Hi!

I wonder, which of the following manufacturers makes the best and most authentic digital piano, considering both sound and touch?

Roland
Kawai
Yamaha

/Andrée

Who makes the best car considering performance and luxury, BMW, Mercedes or Audi? What's that you say? It's a matter of personal taste? Well, it's exactly the same here.

Roland, Kawai and Yamaha all sound and feel different. None of them are *exactly* like an acoustic grand. All of them are pretty good. All of the have strong fans here. And which one is "best" is just an unanswerable question.

Play them yourself and see which one is your favorite.

Yamaha Avant Grand.

That being said, I haven't actually played on one.

However, I believe that this is the most expensive instrument currently on the market, thus one would have to assume that it's also the "best and most authentic" digital piano available.

Cheers,
James
x

Boy, that tends to change every time those vendors bring out their new models. I have a Roland RD-700. That doesn't nearly match the tone quality of 6' 3" Estonia grand I have in the next room, nor does it match the touch, but is more than good enough. I have played Yamaha's digitals and liked the sound and touch much better than Roland.

Maybe. Some people who've played both prefer the Roland V-Piano. Some may even prefer a Kawai or Roland digital grand. In short, I still insist that there is no "Best" DP any more than there is a single "best" automobile (or "best" acoustic piano, for that matter).

Andree,

The top of the line stage pianos from Kawai, Roland and Yamaha (MP8ii, RD700GX, CP300) are all good. In terms of touch they all feel different as different models and brands of acoustic pianos will feel different. But they feel real.

These pianos sound great too. Really the biggest factor here is going to be the amplification. But through a good set of headphones they all sound nice.

You just need to try them out for yourself. It is all a matter of taste for the flagship pianos. It is only when you step down to the lower tier digital pianos that compromises are made in the actions to either make the digital piano lighter or cheaper that you start to find some digitals that feel like crap and some that feel 80% real etc. But typically they use the same samples as the top of the line pianos and sound the same. When you get to the $500 or $700 level then the sound quality starts to drop. Lower polyphony, lack of sympathetic resonance, lack of half damper pedal, smaller Sample ROM etc. The only ones that buck the low end trend is Casio Privia. They are cheap but feel and sound like a 2nd tier digital from the big three just a notch below the flagships.

Daniel

Hi again!

I realise that I asked the question in a wrong way, what I actually meant is, which piano has the best reputation considering authencity of a real piano (in price range below $4000)? If we are looking into the high-end Kawais for example, the keyboard is based on a similar technique used in real pianos, with a hammer connected to the key.

/Andrée

Andree,

Authenticity involves pluses and minuses. For example, a digital that is truly authentic should not always be in tune. Not only that, it should regularly go out of tune to a different extent in different registers. So for true authenticity, it should be out of tune with itself a majority of the time. Its touch should not be perfectly consistent. Nor should its touch response be consistent since it theroetically has infinite levels of touch response. It should mimic the effect on tone production over time resulting from degradation of hammer felt. It should have damper noises and occasional squeaks and buzzes. It should require in-home service calls by tuners and technicians who do not service to an objective standard, but to a personal standard of tone and touch that the owner of the instrument may or may not share. Finally, an authentic digital should take up a lot of space, behave badly when ignored, and be a real bitch to move.

Another question that has to be dealt with is the acoustic piano that one chooses as the standard of reference. For most people, that piano would be whatever acoustic they are most familiar with, and that would most likely be an acoustic they have or have had at home. It makes a huge difference whether a Bosendorfer grand or Kawai console is the reference for authenticity, especially in tone production. The Bosendorfer grand owner seeks a passable facsimile of his acoustic playing experience. The Kawai console owner seeks an alternative, maybe even a replacement. (No slight to Kawai intended...just looking for a generic low-priced piano example)

For well-heeled acoustic piano purists, there will never be a digital that is authentic. They will cherish the idiosyncrasies of their favorite piano and welcome the chore and expense of optimal maintenance. They will keep the acoustic ideal alive into the foreseeable future supporting it with their enthusiasm and the their wallets. But the ideal will be supported by lower and lower production figures and increasingly smaller revenues in both sales, service, concert use, and revenue from recordings. There will be great concert events with fabulous acoustic artists strutting their stuff on high profile acoustic grands. Those acoustic grands will have been given a fresh concert tune and regulation touch-up that will hopefully last through the performance. The audience will be enraptured by the musicial potential of one artist seated at one massive instrument. That's all good and will always be worth the price of admission. But at performance tiers below that and in studio production, acoustic pianos will slowly disappear. In fact, this is already happening.

turandot - Well put.

To which I would add only that touch is the most important criterion, because tone can be changed by connecting a DP to a software piano which is stored on a computer.

If you had to suffer and play on a digital
which would come close to being able to tolerate
over an acoustic.. due to inconvient playing hours..

Almost all of the digital piano makes and models are authentic digital pianos.
There are only questions from time to time about the Williams.

Ok, well, I will try and answer your question...

I own a Kawai CP 205 and LOVE it. I love it so much that I am looking at buying the newest version the CP 207D.

It has the touch of a real grand piano and the warm sound of a real grand piano and looks absolutely beautiful.

I have heard and played around on both the flagship Yamaha and the flagship Roland digital grands.

The Yamaha seemed to sound a little brighter and not as warm as the Kawai.

The Roland was as nice as the Kawai, but priced WAY to high.

Just an opinion from someone who has seen and played all of them.

sound wise - yamaha, key action wise ->roland and kawai.

This is why I keep insisting that it's entirely a personal matter. *I* prefer both the sound and touch of Rolands. Yamaha is too light in touch and too bright in sound *for me*. But Yamahas are great DPs and many people prefer them across the board. So anybody who tells you that Kawai, Yamaha or Roland is absolutely, objectively the best one is talking through his hat (or back side).

Just play them and decide for yourself. There is no *right* answer. But make sure you try a Roland V-piano to see what the state of the art is.

Do not mix both good acoustic and digitals at the same time when you try them. I went to local showroom the other day and tried all their nice expensive Yamaha digitals (10-15k), then switched to acoustic Steinways and Yamahas, then back to digitals for a rude awakening. No digital will come close to a real thing any time soon, it's just too obvious when you try them side by side.

With digitals it just comes down to how easy can you get your mind fooled into enjoyment comparable to the one you would get from good acoustic grand.

so you're saying people have so screwed up ears I mean divergent...

Hey, if everybody liked the same thing, Baskin-Robbins would sell 30 fewer flavors...

This is nonsense. Both can be enjoyed for what they are.

If your personal mindset is this rigid, you should be posting on the acoustic forum.

That's interesting. So, what you're trying to say is digitals are just what they are, a digital musical instrument and not a thorough imitation of acoustic.

I've had this debate with Turandot bfore. Frankly, I think that most Digitals are simply intended to simulate an acoustic as much as possible. Unlike a Rhodes electric or Hammond organ, which have a very distinct sound from the instruments that inspired them (acoustic piano, pipe organ), a good digital is almost identical in sound to an acoustic. And most people feel the closer the better--that is, any aural evidence of digital origin is a flaw rather than an advantage.

I admit that there are some rare exceptions. The V-Piano is the most obvious example. It simulates pianos that don't actually exist (silver string, all triple strung, etc.) But even here, it's supposed to sound like an acoustic piano--albeit an acoustic that doesn't actually exist in reality.

When someone shows me a distinct "digital piano sound" and convinces me that people buy instruments in order to use it, than I'll concede that a DP is not just a simulation. Until then, the closer a DP is to acoustic, the better.

By the way, this is true for other digital simulation instruments also i.e. digital pipe organs, digital harpsichords, etc. Even Digital Hammond drawbar organs and digital Rhodes electrics.

Rolex,

You got it. That's why I started a thread asking which acoustic best mimics the performance tendencies of a digital...a thread which attracted one response and virtually zero interest .

