while I also had the Yamaha breath controller
(trying to recapture my trombone days I guess :-) but was never really
satisfied with it. Later I really wanted to try a Morrison Digital Trumpet [1]
but really really had a hard time spending $4K on something I might not use
more than a couple of times.

[1] <http://www.morrisondigitaltrumpet.com/>

------
jdietrich
They've got excellent PR, but they're not doing anything particularly novel.
They're advertising a solution to a long-solved part of the puzzle, but saying
nothing about the really difficult bit of electronic music control -
interoperability.

A quick bit of synthesiser history:

Traditional electronic keyboards sense how hard you hit the key with two
switches, set a distance apart vertically. Measure the time between each
switch closing and you have one side of v=d/t. Simple, cheap and all you need
for controlling an emulation of a piano.

That was improved by adding aftertouch, a simple pressure strip underneath the
keybed which provided an additional axis of control. That approach evolved
quite quickly, peaking in 1976 with Yamaha's CS-80 synthesiser, which could
sense both vertical and horizontal pressure on each key polyphonically. This
was a hugely elaborate and expensive instrument but was extremely expressive,
as best heard on Vangelis' soundtrack to Blade Runner.

Progress in this field came to a grinding halt in 1983, with the release of
MIDI, an interoperable standard for electronic music instruments that became
completely ubiquitous. MIDI was a tremendous breakthrough and made all sorts
of previously very difficult things quite easy, but it had all of the usual
failings of a successful standard.

MIDI has left us stuck with design decisions from 1983, the worst of these
being the incredibly low data-rate. MIDI is an 8-bit protocol, operating at
31.25kbaud. The standard doesn't include any means of transmitting expression
data other than velocity on a per-note basis. You can bend the pitch of all
the notes currently sounding, but not one note out of a chord. If you try and
send too much controller information over a channel, the timing goes to pot as
you run out of bandwidth.

There's an obvious problem of platform lock-in, which nobody seems able to
break - a controller of this type can't usefully control any existing sound
source. There are numerous extant controllers of similar sophistication to the
Seaboard, but they've all failed commercially because of their inability to
usefully control existing sound generators.

The hoped-for solution to this problem is the Open Sound Control protocol, but
this faces numerous problems. The most obvious is that MIDI is deeply
entrenched, to the point that its shortcomings are rendered non-obvious to
most musicians - our sense of the boundaries of electronic music are often
inseperable from the limits of MIDI, so we don't often think about the sounds
that we're unable to make with current technology. The other big issue is that
of all reforms of old standards - an inability to manage scope and complexity.

The developers of OSC are obviously fearful of repeating the problems of MIDI,
so they've gone in completely the opposite direction and designed a totally
open-ended protocol. This has massively limited adoption of OSC by musicians,
because it's extremely difficult to understand. A MIDI message is just a
single byte and it's not too difficult to memorise the entire protocol - until
the development of graphical computer-based sequencers, it was quite common to
tidy up a recorded sequence of MIDI messages in a hex editor - any given MIDI
message was just a single octet. OSC is designed to deal with every possible
edge case, which of course makes it needlessly complex for the most common
use-cases.

Controllers like these are doomed to niche appeal unless the manufacturers
focus on the real problem - how to use the control data they generate in a
manner which is both musically useful, and comprehensible to the musician.

The last major attempt was the Eigenharp, which used a bespoke software suite
with a number of software instruments specifically designed for the
instrument. It garnered a great deal of attention in the popular press, but
nobody has made any worthwhile music with it yet.

~~~
colanderman
_MIDI is an 8-bit protocol, operating at 31.25kbaud._

False. That is but one transport option for MIDI data. USB-MIDI is another,
much higher bit-rate protocol.

 _The standard doesn't include any means of transmitting expression data other
than velocity on a per-note basis._

False. MIDI provides polyphonic aftertouch as a standard (i.e. not NRPN or
SysEx) message type.

 _If you try and send too much controller information over a channel, the
timing goes to pot as you run out of bandwidth._

Again false, if you're using a more modern transport such as USB-MIDI.

 _A MIDI message is just a single byte_

False; this tells me you haven't read the MIDI spec. This is not true of
either the messages themselves (which are generally multi-byte messages) nor
of the message types (which are a single nibble for the basic types, 7 bits
for the controller types, and 14 bits for each of RPN and NRPN messages).

