I understand what you're saying, but...


There is not necessarily any greatly increased distance. For example, one of the boards I was talking about using this way is a Korg Liano, which gives me 88 better feeling keys in a very lightweight package (albeit with no aftertouch). Here is a picture. If you imagined moving the "brains" of the PA1000 forward to where the keys are, there would be just a slight increase in height to the controls, and no increase in depth. Top view and side view:





I only use two controls on the Liano... a volume knob, and a sound selector knob which I only move between piano and EP. I can make those adjustment by sliding my fingers into the small gap between the top of the Liano and the board/module above, I do not need to keep them visually exposed. Assuming I even would be using the Liano's own sounds, which is a possibility, but not a certainty.


As an aside, 99% of the time, all I need access to is the screen (which nicely tilts, for when the board is placed higher) and the 4 Variation buttons (which are at the front-most edge). I use a footswitch for start and stop.

If I'm only using the board as a controller (which is a possibility), the bottom board has no display or panel controls I need to get to, so I can bring the module fully forward as I did on the Liano above. But yes, I may also want to use a board that brings its own sounds/functionalities to the table, one of them being the Yamaha CK61. But its control panel is pretty shallow. Here are pics of that setup, with the full CK control surface exposed. Again, imagine if the PA1000 brain was moved to where its keys are in these pics.





That doesn't seem likely to be problematic to me. But if it turns out it is, I'm not tied to using sounds/functions of the board beneath, I can go with the alternate plan of a controller board for which I would need to access to anything behind the keys. (Or, if I just want to access some sounds from it, access them via MIDI, either from an iPhone/iPad or from the PA1000 itself, which can send MIDI Program Changes from within Keyboard Sets.)

I also have boards with sounds with an even shallower control surface that needs to be kept visible than that of the CK61. If I wanted to use a hammer action on some gig, for example, I could make the board one of the Casio Privias I have, which have control surfaces that are noticeably less deep than that Yamaha's.

For the most part, though, I prefer to stick with boards that are lighter than those Privias... it's a matter of how much I want that hammer action in my rig. I did mention that one of the reasons I like the PA1000 module idea is that, besides letting me choose an action I prefer (in # of keys and/or feel), it reduces the number of heavy-ish pieces I need to bring. The PA1000's 23.7 lbs feels heavier than its number indicates. I think because it is back-heavy, and the angle of the side panels provides no comfortable, balanced grip area.

There's another reason this interest me, though. Besides looking for a preferable action and typically a reduction in the # of 20+ lb pieces I need to haul around, in some cases, I like the idea of 3 boards' worth of functionality. There is no single board I can pair with the PA1000 that gives me quite everything I want, for those occasional gigs where I'm in the mood for some creative excess. ;-) The problem is, if I put the PA1000 on the top of a 3-tier setup (which I did for one gig this year), I feel that the PA1000 is a bit too far away. By putting its "brain" above the second-tier board, I can add its functionality to the rig without bringing a whole 3rd board. I could partially have solved that by using it *as* a module even though the whole keyboard was there (that is, have it up there, but play it from one of the bottom 2 boards), but as you were talking about, that puts its controls a further distance away, and it's a heavier piece to bring, and it starts to look overwhelming for some situations, having 3 full keyboards up there. All I need is the cape!

Oh, one more thing...



I was hoping that these module conversions would be reversible, such that I could re-install the brain into the keyboard if desired. Certainly I don't envision myself taking a hacksaw to anything! :-)

Interesting. Good to hear you've put a lot of thought into this!

I'm curious... does the central panel of the 1000 come away from the rest of the front panel without cutting? If it does, that's great! Most arrangers have the entire top surface covered in buttons and sliders. It's major surgery to convert them to modules.

By the way, have you ever tried a Roland BK-7m module? Very small, surprisingly powerful...

Based on the pictures I"ve seen, yes, that seems to be the case. Check this video... lots of pics of the module, but also, at about 52 seconds in, you can see the PA1000 with its brain removed, still otherwise quite intact. It looks like the tinkerer added some multi-pin connectors to facilitate being able to reconnect and disconnect the brain from its original housing on a whim.




That is an indeed an option I am considering. The hesitation is that I already have and use the PA1000, I already know how to get what I need out of it, I love its sounds, and I have lots of songs already set up on it. So it would be gig-ready, as opposed to my learning a new device, hoping to find sounds I like as much, and programming the songs into it.

It's not even really the accompaniment styles that matter per se... I only use their drum rhythms, nothing else. Everything else, I play live. But the combination of a particular drum rhythm (with its variations) with the various split/layered keyboard-playable sounds and their relative volumes, is a lot to have to set up again from scratch for each song.

(I also do more than the basic "1 sound on bottom, up to 3 sounds on top" layer/split arrangements; I do a good amount of assigning the up-to-3 sounds on top each to different key ranges. I don't even know whether the Roland is capable of that, off-hand.)

Have a look at the various Ketron modules before you get the tools out.

Also have a look for a used BK7m, as there reasonably priced these days.

Bill

The Roland's have an EXCEPTIONAL drum sound, a massive selection of kits, and lots of very dynamic styles. But possibly its best feature is its Makeup Tools 'header editor' that is BY FAR the simplest way to not only change kits for a style, but also simple but powerful editing of the sounds within a kit.

They also include kits from Roland's 808, 909 and CR-78 years, along with a huge selection of ethnic kits and great percussion. Their style structure also allows for up to six fills, and four intro/endings. Their style structure main weakness is no actual break/fill, just a break. But if you're using MIDI PC's for division choice, it's easy to repurpose Intro1 (usually a count-in and pickup) as a break/fill.

You'll find that Roland's fills are generally MUCH smoother and more connected than Korg's are, imho.

Quite honestly, as a drum machine module with keyboard sounds, I think there is no equal 🎹❤️😎