Now, it is true that digital manufacturers market their upper-end consoles and pseudo-acoustic grands with talking points that appeal to acoustic traditionalists, and not surprisingly those models are sold exclusively by traditional piano dealers side by side with that company's acoustic lineup. (From your post I imagine this placement is where you made your comparison.) An extreme example of this would be the Avant's slavish and costly attention to mimicking an acoustic grand's 'feel'. But's that's marketing, product placement, and salesmanship.

By way of contrast, the Roland V, despite its high ticket price, has not been placed exclusively with traditional piano retailers. It's available through any sales channel you want. Its external design hardly evokes any typical visual image of an acoustic. Its internal design is all about innovation and it is in no way a slave to acoustic grand sampling.

If you get beyond the marketing and product placement issue to focus on the reality of the instruments, digitals and acoustics are completely different instruments. Each one has capabilities that the other lacks. Each one is better suited for different applications. If you ask 100 working digital keyboard musicians if they have to "fool" their minds into believing that their instruments can give them the enjoyment of an acoustic, their answers will re-direct the question away from self-delusion toward practical applications of each instrument.

Addendum,



GeoffK,

Don't flatter yourself so much with the use of "I". This is hardly a personal debate. You and I are not important. It's just part ot an ongoing discussion of reality vs. perception. It can be interesting without being polarizing.

I wasn't claiming anything special. I was simply observing that it's something that I had debated/discussed with you before. I don't think we came to an agreement that time either.

Ask yourself this question: Would you ever play with an acoustic *and* a digital on stage at the same time? You might play with an acoustic and a Rhodes or with a Rhodes and a Hammond. But the acoustic and digital are so close that playing with both seems redundant to me. How about you?

Generally, no. The choice would depend on the other instruments and whether they are amped or not.

In specific instances, yes. Example would be a jazz band concert where, in addition to full ensemble performance,
different groupings step forward on different tunes.

However, to demand both instruments and be sure that the acoustic is serviced, tuned, and good to go, you need to be a headline player or at least part of a headline act. If you're not, you're asking for trouble with the acoustic.

If someone wanted to pay me to do a solo concert (extremely unlikely), I'd want both. I'd do some stuff on each.

digital pianos are generally better then acoustics except the dynamics.

I tried a Suzuki once - it was dreadful - but it was an authentic Suzuki!!

Generally, a digital piano is an attempt to imitate an acoustic piano, so the term "authentic digital piano" would apply to most digital pianos.

For as close to an acoustic grand piano sound as I'm going to get, I don't rely on the sound of a digital piano - the best are OK, and the worst aren't nearly as good.

For sound I rely on physical modeling software. More about this in good time. No, I'm not talking about samples - very soon samples will very much be yesterday.

Glenn

I use Pianoteq myself. With the right audio setup it is more realistic than any DP I've sampled including the the 409.

whoa... maybe "well put" as someone else wrote, but may I respectfully submit that it's also a bit myopic? If we are truly seeing the end of the acoustic piano, that speaks as much to lack of good aesthetic education, laziness and cynicism as it does to anything you could fairly call "evolution" as Turandot seems to suggest is happening.

I see in this statement almost an indictment of an acoustic piano. Saying things like they are a "bitch to move" or are "always out of tune" etc speaks more to things to be annoyed at rather than the things that truly give us pleasure. The evolution that has occured for the past 400 years appears to be glibly thrown out in the name of convenience and being easy to move!

I am currently in the market for a digital piano and as an owner of an Estonia 190 (which I purchased last year) and a former owner of a Baldwin Concert Vertical, I am having my problems listening and accepting to what's on the market (at the level that I can afford). As I said privately to someone in this forum, the dyamics of any moderately decent acoustic piano just cannot be programmed, at least now. And it is akin to the struggles of those engineers trying to create artificial intelligence. How do you recreate something natural and serendipitous using diodes, metal and wire? There's hubris in them there halls.

Sure there are conveniences that aren't to be dismissed, but to so glibly dismiss acoustic pianos as being in some way a domain only of purists is a cheap shot. I don't necessarily welcome the "chore and expense of optimal maintenance". The hell I went through last year with the break in of this piano is something I don't wish to go through again. But just the same I have a technician who is nothing short of a magician in the work he is able to do on this piano. Is his work and abilities any less to be valued than a software engineer at Yamaha? I don't think so.

We can as a society of music lovers can quietly accept the infringement of digital pianos on the concert stage. Or we can speak out.

I just did my part.

toyboy:

A real acoustic grand will be the standard against which all others (real and imitations) will be judged for many years to come.

And yes, perhaps the digital piano has "infringed" on the acoustic, but there may be good reasons (I have three good reasons of my own).

Finally, may I suggest that you take time to explore more possibilities (other than samples and a standard DP which uses samples), and you may find something to satisfy your quest for dynamics in a software solution. I can assure that a wait of a few weeks or so will be well worth it.

Glenn

i was just speaking to the apparent lowering of standards that Turnadot seemed to be suggesting or alluding to. i've yet to see DP's in the classical/concert world, but maybe it's a matter of time. who knows.

wait of a "few weeks"? ha, i've been at this search for over a year now.

not sure what you mean by "software solution" though. you mean those keyboards for which you can purchase different "pianos"? if so, that sounded too cumbersome to deal with... i.e. keyboard, speakers, computer.... to have to lug around.

toy,

Your response is one part over-reaction, one part misreading of my post , and one part an assertion of your demanding personal standards of piano evaluation.

I was responding to the authenticity issue. An authentic acoustic piano has negatives as well as positives. To ask a digital piano to be authentic, one should ask it to present the minuses and the pluses. If you simply ask it to present all the positives without any of the negatives, the task is impossible for any number of reasons. Anyway, they are different instruments.

A "society of music lovers" has a place for both instruments, and has a place for those who love opera, orchestral music, string ensembles, and whole genres of music that have absolutely nothing to do with pianos of either sort. I think you're actually talking about a Society of Acoustic Piano Enthusists. You'll find them (and a fair measure of myopia ;)) on the acoustic forum, where your stirring call to arms will be enthusiastically received.

I'll accept the criticism of over reaction. I tend to get emotional when it comes to the (tiresome) analog/digital debate. But I don't see what I misread, and I don't accept that I made assertions that were "demanding", which I take to mean as somehow "over the top" or "beyond the norm".

It was rather you who expressed a new norm and I was reacting to that. It was patently silly to call out of tune sounds and squeaks and buzzes as being "authentic". That's just not germane to the debate, which according to you is already decided.

I'm not necessarily asking a digital piano to sound like a 9'6 Bosendorfer. Actually what I am asking is, essentially truth in advertising. All I see, again and again, in the descriptions of these digital pianos is how "realistic" they sound and how much they sound like a "grand piano" and how the sound technicians painstakingly sampled the keys of this Steinway or that Yamaha, in some cases even sampling the dampers or other extraneous sounds for "heightened realism". THAT'S what I'm reacting to. Not your absurd apologia that the digital pianos are a different animal and therefore we should cut them some slack. But rather, the manufacturers assertions that they have "done it". All I'm saying is "no they have not".

Now, as far as whether digital pianos are a different animal, and whether they should be accepted on the concert stage, I'd say you have alot more arguing to do rather than simply assert that anyone appreciating the traditional sounds of a traditional piano are now throwbacks, luddites and arthritic crabs that had best belong to cloistered societies since - watch your step... here comes the future.

Digital pianos have found immediate acceptance, decades ago, in the realm of rock, jazz and New Age music. That's all fine. I have no problem with that. But most of that music is either not composed or composed for electric instruments for the first place. I can certainly see the possibility (if it hasn't been done already) for a Louis Andreisson, or (name your favorite contemporary composer here) to compose for a digital piano (and most likely one like the Roland V with so many possible interesting sounds). But that doesn't mean Debussy should be played on a digital piano. And for me to think one should have to ask that is only saddening if it means that one must now advocate for what has been only normal operating procedure in the past.

On the other hand, I suppose I could say "chacun à son goût". If you want to hear your Debussy on a Roland V, go for it. I would just think you're missing alot of the meaning of the piece.