~~~
some1else
Many OSC based applications for the monome[1] were ported to work with the
copy-paste-avalanche of grid controllers (Launchpad, APC). The USB-MIDI data
rate limitations are clearly visible when trying to change the state of 64
keypads at once. 64 individual signals with 8ms latency completely break the
flow[2], compared to a single optimized OSC message.

Your counterpoints are correct, but MIDI is a better choice over OSC only due
it's widespread compatibility. However, it's pointless to stick to USB-MIDI in
the long run. It couldn't support the more complex DIY controller requirements
as far as 6 years ago, so I can only imagine the chasm increasing.

A new inter-operable standard that surpasses MIDI and OSC was envisioned back
on 2009 called ioFlow[3], but unfortunately it hasn't taken off yet.

P.s.: The website the story refers to is returning a 403, so my comment is
here only to support the claim, that starting out with MIDI in 2013 is not the
best idea.

Edit: Now that the site is online, I can respond to the product itself. It's
probably a good fit for keyboard musicians, but I'd recommend the true hacker
to pick up this indy marvel: Madrona SoundPlane-A[4], which has been in
development for approximately 4 years. The concept is very, very similar. But
it's not bound to the linear piano scale like the Roli. You can play it like
guitar frets or better yet, explore 2 dimensional note layouts, such as the
ones invented by Euler[5], popularized by Kaosscilator and now Ableton Push.
Also, it runs on OSC, so you can enjoy the low latency, and build your own
paradigms by transforming the signals in Cycling 74 Max or other OSC capable
programming environments.

[1] <http://monome.org/>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)>

[3] <http://ioflow.berlios.de/>

[4] <http://madronalabs.com/hardware>

[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnetz>

~~~
daeken
> The USB-MIDI data rate limitations are clearly visible when trying to change
> the state of 64 keypads at once. 64 individual signals with 8ms latency
> completely break the flow[2], compared to a single optimized OSC message.

Can't agree enough. I picked up a Launchpad since it was cheap and looked fun
to hack on. I wrote a Python module to talk to it and then watched it chugging
along while writing a sequencer on it; the bandwidth just isn't there to do
intelligent updating of the pads. It is a fun little device, though, and I
can't wait to get my Push to continue the work (the protocol seems to be more
sane, given what Ableton is doing with it)

------
adventured
Interesting product, really terrible website.

I know the rolling page layouts are popular these days, but in this case it
just looks bad. Lots of transparency around text, which makes some of it hard
to read or focus on.

The navigation at the top left should always display all the sections (I
shouldn't have to mouse over the little cubes to reveal what they are).

When the nav text for "technology" passes over the blue background text quote
area, it nearly disappears.

The grey block area with "what the press are saying" is some kind of twisted
attempt at straining my eyes by putting tiny grey text on a grey block in a
larger grey area. Why would anybody do that to text?

The we are ROLI block near the bottom is a transparent nightmare for the text
meant to be read.

The form at the bottom at least pops out a bit, but still suffers from a heavy
abuse of transparency with text on it.

~~~
skore
I was astonished by the loading times. Click an article in the "News" section
and it takes about 5-10 seconds (while looking at the huge spinner) to load.
That's ages for one paragraph of text and a 900x600 .jpg. For a quick reader,
the page takes longer to load than to read. That's not good.

------
ccoggins
A professor I had in college created something very similar back in the 90's.
He would have them in the lab occasionally and they were pretty interesting to
play. <http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/>

~~~
zerohp
He is my professor now. He showed a video of Dreamtheater with it on our first
day.

~~~
daeken
Interestingly, Jordan Rudess of Dream Theater is involved with this product.

------
triplesec
A good interview by Rory Cellan Jones from the BBC:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21699459> This looks like an awesome
product, in the real sense of the word.

