Music Computing Intros ‘World’s Most Powerful Keyboard Production Station’

Music Computing has announced a new version of the StudioBLADE line of all-in-one music keyboard production stations, calling them ‘the world’s most powerful keyboard production station’.

StudioBLADEs (Gen2) are all-in-one music production stations that offer piano keys, drum trigger pads, knobs, sliders, thousands of sound presets and software for live and studio use. 

Features:

  • High-performance computer cores utilizing Intel Xeon server processors.
  • Options include dual 6-core processors totaling 12-cores, up to 192GB of RAM, and up to 6TB of hard drive storage.
  • The Windows 7 Professional (64-bit) operating system is preconfigured for music production and can run virtually any software application or plug-in.
  • Start with the base configuration with a single processor, one memory module and one hard drive, and add more as needed.
  • The keys are velocity-sensitive, semi-weighted action. Pitch and Mod wheels, as well as octave up and down buttons with indicators are also included.

“The goal was to produce products that would endure the test of time, or even better yet, the increasing shorter product cycles from the computer parts manufactures.” says Victor Wong, CEO. “By using server components, which are supported in terms of years or decades instead of months, the StudioBLADE represents a sound investment that will save its users time and money far into the future”

StudioBLADEs (Gen2) are available in 61-key and an 88-key versions, with pricing starting at $3,499.

30 thoughts on “Music Computing Intros ‘World’s Most Powerful Keyboard Production Station’

  1. The problem with using a computer, as an instrument, is that your instrument is out of date as it rolls off the assembly line. This is a very expensive PC, mishmashed with various other company's products. Bought separately, they probably wouldn't cost half of this asking price

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 1
  2. The same can be said aout any VA instrument. DSP technology in any synth is outdated even before release.

    I am curious how you get PT9 or Live to work with this without endless midi mapping. Do they the provide templates to work with DAWs and plugs?

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  3. ‘World’s Most Powerful Keyboard Production Station’ and they make a song that sounds like that?

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  4. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  5. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  6. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  7. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  8. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  9. The difference – which frankly should be obvious- is that in most cases you don't expect your synth to support the increasingly performance-demanding products of a rapidly advancing software industry for years to come- and your synth's manufacturer would never claim to do so.

    First note: I feel like it's weird that you would want this and be okay with even the upgraded audio interface, a Presonus Firestudio Mobile, but if you barely use any hardware outside of your DAW and/or you don't track with any analog equipment I could see 10×6 being enough connectivity. However I'm surprised there's no "NO Audio Interface" option for customers whose needs aren't met by either- or who already have superior equipment. Still, I understand they must have production costs and they're locked in by what their custom case will accomodate. I won't even get into the fact that they don't specify SAS or high-MTBF storage, because I think 7200rpm desktop drives are probably enough. I still would have liked to see SSD as an option for the secondary drive.

    What I find more troubling is claiming to offer the future-ready long-term support ideology of server hardware without providing some basic information customers would need to make informed choices. Just one example that reveals a lot: They don't specify the processor model. The only information about the processor in these machines is that it's a Xeon, Dual Core @ 2.0GHz, Quad Core @ 2.13GHz and Hex Core at 2.4GHz. All of them have 12MB of L3 cache, according to the main product page. Exactly which current Xeons meet all of those specifications? Intel understands the importance of such things, so let's take a look:
    http://ark.intel.com/MySearch.aspx?s=t&Family

    Apparently Intel has never made any dual core Xeon with 12MB of L3 cache. Is Music Computing underclocking processors for cooling&noise reasons or more likely is this a mistake in the product description? Now take a look at the quad core CPUs, and let's assume it's not a nearly four year old Dunnington processor. That means it can only be a year old low voltage Westmere L5630, which is LGA1366. LGA1366 and Westmere (Nehalem) is going to be superseded by LGA2011 in the next two quarters. But is that even the actual Xeon in these? I can't be sure. So what's wrong with this picture? Is this going to be an upgradeable platform for years to come or is it built on standards which will prevent useful upgrades past 2011/early 2012 technology? If Music Computing specified the manufacturer and model of the motherboard somewhere, maybe we'd know…

    My point is that there's just as much room for obsfucation of the facts and misleading statements about futureproofing in "server components" as there is for desktop components, and in six months a lot of the current server component market will pale in comparison. We're talking 30% performance increases at the same price point, and that's assuming that the processors Music Computing is using are the most current available, i.e. those released in April of this year. I know you probably don't care enough about technology to research these things, but keep in mind that Music Computing knows this too. It's standard practice to summarize the most attractive details when marketing a product, but when a company doesn't even put the details in the fine print, CAVEOT EMPTOR.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  10. The key difference is that you have the option to upgrade this using standard components, which you aren't going to be able to do with any standard synth.