Well, if you believe the advertising, then digital pianos, as well detergents, are getting better all the time -- except somehow there's never a 100% solution. Some stains, umm, I mean subtleties of piano sound and touch always seem to be beyond the grasp of a given product.

But then again, what exactly do you expect DP manufacturers to say about their stuff: "Yeah, we know this is still crap, but slightly better-sounding crap?" I can hear that for myself, thank you. No, I'd rather have them stick to their piano fantasy-land, where even an entry-level DP is able to capture every nuance of a concert grand perfectly, because its sounds have been carefully sampled by a team of elite piano elves at the North Pole...

What's your point? I'm not saying I'm a chump for advertising per se, I'm saying I'm willing to take them at their word and make my judgements thereof. What's so wrong with that?

What I fail to understand is all this apologetics for these pianos, and conversely, so much taking someone (e.g. me) to task simply because they say that digital pianos fall short. Is this a question of inability to accept a modicum of standards? Or is it a question of lack of sensitivity, or at best nonchalance, of what one hears? If simply because there is now a plug-in alternative to the piano you feel it gives you credence to say all is equal, or it all doesn't matter, I find that a rather lazy argument.

I'm not standing by the piano due to any blind allegiance to tradition, or for some sort of idealistic notion. I'm standing by the piano because they are an amazing beautiful thing. And yes, their tradition binds us to our cultural heritage. To equate them to digital pianos, at least as they stand now, is... well I balk at the words; I'm not going to be accused of being moralistic.

There are centuries of music composed for this one type of instrument. They aren't the same thing. They don't have nearly the same sound. If they did, you might be hearing concert pianists playing them in droves. Keyword is "might", but anyway you don't see that happening, at least I don't. There is reason that someone like Krystian Zimmerman travels around the world lugging his piano with him. If you fail to hear the difference that doesn't mean there isn't any. It simply means you fail to hear the difference.

Digitals have their uses, and personally I think that they are in many cases "good enough", as long as you don't compare them directly to a great acoustic. Just because they don't sound exactly like an acoustic doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible. And I'd say the responsiveness to touch isn't so bad for the software pianos that use some physical modeling, like the V-Piano or TruePianos. Definitely an improvement over pure samples.

But those that claim that digitals can never replace acoustics, like you seem to imply, mainly appear to base their views on other things than touch and sound. When you write "they are an amazing beautiful thing" that sounds more like an emotional reason to me. Yes, pianos are beautiful, but so were horse carriages.

And digitals don't really take the place of grands in homes anyway, but of uprights (similar cost, similar footprint, etc.). A few decades ago, one would buy an upright as a beginning piano student, today it's probably a digital. Of course concert pianists will want to continue using grands -- concert tickets are expensive, and I'm sure for the price the audience wants to see the pianist playing an acoustic. So I don't think acoustics will disappear from concert venues any time soon.

Actually I do agree with turandot that it really is an evolution and that it isn't about aesthetics, laziness or cynicism. As time goes by, digitals improve in their ability to more closely mimic acoustics. Some of this is via technology (e.g. vpiano), some via improved design (better speaker placement/quality e.g. AvantGrand), and some by taking the "if you can't beat'em, join'em approach (the basically acoustic actions of the avantgrand and Bosendorfer CEUS).

Comments about when you will see a digital on a classical concert stage isn't simply a function of the instrument. Anyone who would deny that there is a significant stigma associated with having an acoustic grand (and often it has to be a S&S) at these concert venues is kidding themselves. The biggest hurdles that digitals face there are likely to be political. After all, how many in a concert audience would be able to honestly tell the difference if Lang Lang or Kissin were on a D or a AvantGrand if they didn't see the instrument sitting on the stage?

To me in many ways the acoustic vs digital argument is similar to the digital (cd) vs analogue (lp's) of years ago (and to a certain extent, today). When cd's first came out, so called "audiophiles" ranted endlessly about how the best lp's offered superiour sound that cd's. The point that they seemed to be missing was that even if they were right, the strongest point of cd's wasn't to represent the end all be all of audio reproduction, instead, it significantly raised the bar for the baseline quality of audio reproduction _and_ introduced a feature set that analog equipment couldn't match. I see pianos heading in a similar (but not the same) direction. It may be a long long time before DP's can match the top of what the acoustic world has to offer, but that's not the point. The point is that for the majority of folks, the DP get's them more than close enough to their goals while offering features that an acoustic can't match. Again, what is the percentage of the population that can effectively bring out the differences in an instrument like the AvantGrand vs an S&S B? What is the percentage of the population that can appreciate the difference assuming someone who can extract the maximum performance out of the acoustic?

Roland makes a pretty good reproduction of Steinway action, and digitally accurate samples of piano sound. Take it from me, a proud owner of a Roland HP 147, ten years running!

Hi:

I'm new to this forum.

I own & play both a Kawai acoustic KG-2 Grand & a Kawai MP9000 digital (Kawai's top of the line when it was new).

I love both pianos....but there are differences. I feel that I am able to express myself more exactly on the acoustic. I have owned 2 yamaha digitals...no more, I prefer my Kawai hands down. But I have always wondered if the difference I experience is really my "mind" playing with the fact that its not acoustic. My Kawai pianos feel & play almost exactly the same. I can't quite put a finger on the difference. That's why I wonder about if its just knowing that its not acoustic.

I think that this is where the digital will always fall short of the acoustic.

My teacher has as a warm up digital Roland and I like it, however, I still prefer the Kawai....It touches like my Grand.

Don't forget that a digital piano is also a way to start having a piano if you are not rich...I am a beginner and decided to start learning piano, I spent 1,500 on a new Yamaha YDP 223. To get a new upright piano would have cost me at least 5,000, and believe me, it would have been a base model
with not a sensational sound.

IF nothing else, this is a most interesting discussion. A few points, if I may.
#1 the CEUS is a whole other animal again. It is a computer controlled ACOUSTIC piano, and that's not what this discussion is about. Yet if Bosendorfer was taking the can't beat 'em join approach as you suggest, it would be using a digital piano for this, no?
#2 We'll have to agree to disagree as to why digital grand pianos are not seen on the concert stage, but I think you are trivializing the sensitivities and aesthetics of the powers that be in the concert world, to suggest that the only, or main, reason would be political (which I take to mean a loose term for bowing to public pressure, as if the public just needs to be "educated" enough and then they'll embrace digital pianos whole-heartedly. This of course would be akin to accepting Soylent Green, no?)
#3 Asking what the percentage of the population can discern the difference IS a cynical question. For one thing it leaves out an important part of the equation: the performer. With all due respect to Zoe, who obviously loves her digital Kawai, I submit they are not embracing digitals not because they worry how the audience would react, but because they know for themselves it is a different instrument. But moreso, it is disrepectful of the audience to say the equivalent of: "oh, the first clarinetist has lost his clarinet? Oh just use that old clarinet that your son has been using in the marching band. They're not going to know the difference."
#4 I fail to see the similarity of arguments between LP vs CD and DP vs AP. CD's could be technically shown to have a wider dynamic range and closer to the real sound. Both LP's and CD's are artificial reproductions of sounds. But in the DP vs AP comparison, AP IS the actual sound and DP is a reproduction of it. DP's are not a higher standard or platform at all. Anyway it isn't a question of platform. It is a question of expressivity. Ask Zoe.
#5 I have no argument that DP's serve a purpose. Certainly in the realm of affordability. That's terrific and maybe it heralds an renaissance of home piano playing. But again, I have only been responding to the remarks that Turnadot made, which I took, rightly or wrongly as cynical, in regards to what he takes for granted as which is the more highly evolved. I submit that just because a team of scientists are working while we sleep on making an electronic piano sound like an acoustic piano, doesn't mean that is an evolutionary step. It does mean that they are simply hard at work trying to mimic something that is perfect in its own way.
#6 Yes it is emotional. That's the point. If all you're worried about is technical perfection, you miss the point along with all those engineers at Yamaha. There is a reason why couples still pay money to be driven around Central Park in a horse and buggy.
#7 Here is a question to chew over. It is unanswerable, or probably only answerable based on your own bias... but if Mozart or Beethoven were alive today, what would they be playing on and composing for?

boy,

I have read your latest posts here. You have now moved from misreading to distorting. I won't be responding.

I doubt if it matters to you. You seem to be able to spout freely with little assistance.

Turandot wrote, "An extreme example of this would be the Avant's slavish and costly attention to mimicking an acoustic grand's 'feel'. But's that's marketing, product placement, and salesmanship."

I have had the pleasure of presenting the AvantGrand to over a dozen acoustic 5'8" - 7' grand shoppers who were pretty good players. My "presentation" consisted simply of asking for their impressions of a new product and showing them to the instrument. Each played for 10 minutes or more. Each was very impressed to the point that they admitted they would add this to their short list for serious consideration. No marketing or salesmanship involved. The piano spoke for itself.

Yes, Yamaha put a lot of R&D into the feel of the thing and they have got a story to tell about it. No story in the world is going to sell a product with a MSRP of $20k. It gotta perform. In the 60 days we have had the product we have sold two in our location. One was a trade-up from a less than a month old CVP409 (this guy gave up all the bells and whistles of the 409 for the piano performance of the N3), and to a customer shopping mid sized acoustic grands.

We just got our first N2 model and the sound is nearly as good.

DP's have improved immensely, and will continue to improve.

Will they ever attain the tone and nuances of an acoustic grand? Only time will tell, but I'm convinced they will always be imitations of the real thing (and second class) until the manufacturers give up on sample based pianos. Most are knowledgeable enough to know the limitations of samples, but continue to use them for economic reasons. There are differences between a Ford and an Audi besides cost and these differences determine the cost.

Samples being simply the recorded sound of an acoustic piano will always be limited when it comes to the nuances of the real thing.

Each and every sound of an acoustic must be generated to achieve realism. These sounds include: string sound (both transverse and longitudinal waves), harp resonance, soundboard resonance, case resonance, hammer sound on the string, damper sound, the interaction of all these sounds, and of course the fact that many piano notes have more than one string - the slight differences between string properties impart character to an acoustic piano.

While these sounds can be recorded, the interaction between these sound cannot be recorded, as they vary from pianist to pianist and composition to composition. Sample companies and DP manufacturers that talk of sympathetic resonance are simply attempting to fool purchasers into believing they have actually accomplished this feature.

No matter how sophisticated the audio system, even if the speakers drive a real soundboard, the basic sound generated by sample will not match a top level acoustic piano.

Roland recognized these limitations, and consequently produced the V-Piano - each and every sound is generated as and when required. I'm betting that the other major manufacturers will soon follow Roland's lead. Other approaches (which are fundamentally the same as the V-Piano) are software programs that generate sounds in real time - in accordance with the nuances the pianist applies. Roland's solution is like the Audi - it costs a lot more, and produces more.

When DP's follow these leaders, and the sounds and responsiveness approaches those of acoustic pianos, then this topic will be meaningful.

Glenn

This is a key point.

Ha, the best defense is a good offense, right?

I couldn't agree more. I am eager to try the Roland V if only out of curiousity. It alone to me is a "different animal" than any of the other DP's I've seen or read about.

If I can sum up, the main thing that nags me is why this feverishness to reinvent the wheel. Turandot now accuses me of misreading and misquoting him. So be it, but his chagrin over the messiness of moving an acoustic and keeping them in tune are about the only reasons anyone, in this thread at least, have come up with for the superior nature of a DP. Is it simply a matter of wanting to put piano movers and tuners out of business, and basking in the hubris of what science can do?

We've talked about how much easier it is to own a piano that costs $1 - $3000 and that's true. And maybe the top of the line DPs will come down in price from $20,000. But in the end you still have a simulacrum, like it or not.

Sorry everyone, I just don't understand it.

[quote=toyboy
I couldn't agree more. I am eager to try the Roland V if only out of curiousity. It alone to me is a "different animal" than any of the other DP's I've seen or read about.

If I can sum up, the main thing that nags me is why this feverishness to reinvent the wheel. Turandot now accuses me of misreading and misquoting him. So be it, but his chagrin over the messiness of moving an acoustic and keeping them in tune are about the only reasons anyone, in this thread at least, have come up with for the superior nature of a DP. Is it simply a matter of wanting to put piano movers and tuners out of business, and basking in the hubris of what science can do?

We've talked about how much easier it is to own a piano that costs $1 - $3000 and that's true. And maybe the top of the line DPs will come down in price from $20,000. But in the end you still have a simulacrum, like it or not.

Sorry everyone, I just don't understand it. [/quote]

For me its ALL about cost, which is why I went the DP route. If cost weren't an issue I'd have an acoustic right now.

Rob

There are lots of reasons to buy a DP instead of an acoustic:

1. No maintenance or tuning
2. Silent practice
3. Can use alternate tunings
4. Can use different sounds
5. Can record and play back digitally
6. Can interface with computer for scoring, etc.
7. Can control synthesizers and other instruments
8. Easy to move
9. Cheaper to buy than acoustic
10. Easy to amplify, so good on stage
11. Other learning or play features (metronome, etc.)
12. Can equalize and control sound flexibly


Now some of these (silent practice) are very useful and some are rather trivial. But put them all together and a digital looks like a very smart idea. Basically, the corresponding list of advantages for an acoustic are:

1. Sounds somewhat more realistic
2. Plays during power outage

toy,

I'm not defending my post with an offense. It's just not worth a lot of time to defend against things that I never said. OTOH, I think the discussion is worthwhile, so I will try to clarify things a bit for you.

I'll accept the criticism of over reaction. I tend to get emotional when it comes to the (tiresome) analog/digital debate.

I wasn't criticizing. I was saying that you were over-reacting. If the debate is tiresome, why are you spending so much time, space, and effort on it?

I don't see what I misread

You misread my entire post. My point was that it is unrealistic to expect a digital to offer the same performance package as an acoustic because, by design, it is a completely different instrument with a completely different set of features, advantages, and disadvantages.

I don't accept that I made assertions that were "demanding", which I take to mean as somehow "over the top" or "beyond the norm".

I said that your criteria for judging a piano were demanding, in that you apparently want a digital to give the same performance profile as an acoustic. This is impossible, and in many ways undesirable. A further problem is that there is great variation in tone and touch among acoustics. What is the standard?

It was rather you who expressed a new norm

I expressed no new norm. I cited the realities of the situation. The acoustic's place in the music world has been minimalized over the past few decades. There are many reasons for this. Some examples are declining sales of acoustics into Western markets, the expense of music studio production and recording time, the implementation of digital piano labs with an instructional control console for low-cost beginner group lessons, and the tendencies of technology based music solutions to become increasingly more cost and space efficient. That's the reality. It's not my personal norm.

It was patently silly to call out of tune sounds and squeaks and buzzes as being "authentic". That's just not germane to the debate, which according to you is already decided.

If you want to participate reasonably in a discussion, it's not productive to call the mention of the downside of acoustic instruments patently silly while constantly pointing your finger at the downside of digitals.

Actually what I am asking is, essentially truth in advertising. All I see, again and again, in the descriptions of these digital pianos is how "realistic" they sound and how much they sound like a "grand piano" and how the sound technicians painstakingly sampled the keys of this Steinway or that Yamaha, in some cases even sampling the dampers or other extraneous sounds for "heightened realism". THAT'S what I'm reacting to.

It is true that digital marketing and advertising pursue owners of acoustic instruments, but marketing in general is directed at target markets. Obviously, Yamaha will not be selling many Avants to first-time piano purchasers. They have selected a target market for that instrument, and are attempting to cater to it. It's not worth getting out of sorts about. It's the way of the world. I will agree with you that in the long run it is silly to slavishly pursue ideals such as string resonance and key feedback. There are much more fertile areas of tone production for digital makers to pursue.

Not your absurd apologia that the digital pianos are a different animal and therefore we should cut them some slack. But rather, the manufacturers assertions that they have "done it". All I'm saying is "no they have not".