------
canibanoglu
Seen this one a couple days ago and I honestly can't understand what the hype
is all about. I've been playing the piano for 11 years now and I can't see
myself or any classical pianist using this product. I'm aware that this is
most likely not intended for classical musicians but still, I fail to see the
reason to change the design of an instrument that's been around for a very
long time in one form or another. Change for the sake of change is pointless.

~~~
klodolph
Sigh.

I've been playing piano for... over two decades now, and additional ways of
modulating synthesized sound are welcomed with open arms. There are songs I
play where I wish so hard that I had polyphonic aftertouch on my keyboard, but
alas, it has monophonic aftertouch only. I play a lot of classical, and I even
want modulation there.

Your concerns... they are carbon copies of the same complaints people had
about the introduction of the piano in the early 18th century!

Nowadays, the idea that you'd play "The Well-Tempered Clavier" on anything BUT
a piano relegates you to a niche in classical (or rather baroque) music,
despite the fact that the songs were written for the harpsichord. The
assumption that the piano will be how we play Beethoven 50 years from now --
well, I'm sure the piano will still be alive and well in 2063...

Instruments come and go, it's the music that lives on.

~~~
canibanoglu
The jump from the harpsichord to piano was a huge one but the key profile
didn't change as much as this. Integrating new technologies with instruments
is all good and dandy but we're now fabricating the sounds with computers.
We're changing the way these instruments function and we're changing the way
we interact with them.

My concerns may be similar to those of 18th century people but the changes
that we're experiencing now are not similar to the changes they experienced.
We don't have the technology to replicate the acoustic sound of a piano. And I
quite honestly don't see this being used to perform classical music. I'm not
talking about all the stuff (mind you, I'm very partial to calling these
music) that's being "composed" these days, I'm talking about the music up to
the 1950s.

I'd like to touch on another aspect of your post, you say that you want
modulation and polyphonic aftertouch when you play the piano. And you say that
it's the music that lives on. For classical music, the music is the
composer's, s/he composed the music with the limitations of his/her era and
re-interpreting their music with new technologies in ways they didn't even
imagine. This is not making their music live on as far as I'm concerned.

Basically my point is that, considering that I only play classical music, I
don't see a use for this. It's good to read about it but I don't think that
this will ever be used for classical music performance. And no, I don't mean
the odd youtube videos here and there, I mean used for performance by concert
pianists.

I believe I'm entitled to my opinion about this. It's a cool piece of tech but
it's just that. The fact that Jordan Rudess from DT endorses this doesn't mean
anything to me. He's not a classical music performer (although he has been
educated as one) and this may be good for his uses. I'll be amazed if Martha
Argerich or Maurizio Pollini say that they will use this product.

And just a little note, and I know this can sound like I'm attacking you but
I'm not, I'm just trying to share a bit of information. The pieces in The
Well-Tempered Clavier are not "songs" per se, they are individual pieces. Song
is another form in classical music and employs the use of human voice.

~~~
guelo
I'm not a musician, and I don't like going around the internet calling people
names, but I'm sorry, you come off as stodgy. From reading your comments and
watching a couple of Jordan Rudess videos I'm pretty sure that I'd rather
watch him playing than you. Just saying.

~~~
canibanoglu
That was far from my intent to be honest. Between me and Jordan Rudess, I'd
rather watch him as well. But between Jordan Rudess and Martha Argerich I'd
watch her playing. This is just another form of labelling stuff. Just because
a well known and talented performer is backing something doesn't mean it's
going to be useful. Then again my comment was only concerned with how this
relates to classical music.

------
mullr
I'm very suspicious of this and related products.

The thing that's really great about all our acoustic musical instruments is
that when you push on them, they _push back_. I don't mean this simply in the
normal force sense. Consider a guitar. You've got a string which you press
over a fret with your left hand. This can be naively emulated by a switch. But
with the guitar, the timber and pitch change depending on _how_ you fret the
note, on the finger pressure and position and motion. With your other hand,
you might be plucking the string in any of a number of different places, with
your finger or with a pick. The sound is affected by your attack angle, how
hard you pick, the pick's composition, and so on.

A guitar string is clearly a complicated system. There are lots of variables
at play. But more importantly, it's a _coherent_ system. It makes sense to us
a physical object that can be manipulated. When you pluck the string, you can
feel it vibrate in your fretting hand. When you bend the string its tension
increases. If you amplify it, you get the sense that you are physically
_touching_ the sound.

