Why did they throw all the controls on the left side of the keys, adding another eight inches of length to the board? That works against the purpose of going down to 64 keys.
That said, I'm interested in trying this. It may still be marginally better for traveling than a PX-x50.
Thats a good point- you could fit 8-9 more keys in that space.
They could have made this 88 keys easily though. It still would have been light.
(insert sarcasim here Possum) On the other hand, they have been reading the numerous posts on this board clamoring for the first ever 64 note weighted keyboard.
My point is the opposite -- by putting the controls across the top, they could have ended up with the first truly portable, piano-like DP.
It's hard to see how this is any more portable than my PX-350, but I'll wait for specs to reach a firm conclusion on that point.
By my back-of-the envelope reckoning, the decision to put the controls on the left adds about six seemingly unnecessary inches to the width of the board (if you think about it as a missed opportunity for enhancing portability by running the controls across the top). Looking at it as Possum PX130 does, it takes away 10 or 11 keys that could otherwise have been included in the same package.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the only other "travel piano" in the ballpark (to my knowledge) is the NP-11. The NP-11 is great for what it is, but that isn't a lot. Unweighted keys, few (if any) usable sounds, little polyphony, etc., etc., etc.
Again, by my rough, back-of-the envelope reckoning, this Roland should be only an inch or two wider than the NP-11 and will offer LOTS more to the serious player. (The NP-11 has 61 keys, but it has speakers at either end of the keyboard, adding more width than the Roland controls.)
In other words, while I'd love for this instrument to be as portable as it could be (or to offer more keys on the same chassis), it may still be a vast improvement on anything else in that niche.
I'm getting interested again, and I look forward to seeing specs and the beast itself.