Again, if you wish to participate reasonably in a discussion, it's not productive to label others' comments as absurd apologia. Furthermore, I never said that digitals should be cut some slack. What I indicated was that if an evaluation of digitals was to include their downside, it was only fair to include the downside of acoustics in evaluating them.

Now, as far as whether digital pianos are a different animal, and whether they should be accepted on the concert stage, I'd say you have alot more arguing to do rather than simply assert that anyone appreciating the traditional sounds of a traditional piano are now throwbacks, luddites and arthritic crabs that had best belong to cloistered societies since - watch your step... here comes the future.

Again, I'm not arguing. It's perfectly clear that they are thoroughly different instruments built from completely different design principles and materials. The throwback, luddite, crab stuff is just your own overheated puffery. If you want to participate reasonably, get over your own ego.

I will not quote the rest of your post. If you want to play Debussy on a digital, I have no objection. If you want to play Debussy on an acoustic, I have no objection. If you don't want to play Debussy at all, I have no objection. However, this discussion is not really about what you want to do.

Freedom of choice drives the market. However, it is driven within cost parameters versus income. As bad as acoustic sales are, they would be far worse if entrepeneurs from China were not in the business of piano manufacturing. The simple fact is that the low cost of Chinese acoustic pianos into Western markets has kept acoustic pianos relatively affordable in those markets. If that phenomenon were to end, the outlook for acoustic piano sales in the West would be much worse.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was referring to CEUSMaster, which is a digital piano with the action from a 280/290.



Educated enough? Aren't you trivializing? My point is that concerts exist to entertain those who are attending, would the use of a high quality digital cause the attendees to be entertained less? I'm saying that I think that for the majority of attendees, that the difference would be minor to non-existent. That and there is an obvious set of expectations involved that, at least for the time being, works against utilizing a digital for such uses. It's not about "education", it's about acceptance.



Actually it's not cynical because my statements certainly did address both sides of the equation, I specifically mentioned both the audience and the performer (go back and read my post).



Actually they are more similar than you are making it out to be. The constant argument of the analoguephile is that the digital folks can trot out whatever numbers they want, in the end, it's the analogue recording that brings out more expressiveness and in the end creates a more "natural" sound.



Actually your last statement is a circular argument. The modern acoustic piano is perfect by the standards that itself sets. It is constrained by physics and a huge body of existing music that was written to that instrument. DP's like the vpiano are an evolution in that while it certainly does attempt to get closer to mimicking it's acoustic counterpart, it adds features that it's acoustic counterpart can not ever hope to achieve.



Actually if you read anything about the goals of high end dp products, it's not about "technical perfection" as the ends, it's all about getting the digital instrument to create the same level of emotional response (if not more) as it's acoustic counterpart. Careful with your observations unless you really meant to portray acoustic's as being relegated to side show nostalgia trips. Taking your sports car around a corner with all four wheels drifting with the sound of the engine rising in revs as you accelerate out of the corner can evoke a lot of emotions as well.



To be honest I think that they would go for something like the vpiano simply because they wouldn't be likely to be pigeon holed into worrying about how the instrument played the legions of existing music, instead they would be caught up in all the different options that would be available to them. They would focus on the bigger picture and just accept that over time some of the instruments would have to catch up with their vision. I think Beethoven would not have cared less that the DP didn't eeek out that last 95% that an acoustic could do (unless the piece that they were writing was specifically for an acoustic, which I can also see them doing if they so chose).

And finally, I don't know if this brings any perspective, but like many others here, I do have an acoustic and digital pianos. I personally can tell the difference between the two and as a piano, the acoustic is clearly "superior" from an absolute performance perspective.

Whew:

First of all I'm going to suggest that all the name calling and bickering isn't very useful in this discussion.

Some of my ramblings:

A good acoustic piano is in a class by itself - however, the usual upright pianos that have been in so many homes for years are not in this class. There was a time when any piano made in Asia was dreadful - then Yamaha and Kawai proved this to be wrong. Then pianos from other parts of Asia arrived and they were dreadful - some have developed to the point of being acceptable. Obviously things change.

By good acoustic piano, I'm referring to any well known brand of acoustic grand; only these utilize gravity to return the hammers to rest - springs are required on uprights - this renders them less than ideal. And to be idealistic, only a grand that is at least over six feet in length will qualify. Generally speaking, shorter ones simply don't have the string length in the bass to produce a full rich sound.

Not all of us have the space or a location isolated from other people to have the luxury of a seven foot grand. This means that they must utilize a DP.

For others, the cost of purchase plus the continuing cost of maintenance is beyond their means. This is reality.

The "real" piano with a history of less than 300 years in the field of music instruments, is a rank beginner. Mozart embraced the piano which at the time of his birth was a new-fangled invention, and after his death underwent major technical changes. Liszt was known to physically destroy pianos simply by playing them - that won't happen anymore as they've improved immensely. It is likely that further changes will occur. We really can't say where development will lead.

Will physical modeling finally develop to the point of the sound being indistinguishable from that of an acoustic piano? Only time will tell, but the latest indications are that it will be a serious challenger in the future. I think DP's are about to take a quantum leap forward (and I'm not referring to samples). Today's digital pianos (with the exception of the V-Piano) are sample based and are thus severely limited.

If anyone has doubts about the quality of the sound that can be produced with physical modeling, I suggest they e-mail me a midi file which I will render to wave (mp3), and return for their scrutiny.

Glenn

The "realism" of digital pianos is a relative and transitive thing. I was on the scene when the first Clavinova hit the market with storm. It was all on its on, the catagory maker. The sound was more "realistic" and "authentic" than anything heard before. We recently had one of these relics on the floor next to a current model and it was a joke. The touch and tone were horrible in comparison. With each new generation of digital we tell ourselves, "they've gone about as fer as they can go." Then, the new series comes out and wham, our paradigm is rocked again.

Is there a video or sound sample of the first (1983) Clavinova anywhere? I've looked on YouTube but didn't find anything. As far as I understand, it used frequency modulation, so I was curious how it compared in its piano tone to say, a $200 entry-level learning keyboard from Casio or Yamaha.



In Beethoven's case, it's clear that he was never happy with the pianos of his time and that his compositions were made for a hypothetic "piano of the future", so I think he'd welcome the ability of a DP to e.g. produce a very loud tone without the sound "breaking up" (especially for someone who's deaf the volume control would be a godsend!). I'm sure he would also have loved the ability to compose orchestral music with a DP and sequencer. The strings, the choir -- composing the 9th Symphony might have been easier had he had access to a DP and Garritan Personal Orchestra. It's like a "pre-vis" for visual effects I'd say, it doesn't have to match the end results perfectly, just give a pretty good idea.

For Bach, I'm pretty sure he would make compositions that are particularly aimed at the DP -- just as he composed for lautenwerk, church organ, cello, and pretty much every other instrument in existence at the time.

No, the geniuses in a given field always embrace the opportunities afforded to them by technical change. It's only the mediocre talents that always insist that things have to be done exactly the way they have always been done!

What is being forgotten in this whole discussion of course is how an acoustic piano will sound differently under different circumstances, simply given the fact of how it works. It has life. Certainly a DP will do that to some extent given the variety of acoustics in any given situation, but not with the same breadth (or breath for that matter) of an AP. At least as things stand. But it is hard to imagine calibrating and engineering serendipity and (can I say it?) magic. We can choose to rationalize this liveliness and richness away for one pragmatic reason or another, but if engineers are serious in mimicing the life of an acoustical piano they sure have their work cut out for them.

Yes I would tend to agree that Bach would probably embrace DP's but the key phrase in your sentence is that he would "make compostions particularly aimed at the DP". He didn't. (Of course using Bach as an example is troublesome given the never-ending debate as to what is the proper instrument his work should be played on.) But just the same, if a composer wrote for the piano, what is so "mediocre" in presuming it should be played on the piano? Chopin, and other composers who devoted their lives to composing for the piano are the better example. Sure, I like hearing Chopin played on the kazoo once in awhile, but he wrote for the piano and it's nonsense to assume someone is being a stick in the mud to insist on hearing his music played on the instrument it was written for.

Frankly, all I can see in this debate is an argument not for evolution but de-evolution. *IF* all DP's end up being are mimics of something as finely evolved as the piano, and *IF* DP's never quite measure up to the piano in range and acoustics and overtones, etc, it seems to me all one is asking for is a lowering of sensibilities. But again, *IF* in the end they do somehow measure up in all these aspects, all we have ultimately gained is unemployment for tuners. Next comes the pianists, right? They're so full of water and messy.

Perhaps this little video is the last word? It is for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFltd2838gc

Digital instruments are well beyond mimicking acoustics even at this point. Despite marketing efforts directed toward winning over acoustic players, actual design evolution of digital pianos has led them in a different direction.

As has been stated many times in this thread and elsewhere, digitals have advantages that acoustics cannot have without technological modification that would displease 99% of acoustic purists. Go back and look at GeoffK's list. Some of those advantages are indispensable to me personally for what I do. I'd rather have recorded playback on demand, split keyboard, silent play, three or more piano sounds on tap, a variety of other instruments on hand, and a link to notation software than the unintended serendipity that results from handbuilding an instrument from organic materials that are variable to begin with and vary still further when exposed to use and environment. When you say that all that can result from the development of digitals is a de-evolution of the acoustic, you conveniently ignore all the functional advantages of digital pianos.

Ultimately, I see enough advantage in both types of instruments to keep both in my home. This is true of many here, as Bit has pointed out. This thread is not a put-down of acoustic pianos. It is a discussion of what 'authenticity' means or should mean in terms of digital piano tone production and action. It is not a debate unless someone makes it so by tossing out invective like "absurd apologia", "patently silly", and the like.

But the mimicing of the piano is only a small part (and some would argue no part) of the evolution. You still seem to want to completely dismiss all other aspects of DP's. Going back to turandots original statements, the real evolution will occur when folks start creating large bodies of work that take advantage of the new capabilities of these new instruments so 50 years from now a S&S D owner will be chided because his $450000 instrument won't be able to play the new piece that calls for dynamically changing temperaments on the fly and simulates silver strings with liquid cores that an internet purchased $1500 DP can.

This is a fascinating, useful and well timed thread from my perspective. I'm starting two evaluations over the next 24 hours and now I have the collective wisdom and concerns right in front of me.

I just installed Vienna Symphonic Library's Vienna Imperial on my system and tomorrow the Avant Grand N2 arrives.

I don't care what it's made of or how it works, I just care about practical results.

As Marty pointed out, virtually every time some one upped the ante we responded with "that's it, we've hit the wall on development," and every time, there's been a next move that blew the previous effort out of the water.

The composers of the past were a fairly pragmatic lot and would have fallen all over themselves to access the technology we take for granted (and occasionally dis).

Larry's going to smack me now...

BWV 996 is presumably for the lautenwerk (it sounds terrible on a harpsichord), his cello suites are for the cello, etc. I think Bach definitely had certain instruments and timbres in mind when composing, even though his music often transfers wonderfully to other instruments. Maybe that's why the music historians are so confused and can't see what's right in front of them?



Yes, it should be played on piano, but not necessarily on a piano as it was in the 19th century. Fully-simulated piano sound, as e.g. on the V-Piano, seems to be the next logical step in piano development, something that will transform the piano just like the advent of industrial production techniques transformed it during the 19th century.

When iron frames first appeared, there was a similar outcry that the (Viennese) pianos were sweeter in tone, a thing of beauty, that the iron-frame pianos were too cold in tone, and so on. Then it was wood vs iron, today it's physical vs virtual. So this kind of debate about the merits of technical innovation in piano making isn't exactly new. I hope progress wins, because if the digitals get better this might also lead to more innovative acoustics, for example making them less susceptible to changes in humidity. Right now there is simply not enough pressure on the makers of acoustics to be innovative.

I believe it will be some time before the Avant Grand (either N2 or N3) will be topped. In my opinion, they truly are an example of the "That's it, we've come as far as we can..." notion suggested by Alden.

Cheers,
James
x

You've left out an entire genre of DPs. Those would be midi controllers connected to computers that run a software instrument. I think today this setup has the best sound.

But if the quality of the action doesn't allow you the same level of control, then the "sound" you're referring to will fall far short of the mark that folks like toyboy are referring to. It's not a coincidence that on many of the posts where people have posted "direct" recordings from their digitals vs mic'ed recordings from their acoustics, that many (including myself) are not only able to consistently discern the different pianos, but tend to like the less initially pleasing, but overall more "complete" sound of the mic'ed acoustic.

One of the more combative statements by boy here......



......is worth exploring a bit.

This forum's most active membership has a general tendency to evaluate digitals according to their ability to mimic acoustics. That membership is also (predictably enough) enamored with learning and recreating the music of the dead Europeans.

There are OTOH some working musician members here who would not lift a finger to post on a thread such as this. For them, digital instruments are an unquestioned part of their livelihood. Generally you don't question what makes it possible for you to earn a living. Are they lazy, cynical, or lacking a good aesthetic education? I don't think so. They are practical. They don't think about lugging acoustics to gigs. If they know they are going to play an acoustic at a venue, there is more trepidation than joy since all too often the acoustic will not be in the best condition or even tuned to the proper pitch. I have inquired any number of times about an acoustic at a venue in order to find out if it had been serviced recently. Responses like "Not to worry, it's a Steinway" (or Yamaha) are not uncommon.

Working musicians are also an unlikely target market for the Avant or other pseudo-acoustic grands because they need versatility as well as portability and bearable cost. Even if they have a budget of 5k, they are unlikely to lay it out on a single instrument such as the Roland V because their needs will be better met by two or three different keyboards.

So Alden, if you're still reading this thread, don't imagine that you have by any means a complete cross-section of views. I was just reading the list of thread titles on the Piano Forum and came across one entitled "Do you look forward to your piano service day?" I haven't read the thread and probably won't for the same reason I don't read threads about the choice of caster cups or the perfect music lamp. The only sensible reason that an acoustic purist should look forward to a piano service day is that his piano is performing at a subpar level and the service will hopefully correct that.

People who always remember to water the houseplants, always take the dog to the vet on time to keep up with the regimen of shots, and are always on the lookout for a stray fingermark on their high polish grand......them's the unlazy ones with the good aesthetic education. But theyz hardly a majority of piano players.



Good thought even though it might pinch some nerve endings here.

This of course assumes that the acoustic action can't be duplicated on a DP. And of course it can - most acoustic piano manufacturers today are simply copying the actions of previous pianos - actions essentially can't be copyrighted without some major innovation and the fact is there haven't been any major innovations for about 90 years.

John Steinway's 1920 (or thereabouts) model D has pretty well been the standard ever since then and there have been very few innovations except perhaps for Kawai's carbon fibre Millenium actions. Which leads to another observation; no other manufacturer has dared to follow this innovative idea - piano builders have quit innovating.

Perhaps some souls here will say that the piano is so perfect that it doesn't need improving. This is patently ridiculous; the darn things constantly go out of tune and require a specialist to re-tune them. The hammers wear and require voicing and eventually replacement. The list goes on.

On the other hand, guitarists or horn players can tune their instruments very quickly (we've all seen guitarists and or saxophonists do a quick tuning in the middle of an ensemble piece). Even a string or reed can be changed during a brief intermission - try changing anything on a piano without serious help and time.

It's really no wonder that DPs have made inroads.


In response to the original post - who makes the most authentic digital piano? Don't look for authentic, or a brand - look for features - these are what I would look for:

1. Must transit continuous damper controls values from zero to 127 (many presently transmit or generate only two values - ON and OFF - zero and 127 - not adequate).

2. Should have an action that is responsive and with variable touch weight throughout the full range. Sometimes called Graded Hammer Action or some such fancy name.

3. Should have USB, MIDI, Audio outputs/inputs.

4. Should be able to record to various media (my four year old Roland saves only to 3 1/2" floppies - not good).

5. I don't worry about the sound quality because I haven't heard a good one yet that uses samples (I use a physical modeling software). Sample technology is yesterday's technology (actually it's Edison's technology which is a few days older than that).

Glenn

I was referring specifically to Chris' comment about using a midi controller since many/most don't go to great lengths to provide the level of control as an acoustic or high end DP. This wasn't a general comment about DP actions.



A forum member is actually working on and has a working prototype for an electrical tuning system for acoustic pianos. It's supposed to be a fairly straight forward retrofit and it could really be an interesting and true advance in helping address one of the "weak points" of acoustics.

Thanks for the information; this would (should) be a great step forward for acoustic pianos.

For the first three years of the life of my Yamaha G2, the changes in pitch caused by twice yearly humidity changes nearly drove me around the bend. The only solution was twice yearly tuning (at least). Eventually it settled down, but still required tuning at least once a year. Then after 20 years, it required new hammers, and of course voicing and tuning.

With an AC, the expenditures never stop. In the thirty years I had a clarinet, I re-padded it in a hour or so - by myself.

It's not surprising that alternatives to acoustic pianos are being pursued. Like an automobile, when new, a thing of beauty - but in time, they require a lot of work. Idealists call this physical degradation "character"; realists use the term "needs work".

Glenn

turandot - yes I'm still following this thread, and not to worry, I view it as part of the equation.

Between Vienna Imperial and the N2, I am having entirely too much fun.

btw: anyone looking at speakers for a virtual piano setup should check out blue sky Media Desk 2.1

Back to "work"...

I think this is selling Bach short. If memory serves, the 5th (c-minor) Suite for solo cello BWV 1011 also exists in a version for lute. Same piece, different instrument. The cello version calls for scordatura (alternate tuning, which was vary common in Baroque times). Maybe Bach had the lute in mind when composing for the cello?

Did Bach intend this as a cello piece and the lute version was just an arrangement? I think that would be a difficult assertion to make. I seem to recall other piece by Bach that exist in keyboard and orchestral versions.

This is akin to Samuel Barber's Agnus Dei (choral version) and Adagio for Strings (string version), which are essentially the same piece that functions equally well (in my opinion) for two sets of instruments. Is one the original and the other just a transcription?

You missed my point. If something is written specifically for a digital piano that is one thing. If something is written for a piano that is another thing. And as I said before alot of this type of discussion mimics whether to play Bach on a clavichord (or whatever) vs modern Steinway. That's a neverending discussion, I know that, and I"m sorry if my bringing up my qualms about digitals has engendered that.

I understand the point, but I think it's something of a broad generalization. I have a hard time believing someone like Debussy would gush over playing his work on most any digital. I'd bow to a Debussy scholar for a final opinion on that, but it is very hard to imagine any composer for, let us say, the modern piano, who has labored over composing just the effects that the wanted, accepting wholeheartedly the playing of that piece on a digital. Messiaen could be another example.

I don't disagree for a minute that someone like Messiaen, who wrote for organ, which is slightly digital in nature, wouldn't be intrigued of the possibilities of what something like the Roland V can do. But that doesn't mean ipso facto he'd want his Vingt Regards or his Catalogue Oiseaux played on anything but an acoustic piano.

This is all a very fair point. But the key thing to remember is that, for now at least, all digitals are essentially acoustic-based in that they are nothing but ingenious sampling machines. I fail to see "progress" in that. And I fail to understand the blind allegiances to them. Just because there are diodes in something does not mean that is progress. It may be a *progression* to something truly innovative, but I fail to see it, or most importantly, hear it now.

Careful there. You first have to remember that you're most likely listening to "posts" through tinny tiny computer speakers. I myself have thought whether it is worth shopping all over again and demanding the dealers attach their best possible sound system to the digital I want to try. Speakers are important, in the same way that the acoustics of a hall can change how a piano sounds. So if you were to set up a blind A-B test it would have to be very carefully arranged.

No. What you should have said is "all digitals that people in this forum seem to be talking about are essentially acoustic-based...." This forum is a very biased sample of musicians.

If you listen, most music today on the radio, in bars and night clubs, in film/TV soundtracks and being sold on iTunes is not solo piano. But most of it does use a keyboard.

I could say the same thing about guitars. While they still sell a lot of nylon string classical guitars and people like to play them this is no longer the mainstream. The electrics have pretty much taken over and electrics don't even try to sound "acoustic" they are a different beast entirely.

ahhh, why didn't someone mention electric guitars sooner. Here is the perfect analogy. Can anyone find me someone playing Albeniz on electric guitar? And by that I mean one other than a novelty act.

I don't think I'd want to look, for fear of finding.

But there are lots of jazz and blues player on electric guitars. Likely they outnumber othose playing Albeniz ten to one or more.

Back on topic: Korg just sent me email about their new SV1 keyboard. It looks like they are trying very hard to sell this is not another sampler. The main point of the new instrument seems to be that you can adjust the sound. You start with about 30 voices that are reproductions of clasic electric pianos, grand piano, tone wheel organs and so on but then you can adjust the parameters and change it.

Now that "compute power" they are mixing modeling synths with samples. This seems to be the "next new thing"

Guitars are 50 years ahead of keyboards. Electric guitars stopped being just "louder acoustics" 50+ years ago and have have decades of independent development. Keyboards are just now starting this. Todays keyboards are not yet fully developed instruments. Let's wait 50 or 100 years and see where this goes.

There are MANY technologies that keyboards have yet to try out

1) Electronic force feedback on the keys, so we are not dependent on the design of the mechanical escapement, so we can select a "Steinway grand feel" or "Baldwin upright feel" just like we can now switch between sound samples"
2) Acoustic modelling of imposable to build pianos like liquid mercury or glass crystal stings
3) Running with Kawai's soundboard speakers idea and going with large panel electrostatic speakers

There are hundreds of things that are still to be done. But today the big thing seems to be the coming together of the sampling and modelling synthesiser.

While I'd agree that many might be listening to those posts on "tinny tiny computer speakers", I am usually listening on my work rig, which is my laptop connected to an external usb DAC, then connected to a headphone amp in which my Sony MDR-SA5000's are connected to (I'll occasionally listen on my Shure SE530's as well). Given that, the differences are quite major and relatively easy to discern.

I hate to reiterate myself but that's my point. Other than the early days of the blues when there weren't any electric guitars, they've been embraced in the Jazz and Blues world. Electric keyboards, interestingly enough only a percentage in those genres. Not that that is telling us anything.

But other than composers like Steve Reich, and the like, there are real reasons digital keyboards have NOT been embraced in the classical world, and that's really all I'm talking about.

I do like your imagined future of electronic keyboards. I have no problem with that at all. It could be exciting, and I could certainly see such instruments used for serious composition. It would be nonsense to think otherwise.

I wouldn't or didn't say that acoustics are perfect. That was never the gist of my thoughts. I am only (and oddly) a rather lonely voice here for the beauty and magic and even serendipitous qualities of the sound that an acoustical piano produces. That should not suggest in the least that I then likewise appreciate hiring in a technician and paying hundreds of dollars (like I just did once again) to deal with buzzing in the bass strings, etc etc ad nauseum. Of course all that is annoying. But to assume that diodes are the answer I submit is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To use your analogy, why shouldn't horns be digitized too? Just because they require less maintainance and are relatively inexpensive to begin with? Heck, we now have digital drums, digital accordians, and who knows what else. Why not horns too?

Actually I don't think that the majority of folks here would refute that, so I really wouldn't characterize yourself as being lonely (well, at least not because of that specific opinion). This entire thread has been about degrees and context.



Pure speculation on my part, but none of the current "digital" instruments (including string instruments) require using your "mouth", which when you go digital, becomes somewhat questionable as an interface to the instrument. Current digital instruments tend to take equivalent form factors of the acoustic instruments they are mimicking, which, amongst other things, probably helps to ease the transition from the acoustic versions of the instrument.

