Passive Mark I vs. The RetroFlyer - Fender Rhodes Sound Comparison

[@JulianChown]

I love my retro flyer and it's a must have in any Rhodes. Thank you for coming up with this amazing pre and vibrato.

[@avionstudios6463]

Thanks so much so saying Julian! We're very happy to hear it. :) Happy playing!

[@taubennedjensen]

Just installed mine today in my Mark ii - sounds fantastic!!! 😃👌

[@SuneSchack]

That vibe/sound/tremolo. OMG. I need that Retro Flyer, Morgan. I’ll be back 🎹🇩🇰🙈☮️

[@andreievkalupniek5717]

Just ordered mine yesterday!

[@avionstudios6463]

We hope you absolutely love it!

[@davidmorarobles5884]

Hi from Costa Rica! Im saving the money. Hope soon i ll write to you!!

[@avionstudios6463]

Hey David, emails us, we'll see if we can help out. :)

[@monsterjazzlicks]

Very helpful to watch, thanks!

[@chrisbloodclot2193]

I like this unit ! I’ve seen many over the years and the pre sounds good . I would like to see more interesting effects added . Like a phaser or delay . I made these mods to my rhodes and it gives you a touch of Wurlitzer sound with the phaser . I just mounted the pedal internals behind the front panel .Anyway great job and I will buy one one of these ,when I get a spare £ 300

[@avionstudios6463]

Hey Chris, sounds good! We agree, phaser and Rhodes are often very cool together. With the RetroFlyer we had the design limitation of getting the most out of 3 holes in the rail. So tremolo really had to be the one. We also looked at an envelope filter, exciter, compressor etc. Maybe way down the line, haha, but each design takes a ton of R&D. Anyway, appreciate the interest, any questions just let us know. 👍🎹

[@monsterjazzlicks]

You made the right choice in deciding upon including the tremolo effect over other variations.

[@avionstudios6463]

Hey Chris, 6 month follow up! There's a DLX version now with a very flexible active FX loop for adding a multitude of other effect while maintaining sound quality. Sounds killer with phaser! :) G

[@harmonykeys1777]

I love Rhodes piano!!! top

[@rhodes1232]

The output off my Rhodes MKii is so poor and if have to use a DI box and quite a lot of gain off mixer pre amp. It doesn’t even register on my hi-z input. I have not seen any videos comparing the signal to noise ratio of the rhodes output vs a standard mixer channel and the Retroflyer. Will the retroflyer solve my problems?

[@avionstudios6463]

Hey Rhodes123, good question, and generally the answer is yes! It will solve this problem. In this demo we are perhaps overly kind to the passive Rhodes, but in reality a direct comparison is very harsh to the passive controls. In a direct/equal volume comparison the passive Rhodes will be 2-4X quieter than the RetroFlyer. So basically, the RetroFlyer will increase your gain up to about a line level signal and greatly improve the signal to noise ratio. Also because of better impedance matching you'll have better overall clarity and transient response. Hopefully that helps and let us know if you have any other questions! Cheers, Greg at Avion

[@rhodes1232]

Is there an installation video or instructions available online?

[@avionstudios6463]

Hello again! Installation is super easy and the RetroFlyer includes a detailed set of instructions in the manual. For most people it takes around 15 minutes. And of course if you have any questions during the process we're always happy to help. :) G

[@rhodes1232]

I have requested a set of the instructions from the contact us part of your website. To see what i am getting myself into before i buy. Can you reply please?

[@avionstudios6463]

@@rhodes1232 Hey Charlie, looks like you saw our reply shortly after this, we hope you absolutely love your RetroFlyer! Best, G

[@grahampotter742]

Do you have an installation video or instructions for the retro flyer?

[@avionstudios6463]

Hey Graham, excellent question! We do have a video in the works, although we've been somewhat sidetracked as we're expanding our workshop and studio this summer. The RetroFlyer comes with a detailed manual that includes a full set of instructions. We designed things to make installation very simple and it takes most people around 10 minutes. If you have any specific questions now I'd be happy to answer them and of course we're always available to lend support during installation if you have any questions. Cheers, Greg

[@grahampotter742]

@@avionstudios6463 Thanks Greg. I'm still tying to locate a good Mark I stage to buy and when I do I will definitely be buying the Retro Flyer. You don't deal in the pianos as well by any chance?

[@avionstudios6463]

​@@grahampotter742 Oh great! It's honestly such a great unit, we're really proud of it and I hope you absolutely love it. :) We do have a few Rhodes in restoration right now, but as I mentioned everything is sort of paused at the moment as we're in full construction mode. I can look over the stock and see what's coming up/close if you're interested. Probably best to drop us a line via gmail. [e-mail]

[@TheRoiderien]

If you wanted to make a good comparison of the tone, you should have plugged the harp directly into a suitable amp, and set the tone controls for some tone that you liked. Then you could have plugged the harp into your preamp with the equalization set to produce as similar a frequency response as possible. Call me crazy, but I bet the difference in sound quality would have been de minimis if the frequency responses were reasonably well matched. Many people have produced preamps for the Rhodes over the years, and the differences between then almost always devolves to input impedance and equalization. Nowadays, designing a preamp whose noise is virtually undetectable is both cheap and easy. The quality of the tremolo is a separate issue.