(This is incidentally, why audio latency absolutely KILLS when doing amp
simulation)

The experience playing a wind instrument is similar. While a saxophone may
appear to be something you blow into that has keys, things are really far more
complicated than that.

Keyboard-based instruments are a little different. Unlike most any symphonic
instrument, the piano actually has relatively few parameters per key. There's
note velocity... and that's about it. The various sustain pedals also apply.
The piano's design trades single note expressivity for the ability to play ten
of them at once.

It should be noted that computer synthesis (procedural or sampled) of
keyboard-based is very convincing. They same cannot be said for any other
instrument.

Now, what about new kinds of control systems? Most of them tend to fall into
two categories. One tries to improve on the piano harmonically, by coming up
with a better arrangement of where the notes go. Here's an overview of some:
[http://sequence15.blogspot.jp/2010/03/alternative-
keyboards....](http://sequence15.blogspot.jp/2010/03/alternative-
keyboards.html). They try to fix the fact that it's hard to play in different
keys on a piano. Whereas on the guitar you can learn a single scale or chord
and move it up and down the neck to transpose, things change radically on a
piano keyboard.

The second category is those like the Seaboard, which try to add new
dimensions of control to a regular piano keyboard. Another example is the
Contiuum (<http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/>) It's very common now to have
both velocity and continuous pressure sensitivity (aftertouch) on a regular
keyboard as well as various side controllers for dealing with pitch or an
abstract "modulation" parameter.

These controllers nearly always buy into the separation of control from
synthesis. It makes perfect technical sense. But most of the instruments we
would consider to be "expressive" don't work that way! In fact piano-style
instruments are pretty much the only ones that do.

Which leads my to my point: A control mechanism should be considered together
with the instrument it controls. It's fantastic that this new keyboard has all
these new dimensions that you can map to sound, but what is it REALLY good
for? What is the instrument that _wants_ to be controlled in this way? The
spiffy new control surfaces nearly always leave this problem unsolved and thus
remain little more than novelty items.

~~~
jdietrich
Your argument doesn't hold water.

The classical pipe organ, often referred to as "the king of instruments", is a
synthesiser. The organ console is an electrical or pneumatic controller, with
no direct connection to the pipes. Most large organs have considerable
"latency", due to the distance from the console to the pipe room. Some pipes
may be as much as a hundred feet away from the player, so the sound will take
over 90ms to reach them - several orders of magnitude more delay than a modern
computer system.

The organ is still regarded as a highly expressive instrument, in spite of the
relatively modest control a player has beyond simple pitch and duration.
Although most organs have many stops which provide similar timbres to existing
instruments, it is understood that the organ is an instrument in its own right
and should be played as such, and is not merely a tool for emulating other
instruments.

The idea that an electronic instrument should imitate acoustic instruments is
simply a poverty of imagination. Electronic instruments, used in a manner that
is sympathetic to their natural properties, can be absolutely as expressive as
any acoustic instrument. The theremin has perhaps the worst user-interface of
any musical instrument as the player has _no physical contact with the
instrument whatsoever_ , but is utterly beautiful when played by a master.

The challenge for electronic musicians is that they are often both performer
and instrument-maker. A monosynth of any quality can be configured in a near-
infinite variety of ways, many of which were completely unforeseen by the
designer. Musicians working with modular systems or DSP programming
environments have a blank canvas. We do not as yet have a good theoretical
framework for this task, but electronic music is extremely young - no more
than ninety years old at most. We are only just beginning to scratch the
surface of what is possible.

~~~
colanderman
_Most large organs have considerable "latency",_

You don't even need to go as far as organs to see latency.

Low-pitched stringed instruments such as fretless/upright bass guitars have
latency due to the mechanics of the strings themselves; e.g. jazz bass players
have to account for this when playing. Most good jazz bass players do this
unconsciously.

Polyphonic reed instruments (e.g. harmonicas, melodicas, accordions) all have
this issue as well. Reeds of significant mass (i.e. lower-pitched reeds) can
take tenths of a second to sound (more on older instruments).