    Obviously, there are pros and cons to this approach, but the flexibility and upgradability are useful and it's good to have an alternative to proprietary keyboard workstations.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  11. Not that this isn't cool and superfluous but It's not as expensive as you guys made it sound like it was.. 3,500 for one is like getting an access virus keyboard which is a borderline softsynth itself, unless I'm falling for a marketing scam and its actually like ten thousand bucks

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  12. at 3,500 for that money I get a virus ti2 desktop and a drum machine and do not have to go further more. this is a big failure and who ever buys this is throwing their money away.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  13. $3500 does in fact get you the basic model with 4gb of memory, a 2ghz processor, and a 500gb hard drive. Price it out to meet reasonable midrange workstation-segment specs of today and you'll see the price rise to about $4600.

    $4600 could buy you a monome64, Livid Ohm64, 61 key keyboard controller of your choosing, 64gb iPad, laptop with better performance than a low voltage value Xeon, Motu 828mkiii, Motu 8pre and flight cases for all of it with around $800-$1000 (assuming you kept the laptop under $1,800) left over for whatever you want (maybe some boutique effects pedals and a KP3 for good measure).

    Nobody is saying $3,500 is a lot to spend on something you love. It's just too much to spend on a StudioBLADE unless you think the custom form-factor case adds over $2000 of value to the components. The "server components" gimmick is 100% marketing; go price out a Dell server with similar specs and you'll realize you haven't broken $1000. Inexpensive server hardware exists, and the copy on the product page for the StudioBLADE is so misleading about the benefits and pitfalls. It's hard to imagine a person caring about music enough to want this who couldn't spend the same amount of money and do much better for themselves.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  14. I'm sure that when the Fender Rhodes, the minimoog and the cs-80 came out there were a lot of haters!
    The good musicians made good music with them. The bad musicians made…bad noise!

    Try something before criticise!

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  15. i'm sure these guys will succeed where open labs failed

    haha

    no, not really

    this is for the musician who wants to put all his eggs into a tissue basket

    this thing is some suckass PC in an expensive box with a shitty audio interface bolted on

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  16. Options include dual 6-core processors totaling 12-cores, up to 192GB of RAM, and up to 6TB of hard drive storage.

    but not for the starting price of $3500.

    For that setup, it's actually $13,992. Deceptive.

    For $13992, you could buy 1 Mac pro with plenty of power and 2 large monitors, an iPad, Apogee rosetta 800 firewire interface, a Yamaha Motif xf 88 key workstation, a pair of monitors, and a moog voyager.

    There is no way in hell, ANY way you look at it, that the Studio-blade is a bargain or a better option for serious musicians. You would have to be wealthy and uninformed to buy one.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  17. This is for black dudes who make pop (I.e. Rap) music. These guys are piano players/”producers” (in the hip hop sense, like tastemaker-disicion makers) who gotta have the biggest most expensive thing. They will take this axe to the studio where the guy they are guest appearing for and theactual engineer will plug it in for them and roll thier eyes. This is for the guy that drives a hyabusa motorcycle because the ad said it was worlds fastest, and that’s it. These types of customers aren’t terabyte and tech heads, they are using presets only, barely touch the surface of the instrument, and sure as he’ll don’t read about electronics all day on the net 😉 more power to them, I’m just saying I would expect it to sell and the people here to hate it.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  18. Wow the spellchecker murdered that post, I don’t even know what the he’l I was talking about! Hehe

    Anyway, how cool would they be if they sold just the cases, and let the DIY community build into em? That would be lots if fun but I guess that’s not as easy as stuffing $1000 worth of Pc parts into it and selling it for $5000 to a “Beat Kang”

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  19. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  20. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  21. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  22. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  23. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  24. Obviously, when Open Labs toppled, the owner(s) managed to shift the hardware out of the bankruptcy. Now he's selling basically the same stuff at the same prices.

    And "the stuff" is still just a PC with a tweaked Windows install, and the price is still way over buying the same gear at Radio Shack.

    See http://www.synthtopia.com/content/index.php?s=ope

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0
  25. I was interested until you got to the Windows 7 part. No. Absolutely never. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of having Windows crash during a performance can understand. The same goes when Windows XP, Vista and 7 popped up a Window asking me if it was OK to defrag my hard drive, update my Anti-Virus, or update Windows. No, No, No, No. I do not want my synthesizer workstation, car, refrigerator, home entertainment system, or computer exposed to such horrible Beta-ware sold as a finished product. Music Computing, go away and come back with a StudioBLADEs that is Microsoft-free and I’ll listen. Until then. Adios.

    Like this comment?: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *