That would be an amazing show.

bosanquet-wilson layout ftw!!! if you're willing to go outside of 12tet, try a porcupine layout! (3\22 of an octave to the right and 4\22 upwards) it works on the linnstrument even better than bosanquet-wilson because the octaves drift diagonally slower

Hi, did you have any success? I’m planning on doing a teensy synth with polyphony and VS too but I don’t know how to achive VS or after touch

@@pablobaccelli5154 To give you some Ideas. I am working on a version with linear hall effect sensors and using a series of Multiplexors to reduce the IO consumption of pins on the Teensy. If you look at Koop's code, he tracks the difference in timing between the two switches activation time. In my case for that standard velocity detection, I poll for a minimum Analog value that signifies activation and then I poll the same pin and Multiplexor channel for the desired Max value. from that I can determine the activation times in a similar way. For aftertouch you would just scan this looking for a reduction in value and time accordingly. Alternatively, you could just translate the analog value to MIDI Volume and the speed at which you withdraw your fingers would just be translated directly.

That's subjective. Many people prefer the warbly nature of 12-TET

@@Persun_McPersonsonIt is and it isn't. Consciously it can be subjective. Unconsciously, no, it is how our brains hear and interpret music holistically. Also, Pythagorean tuning does warble, but unlike 12 tet, it warbles consistently and the warbling rhythm is harmonic in nature to the sounding pitches.

@@RememberGodHolyBible Any actual evidence that we unconsciously hear music in Pythagorean tuning? Because it sounds like you're spouting pseudoscientific nonsense with that explanation. Our brains hear music in whatever tuning it's been brought up to hear it in. By "warbly" I meant the specific "clashing" kind of warble that you get with 12-TET that some people cite as undesirable. I should have worded it more accurately, though.

​@@Persun_McPersonsonscience can't prove something like this, and I am not claiming it to be science. You only have your experience, and polling, and logical analysis. Science only can prove the cause of a naturally occurring phenomenon. That is very far outside the scientific method and what it is capable of. You cannot formulate a sound hypothesis on this issue in terms of science. But there have been polls done that show an overwhelming preference for Pythagorean tuning over meantone. But if you are not convinced from hearing this notion and music in Pythagorean tuning which you can hear on my channel, I would consider two things. 1. Timbre - timbre plays a big role in how we consciously perceive intonation, but if something sounds off, the issue could be the timbre and not the intonation of the fundamental pitch. Today most people are only expose to electronic music and fake timbres from fake instruments. And this can and does condition the ear. and more importantly 2. Historically speaking - music, diatonic music, as a system is always conceived of as the intervals derrived from a chain of unbroken fifths. Whether the pentatonic scale, or the regular old major and minor scale. Those notes, the letter names, the whole concept of sharps and flats, and our whole music notation system comes from the fact that a chain of fifths and those notes' octave doublings are the foundation of all music theory and notation. 12 TET was adopted because it very closely approximates Pythagorean tuning, but limits the system to having only 12 notes and the Pythagorean comma is dispersed among all intervals save the octave. But anecdotally people hear the Pythagorean 3/2 perfect fifth as pure and in tune over the 12 tet perfect fifth. 12 tet was not adopted sooner because people did not prefer it, in China for example, it had been known about for a very long time, but was not adopted because of how impure the harmony was. 12 tet is a product of modernity, of being open to compromise that which is good to do that which you want in an easier way. It uses irrational numbers, and so is an irrational tuning system. If music is from a chain of fifths, octave reduced, than it is only natural that that when the fifths and octaves are close simple harmonics, the notes obtained are the intervals our brain understands. Everything in frequencies in ratios between powers of two in relation to powers of three. I used to prefer 5 limit intonation, but that isn't how your brain hears music holistically. Holistically, it is very out of tune especially when scrutinized and put through tests, in different pieces of music in various timbres. 12 tet is just slightly detuned Pythagorean. People may prefer something lesser, but that does not make the quality completely subjective. When you spend a lot of time tuning and retuning pieces as I have, you see, and hearing 12 tet and then Pythagorean, and comparing against different timbres, it is clear what the true intonation is. When I say holistically in tune, I mean that the music is simultaneously perfectly coherent to a relaxed yet aware state of consciousness both vertically, that is harmonically, and horizontally, that is melodically. Pythagorean tuning is the only tuning where you get both dimensions in tune at once. There is a reason our writing system for music has more than 12 notes, it has over 21 with just the naturals, sharps, and flats, not to mention the double sharps and flats and beyond. The reason our system of music is not based on 12 like 12 tet is, is because music itself is not based on 12. 12 is an important number in music, but it is in no way a fundamental backdrop on pitch class in general, locally it can serve as a backdrop, but not in terms of functional harmony or in terms of the infinite spiral of fifths. Even for the vicinity of C major you need 7 naturals five flats, and five sharps, for a total of 17, 12 is not enough. Another reason that our notation system is not based on 12 pitch classes, is because you can't really make a 12 tone music notation system that is better than our current Pythagorean one, because again, 12 does not go together with our music, and how we perceive music, it is not fundamental enough. When in 12 tet, you can tell there is something off because you have multiple names for the same pitch, for no real apparent reason. When dealing in Pythagorean tuning suddenly all of music theory makes sense as does our music notation system. All the seemingly arbitrary parts are seen and heard as logical and coherent.

@@Persun_McPersonson ​ science can't prove something like this, and I am not claiming it to be science. You only have your experience, and polling, and logical analysis. Science only can prove the cause of a naturally occurring phenomenon. That is very far outside the scientific method and what it is capable of. You cannot formulate a sound hypothesis on this issue in terms of science. But there have been polls done that show an overwhelming preference for Pythagorean tuning over meantone. But if you are not convinced from hearing this notion and music in Pythagorean tuning which you can hear on my channel, I would consider two things. 1. Timbre - timbre plays a big role in how we consciously perceive intonation, but if something sounds off, the issue could be the timbre and not the intonation of the fundamental pitch. Today most people are only expose to electronic music and fake timbres from fake instruments. And this can and does condition the ear. and more importantly 2. Historically speaking - music, diatonic music, as a system is always conceived of as the intervals derived from a chain of unbroken fifths. Whether the pentatonic scale, or the regular old major and minor scale. Those notes, the letter names, the whole concept of sharps and flats, and our whole music notation system comes from the fact that a chain of fifths and those notes' octave doublings are the foundation of all music theory and notation. 12 TET was adopted because it very closely approximates Pythagorean tuning, but limits the system to having only 12 notes and the Pythagorean comma is dispersed among all intervals save the octave. But anecdotally people hear the Pythagorean 3/2 perfect fifth as pure and in tune over the 12 tet perfect fifth. 12 tet was not adopted sooner because people did not prefer it, in China for example, it had been known about for a very long time, but was not adopted because of how impure the harmony was. 12 tet is a product of modernity, of being open to compromise that which is good to do that which you want in an easier way. It uses irrational numbers, and so is an irrational tuning system. If music is from a chain of fifths, octave reduced, than it is only natural that that when the fifths and octaves are close simple harmonics, the notes obtained are the intervals our brain understands. Everything in frequencies in ratios between powers of two in relation to powers of three. I used to prefer 5 limit intonation, but that isn't how your brain hears music holistically. Holistically, it is very out of tune especially when scrutinized and put through tests, in different pieces of music in various timbres. 12 tet is just slightly detuned Pythagorean. People may prefer something lesser, but that does not make the quality completely subjective. When you spend a lot of time tuning and retuning pieces as I have, you see, and hearing 12 tet and then Pythagorean, and comparing against different timbres, it is clear what the true intonation is. When I say holistically in tune, I mean that the music is simultaneously perfectly coherent to a relaxed yet aware state of consciousness both vertically, that is harmonically, and horizontally, that is melodically. Pythagorean tuning is the only tuning where you get both dimensions in tune at once. There is a reason our writing system for music has more than 12 notes, it has over 21 with just the naturals, sharps, and flats, not to mention the double sharps and flats and beyond. The reason our system of music is not based on 12 like 12 tet is, is because music itself is not based on 12. 12 is an important number in music, but it is in no way a fundamental backdrop on pitch class in general, locally it can serve as a backdrop, but not in terms of functional harmony or in terms of the infinite spiral of fifths. Even for the vicinity of C major you need 7 naturals five flats, and five sharps, for a total of 17, 12 is not enough. Another reason that our notation system is not based on 12 pitch classes, is because you can't really make a 12 tone music notation system that is better than our current Pythagorean one, because again, 12 does not go together with our music, and how we perceive music, it is not fundamental enough. When in 12 tet, you can tell there is something off because you have multiple names for the same pitch, for no real apparent reason. When dealing in Pythagorean tuning suddenly all of music theory makes sense as does our music notation system. All the seemingly arbitrary parts are seen and heard as logical and coherent.

yes chromatics are more of a zigzag.