Also: if you can feel the string in your _fretting_ hand vibrate on a fretted
instrument, you're doing it wrong. (The string does not vibrate past the fret
-- that's the point of frets! If it does, you're not pressing firmly enough
and you get fret buzz. Either that or your finger's on the wrong side of the
fret and you're muting the sound.)

~~~
eric_h
"if you can feel the string in your fretting hand vibrate on a fretted
instrument, you're doing it wrong."

Generally the entire body of an acoustic guitar vibrates with the sound of a
plucked string - the fretting hand (being the only hand currently attached to
the guitar) would likely feel the vibration carrying from the body, through
the neck of the guitar. It's faint, but nevertheless perceivable.

~~~
triplesec
furthermore, a non-fretted instrument such as the cello, violin, fretless bass
etc does give you good haptic feedback.

------
Kiro
Why all this negativity? I think it looks awesome and I want to buy one right
now.

~~~
smosher
The reason their product hasn't been dominating the market for the past 20
years is not because they were the first to dream it up (they weren't, though
there appear to be some incremental improvements here), it's because you can't
get it to talk to the other $50k+ worth of equipment in your studio.

~~~
Kiro
The only piece of hardware in most studios is the computer. I don't see any
problems getting it to work with my DAW and synths through USB.

~~~
smosher
That doesn't add up, unless you're counting everyone with a trial version of
fruity loops on their system as having a studio. But even then, I think it's a
stretch (everyone I know who does any kind of music production has at least
$1k in non-computer hardware.)

How exactly do you expect to get this to work with your existing tools? It's
obviously not usefully MIDI-compatible.

~~~
shardling
A guitar or piano isn't MIDI compatible, and that hardly matters.

 _If_ the instrument could really stand on its own, then compatibility isn't a
problem.

~~~
smosher
Sure, but when you depend on synthesis compatibility is a big deal. History
seems to support that, with respect to other novel electronic instruments. I
was just now responding to a claim that this will work with existing
synthesizers.

While I would like to have this kind of control, I would much rather have the
flexibility that a standard MIDI keyboard with aftertouch affords with respect
to synthesis.

~~~
cma
It is midi compatible, it just uses 10 separate channels.

~~~
smosher
Which is utterly useless in a 1:1 channel:instrument configuration. Most of my
MIDI hardware expects to listen on a single channel, as does most I've come
across.

My plugin/VST host doesn't know about this either, so I would need to assign
10 different MIDI channels _and_ all 10 CCs every time I want to change
instruments. And for those instruments without a per-note bend, I would need
to create 10 instances as well.

------
baby
I feel like most of the stuff that surround us were created THIS way because
we just didn't have the technology to make it better yet. That's what I see
with those new Pianos and also with the 48fps movies
[https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-
per-s...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-
second/10150222861171558)

------
tomsthumb
As far as interesting musical interfaces go, the axis 64 is the most amazing
thing I've ever seen from a conceptual standpoint. It's like someone just laid
down the same of all of these relationships that make music work and put into
something your hands can push on. What's weird is that even though it's just
an /interface/ it makes the /concepts/ easy to grasp, manipulate, etc.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7OeRkXWTtQ>

------
andrewcooke
the site seems to be mostly down; the demo video is here -
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-bEy9ISpM>

------
paperkettle
<http://madronalabs.com/> makes something called the Soundplane - it feels
like a present someone sent me from the future.

So nice to touch. A high resolution / super responsive controller.. of wood!
Maybe I'm just not enough of a cyborg but the wood surface made the Haken
Continuum (wetsuit material) far less compelling. I worry the same thing of
the Seaboard.

------
danpalmer
I'm not musical – I can't play an instrument and I don't analyse the music I
listen to. But I like listening to music, and to me, this sounds worse than a
normal keyboard/piano. It looks (and sounds) really difficult to produce a
precise note with, so I wonder if it will take off at all.

------
brownbat
Since the site is crushed, here's a demo on youtube that seems to get some of
the point across: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-bEy9ISpM>

------
hfsktr
The cached version worked but the site kept giving me 403 errors.
Unfortunately I know so little of music/keyboards that I couldn't really tell
the difference between this and any other keyboard.

------
khromov
Looks like something from a Cronenberg movie!

