Hi Sheriff!
As a former K2000 and K2500 owner I can only confirm. Even though I have spent lots of time complaining about Kurzwell’s reliability and odd power related problems (LFOs slowing down, patch storage corruption, unit not responding to program changes properly etc) I have to agree with you a hundred percent. They are indeed a good investment. Both as synthesizers and samplers.

Regarding your uncertainty on wether the software instruments reach toward the possibilities of hardware instruments or not:
Even though you may realize this already, it all depends on what you mean by possibilities.

If we are speaking about sampling, than the software is far ahead. It allows you to load and store samples faster, process them in almost any way that you want and pretty much load as many samples as your computer can handle. Another major advantage is that the software instruments stream wav (or many other types of audio files) directly from a hard disc, so they do not require 10 gigs of RAM to load 10 gigs of sounds. A few workstations capable of streaming audio directly from the hard drive use that feature for hard disc recording, but not sampling. So sadly, if anyone tries to load a 1.5 gigabyte piano sound on their Triton, Motif or Phantom, they are pretty much screwed. A plug-in like “Ivory” will do it on a fly on a 400-600 (and higher) machine. PC or Mac, whatever. They’ll handle it better then any hardware workstation.

Speaking of synthesis and versatility of different software instruments in that respect will take at least a two hundred page essay that I am not willing to write unless somebody pays me to. LOL
But just to summarize that unexisting essay, I have to point out the obvious. Software synths not only provide any form of synthesis that ever existed, but they often take it further. Such is the case with soft instruments like FM7, Pro 53, CS80 V, Moog Modular V, Minimoog V, Oddity, Absynth, Ultra Focus, Ultra Analog etc.

Using a totally different engine, the emulations surely lack some of the tone characteristics of the original analog, wavetable, FM synths etc ; in return they provide tone qualities and features that make them more useful in a context of today’s styles of music and certain expectations as far as sound is concerned.

As I have pointed out before, the little differences in tone are something that most users are not necessarily aware of. As far as 80 percent of users are concerned, they are playing the Minimoog when they use Arturia’s Minimoog V and the Odyssey when they use Gmedia’s Oddity.

Honoring the habbit of having agreed with you so many times I have to yet again do the same. Yes, it is always good to mix hardware and software instruments. Especially if you have understanding and awareness of their differences. That way you are able to create the right context for both to be used at their best.

Surely this also applies to the hardware workstations of today. There are environments and contexts where their use is absolutely indispensable. My studio is just one of those environments.

Dave(AKA Hauschild),

You were pretty accurate in your observation. The Motif synths are more in demand. For a good reason too.
They deliver a lot for the money. My ES8 with its weighted piano action keyboard and external controls makes an ideal master controller in my studio. I am also a piano player so I prefer the heavy and slow key action as in oppose to the light and semi-weighted feel found on Roland and Korg 88 note workstations.
Its external controls allow for easy real time control and editing of the software instruments as well as real time control of the parameters of audio tracks.

As a synth the Motif is very versatile. Even without the plug-in boards added it is a state of the art synth. Using its features I was able to create pretty convincing emulations of some of my favorite synths like the Wavestation, O1/W, Waldorf Microwave, E-mu Morpheus, Roland’s JD800, D50, JX3P, Yamaha CS80, DX7, FS1R and the list goes on.

SO as a synth junkie, a programmer and a producer I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that the Motif is only good for orchestral sounds. Either they haven’t explored the Motif as a synthesizer or we are talking about different things.

As I said before, with the plug-in boards added it is a monster instrument. Mine is expanded with AN1x Analog modeling board (that models analog and analog modular synths and allows for some really complex programming and is capable of making some really convincing analog textures), DX board (which adds good old FM synthesis as we know it and love it) and a VL Phisical Acoustic modeling board (which uses Physical modeling to generate very realistic acoustic sounds and some unusual and complex synth sounds as well). I use both BC (breath controller) and a WX (A controller that resembles a wind instrument) to control the sounds on the VL board and the results are just amazing.

Something like Roland Phantom is limited to only sample playback synthesis. It is not at all capable of producing sounds that the Motif can. Korg’s equivalent of analog and acoustic modeling is quite interesting and allows for some really creative programming but it is somewhat limited comparing to VL and N1x synth engines.

Since you are planning to explore the software side of things I recommended an S90. Think of an S90 as a Motif ES 8 but without certain features. Features that you will not miss if you will have a decent audio card and a good audio/sequencer software like Cubase SX, or Sonar.
In fact most Pros go for the S90 for that very reason. They do not need an on-board sequencer, on-board sampling and other bells and whistles that are better done with software.


You have mentioned that you are a piano player on a few occasions so I naturally assumed that the weighted keys will suit your needs best. SO that leaves out the Phantom, Phantom X, Motif ES6 and ES7. simply because they use light plastic keys.

The Roland Phantom 88 (or whatever the 88 note Phantom workstation is called) uses semi-weighted fast action keys. They do not match my style of playing as a piano player ). They do not really match my style of playing as a synth and organ player (for that I use controllers with light action.
Of coarse it is very individual. So obviously you will need to make that choice for yourself.

Even if you decide that Phantom is right for you (sound wise and keyboard wise) it will be the right choice for you. The reason why I am pushing the software side of things is because it costs less and delivers more in a long run. The only things you will need to update will be the software itself. Eventually you will need to replace your computer too , but we all have to do it anyway. Something like an S90 or a Phantom (or any other decent workstation-controller) will last you for as long as USB and MIDI will be around.