Yes it's a big trade off. With WH, scale tones are made super easy on a diatonic scale. Chromatic runs are made harder. It's a trade-off that's totally acceptable to me

You would likely need to devise a new way to map the keys. As such it would no longer be anything I could conceive of looking like Wiki-Hayden or Harmony.

He uses activation times to determine it. this is much like many modern keyboards. the difference is in the switch type choices.

@@dracozny can you elaborate? what you do you mean by "activation times"? measuring the timing different between the actual keyboard switch and the tactile switch beneath it?

There is a second switch below every cherry switch that gets pushed down by the stem of the cherry switch. By knowing the time delay between pushing the first and the second switch you know exactly the velocity.

I guessed as much, but didn’t find the information. I just finished a 49 key keyboard, in my next project I will try to make a velocity, sensitive keyboard.

it would work

on a concertina your fingering for cords would be sideways. I would think that would cause unnecessary turning of the wrist and be very uncomfortable. the benefit to this design is that your left and right hand can play close together and not have to do strange over and under passes to hit keys. Sure it looks great but it's definitely a challenge. this instead relies on conservation of movement.

its standard MIDI, so it is OS agnostic.

By the way, super cool project! You got a new subscriber!

yes. It's a little tricky and you will want to create shared landmarks on the boards to help populate accordingly.

Considering the long time it takes to build one of these by hand the price must be upwards of 3k-4k, so probably no

just the printing alone is a small fortune.

I imagine it's fairly straight forward considering the well documented BOM and instructions.

@@samueldyer4100 Did you look at the project? It's not exactly simple.

It's not as wide as what a good store bought keyboard would offer, but there's a definite difference between light and hard hits. With this specific keyswitch and tact switch pairing, there's about a 1500 microsecond difference on hard hits, 6000µs on medium hits, and above 30000µs, I just assume a light key press and send it. Since the key sometimes doesn't completely bottom out on light hits, and it's better than dropping the note. It's adjustable, but I have the velocity range mapped from 78-127 to keep things sounding consistent. I tried a few different methods of capturing velocity, and this was definitely the easiest to implement without sending away for a custom PCB and using carbon dome switches, which I was trying to avoid for this DIY project. Basically all that's needed for this is a SPDT on-off-on momentary push button switch, but finding switches for less than $3/ea, much less ones with interchangeable keycaps seems to be an impossibility.

@@KOOPInstruments Thanks! I looked through your build document and I don't understand how the tactile switch is pressed if you hot glue in the keyboard switches?

The stem of the key switch plunger pokes out of the bottom and activates the tact switch when fully bottomed out. Because the key switch actually activates about half way through the throw, you can count the time difference between the buttons activating to arrive at your velocity.

@@KOOPInstruments oh that is genius, thank you!

@@KOOPInstruments Hey, here's a crazy idea - have you considered instead of the switch plunger pushing a tact switch, it pushes into a force sensitive resistor? That might be able to mimic the effects of velocity, as well as add aftertouch! Do you think that's feasible? I might give it a go

Looking at the linked project guide, it's using a second push button tactile switch on the bottom. The stem of the cherry switch protrudes to hit the second switch for velocity.

I mean, you could probably cut the larger pieces into halves or quarters and glue them back together, but think of all the cool stuff you could make with a larger print bed. 😉

@@KOOPInstruments I know right. I guess I should get that rat rig kit i've been thinking about for a while. In all seriousness, this is a fantastic project, thanks for sharing it. I struggled with the piano as well, but as a guitar player, having chords/scales take the same shape across the instrument makes a lot of sense to me.

really isn't. much more comfortable than playing Piano.

Sorry about that. 🙁 I have a better mic now, so I shouldn't need to eat the microphone to get an adequate volume level anymore.