[@avionstudios6463]

Hmmm....well making a good preamp, particularly for the Rhodes is not very simple as it's a bit unusual in a number of aspects. I agree the comparison is a bit odd but there is nothing clean or neutral about most amplifiers either. And with so much variation among instrument amplifiers it would perhaps be an even less helpful demonstration. Also, like the Janus and Peterson circuits, the RetroFlyer can produce a line level signal for direct input into mixers/pa. We tried to make the passive components sound as good as possible by adding a high-end signal chain because without that they sounded...well...worse. So we gave the passive stuff a bit of an advantage (as well as a lot of volume matching) to make the comparison a bit more even. Overall however, the point was to show the difference between the original passive circuitry (which thousands of people still use) and the RetroFlyer - which unlike other preamps, retrofits directly in the place of those passive components. Thus the comparison. But sure, if you ignore gain structure, impedance, component quality, design, filtering and the fact that it doubles the on-board usable controls while also adding an effect...I suppose it's somewhat similar to a less expensive op-amp based preamplifier circuit. ;) We'll be adding a comparison video like the one you mentioned at some point in the future, so stay tuned. Cheers!

[@TheRoiderien]

The real issue is that the passive controls load the harp with 10k ohms. If you bypass the passive controls, and plug the harp directly into most guitar amps, you'll be changing the load on the harp to around 1 meg ohm, typically. That makes a big difference in the sound, and I suspect that's what causes much of the sound difference highlighted in your demo. The filter is a good idea, as most Rhodes pianos need a bit of a cut around 200 Hz, give or take, to get rid of the muddiness in the sound. The tremolo also sounds very nice. IMO, before anyone spends money on a preamp, I would suggest that they plug direct from the harp to their amp, and then, based on what they hear, decide if the cost of the preamp is worth it.

[@avionstudios6463]

@@TheRoiderien Appreciate the kind words. Fully agree, everyone should try their Rhodes direct harp! As we mention in another video, that's how we've recorded them for years. And I, Morgen here, worked in a studios around LA for many years recording Rhodes. If we weren't going through a Dyno (or maybe a good Peterson) we'd go direct about 95% of the time to avoid the passive controls. But from an artist or live performer perspective this doesn't really make for the most expressive or functional instrument. Having on board controls is crucial in a live environment or even with studio ensembles. So again, simply the format is a really important benefit. Another thing is gain structure. Wherein people using vintage or otherwise noise-prone amplifiers in a studio or live setting will have much lower overall noise levels due to a better gain structure. Transient response and bass response can also be somewhat dampened by a long or otherwise inadequate cord (or inadequate amplifiers for that matter) as the amplitude and impedance can be an issue. Generally I'm whatever about cord quality within reason, but it's such an unusual output that weak instrument cords often fail it. And you throw the wrong effect pedal in the mix, forget about it! Then of course, not many preamps really suite the Rhodes. At least in my opinion. And the ones we typically chose in the studios were quite expensive. So for a relatively inexpensive preamp design we chose a very good, very detailed preamplifier section and components to get the most out of the fast transient response. And I should add, while somewhat inexpensive, similar preamplifier circuits be found in very expensive consoles. Overall though it's not just about the FET design but also that the whole RetroFlyer was adjusted to work best with the Rhodes - allowing a good circuit to effectively function better than some very expensive signal chains. You have to remember this video (and to some extent the RetroFlyer) exists because thousands of people use their passive controls. Most people are not going to buy a $2-5k signal chain while losing on board controls. I think for the vast majority of passive users the RetroFlyer is the best way they can get studio quality sound (and effect) which will work in more scenarios all while increasing their on board controls. So I think perhaps you're missing a bit of the forrest for the trees here. But I really appreciate your comments, it's a great thing to point out. Our general principle is that we want people to get the most out of their Rhodes. And these discussions only increase knowledge, which is awesome. Cheers mate! - Morgen / Avion Studios

[@Pajamasmakesmusic]

@@avionstudios6463 sold!

[@avionstudios6463]

Awww yeah! We hope you absolutely love the RetroFlyer. 🔥🎹🔥

[@Marijuana-Johnson]

Can I plug headphones straight into it?

[@avionstudios6463]

While the RetroFlyer is not a proper headphone amplifier it does work pretty well with most headphones. Many people use it this way and we haven't heard of anyone having trouble. So basically yes, headphones should work fine. 👍🎹

[@monsterjazzlicks]

Yes, headphones work fine. I have tried 3 pairs and no problems whatsoever.

[@Marijuana-Johnson]

Is it possible to install this on a 1978/79 Mk1 Rhodes suitcase with the Janus preamp that has the sliders? If not, do you sell any replacement name rails for an 88 key? One last thing, out of curiosity. If I were to get a name rail that still had the Fender logo on it, could I replace my old one even though it’s older? Thank you

[@avionstudios6463]

Good question, so the Janus is really the oddball in terms of rails, the spacing is different and even if it weren't it's still a bit awkward placing the RetroFlyer around those slider slots. A few people have done it with rail modification but it's a major mod for sure. We may actually have an 88 rail. Shoot us an email on that one. [e-mail]