There are plenty of digital wind instruments

digital trumpets such as:
http://www.digitaltrumpet.com.au/

digital wind controllers (close to a clarinet or sax):
http://www.musiciansbuy.com/band_orchestra_electronic_wind_string_instruments_yamaha.html

Rich

It just so happens that the easiest instrument to "digitize" is the piano. Although it is a complex instrument, the sound from any one note when hit repeatedly with the same velocity is pretty much the same every time (with the exception of the dampers position and/or other strings being open).

This isn't to suggest that the emulation is perfect - I suspect that it never will be.

On the other hand, consider the sax - the tone of the sound can be changed by manipulating the reed, as can the volume (try increasing the volume of a piano tone once struck). And the pitch can be changed also.

All of these variables can occur at the same time, and are really impossible to emulate because of the complexity of the sound.

A little thought, and one realizes that the guitar, violin, and most other instruments fall into the same category. And then there is the human voice which is even more complex.

The piano is the easiest (perhaps after the electronic organ). Hope everyone sees the irony and humour in this.

Glenn

First I want everyone to take notice that my first response is not "egads!" But it is a close second.

You know watching this thing (there is a demo page) makes me realize at some point with all these digital instruments, the FORM of the instrument is absolutely meaningless. The digital trumpet could easily enough be made to sound like a piano and vice versa, etc etc etc.

For the record, my first response is "what's the point" but i would think anyone following this thread would probably guess that.

Anyway this shows that anything can be digitized and I guess will be. Anyone who would like to read the lighter side of the result of this madness should look up a book by Stanislaw Lem, written a couple of decades ago, called "The Cyberiad: Fables for a Cybernetic Age". It's very enjoyable.

Someone once commented that there has been no musical revolution with the introduction of midi instruments, even though they are just as revolutionary as the piano was to the harpsichord. There are already working midi accordions, it's only a matter of time before we stop converting real instruments to midi and start coming up with new forms that will bring a new era of music.

Listen to this crazy thing. At 0:18 he does a piano glissando.

That thing is a guitar with piano keys and breath control.

Sorry, I've only just caught up with this thread, the answer is KAWAI!!
-

Which model?

CP-136 ? CP-136

Sorry, I haven't tried those models, I'm thinking of the basic piano models, the CN and CA Range. The CN-22 is the least expensive in the range and it's touch and sound are superb, it could be classed as a compact piano too. It's a shame there aren't more stockists around so's folk could try them out. I need a compact piano for my tiny study, presently I'm undecided between the Roland DP-990 and the Kawai CN-22, I've yet to try the Casio PX-830, but so far I'm leaning towards the CN-22 pricewise.

Some random comments all of which suport the idea that we are at the very beginning of some long process. We ain't seen nothing yet.

Have you all seen the new Gibson "robot" tuners? This is a tuning peg with a very small electric motor inside. You pull a switch and then strike the string and the tuning peg will rotate until the desired pitch is reached. You then push the switch back to lock it. People with good ears claim it works "spot on". This is a real product you can buy today at retail stores, not a lab demo.

Could you imagine these in a Piano? The technology is here today. It would cost a LOT for all those robot tuners but they'd allow two things
1) An acoustic piano could remain in tune, period.
2) The temperament could be changed at will in only a few minutes.





The Yamaha "Disklavier" Uses a real grand piano as the keyboard. Sensors are fitted under the keys. The "feel is identical to a grand piano because the Disklavier is a grand piano. So it can be done, but it is so expensive few people buy these.

After re-reading the above I'm thinking of digital/acoustic hybrids. DPs with real wood key ecapements including the felt hammers that impact force sensors rather then strings


What about a "electric piano" built like an electric guitar? It would have real steel strings hit by felt hammers but no sound board. Under each string is a magnet and coil of wire. This like the electric guitar would have 100% true acoustic "feel" and no digital harshness but would allow for an infinite range of new sounds. No "modeling" as those wires coming from the coils would go strait to the "grid" on a vacuum tube. (For those not familiar with elect. guitars, these pickups do pick up string resonance and other effects. You change the timbre of the sound by choice of location of the pickup along the length of the string. Near the center you get the fundamental tone and more overtones near the ends of the sting. Guitars have multiple pickups that can be switched or blended.)

These exist, which is why we use the term digital piano instead of electric piano.

Yamaha, Baldwin, Helpinstill and Kawai produce electric pianos with strings. Most are acoustic electric, but Helpinstill is electric as your describe.

Wurlitzer uses flat reeds instead of strings.

Fender Rhodes uses a striking bar with a string attached.

Just to add my own quick 2c. I bought a Roland RD-700GX a few months ago, ended up going for one of the flagship models because I just kept finding things too 'unrealistic' on anything less (and in the process spent a lot more money than I originally planned to!).

I'm very happy with the RD - I love it, and use it for hours a day, but when I use my teachers yamaha grand piano for one hour a week, it's just heaven in comparison. It's just a whole different experience. Even more surprisingly, I actually find myself regularly using, and enjoying my very old upright that I bought the RD-700GX to replace. Even that old cheap monstrosity which is out of tune, and never sounded great in the first place has 'character' and enjoyment that I just don't find on the RD. It's been quite an eye opener.

Some people say the evolution of pianos are moving to digital and that eventually analog may not be used at all (which I find sort of disappointing). But if this is the case, something I wonder about this is the whole 'immitation of hammer action' that DP's try so hard to recreate. The irony of digital pianos is that the most difficult thing to simulate seems to be the actual key action itself, something that has no bearing on the actual sound or tone of a Digital Piano. It's basically 95% of the weight (both physically and engineering-wise) and doesnt actually serve any purpose other than imitating the feel of something else. I guess I'm wondering, if the evolution of pianos is taking the path of 'lighter, more portable, more efficient, more consise', why have the heavy hammer action simulation at all? I realise that 'weight' allows for more expression, but it could be done in other ways... I wonder how much longer will a large big wooden hammer that doesnt serve any purpose (in a DP) be the 'standard' for key action? (Note I'm not saying I don't like the feel of normal piano action, I love it - which is why I bought the RD, but in terms of the 'evolution' of DPs, its sort of odd)

I think the term "get a horse" may eventually apply to this debate also in the not-to-distant future. I've had many acoustic grand pianos from Kawai to Steinway.......and I'll summarize my feelings as such........maintenance, maintenance, maintenance......if it didn't need tuning, it was regulating or voicing...etc.etc.etc...

I now have a Yamaha CLP- 380 PE. Am I satisfied? Well, it's never out of tune, it never needs voicing or regulating, and if I have it placed properly it resembles a very good acoustic grand. IMHO, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. These can only get better as time goes on...........with the present economy digital grand pianos are only going to make more inroads in the acoustic grand market. Who can afford a 100k piano anymore........including the maintenance. However most can afford a digital grand piano.........as I said.........I believe it won't be too long and the expression "get a horse" will apply.


btw, I have a degree in Piano performance, and was a private piano teacher for many years. Still love the sound of a Steinway concert grand, but love the convenience and lack of maintenance in my Yamaha.........maybe next time I'll choose a dp with steinway sampling (Roland).

According to Urbandictionary.com the phrase "get a horse" is defined (correctly imho): Used to yell at pedestrians walking along the sides of streets. Yelled from a car or bus to discourage other people. Typically used against nerds and losers.

I fail to see the analogy. Let's please remember what started this "debate", which was my questioning not so much the veracity of digital pianos, but trying to describe the qualitative difference, subjective or otherwise between acoustics and digitals, and trying to describe what is lost. I understood from the start it is a rather quixotic thing to try, and particularly in the context of a forum like this.

I also understand that in the end pragmatism "wins" at least for the individual. But that doesn't mean that those that have had (or continue to have) not just love for acoustic pianos (that's too easy) but experiences of enjoyment that are intrinsically indescribable, won't be convinced. It is only the invention of a so-called advancement that challenges the reality of what it purportedly is replacing. Cars didn't make love of horses disappear. Those that still have a horse value them for what they are. And, it certainly doesnt make those who ride them losers.

When I recently had the privilege (and I fully understand it IS a privilege) to purchase an Estonia that was coming directly from the factory, I made a point of asking that the craftsmen involved sign it. It meant something to me to have a connection, however tenuous and distant, to those people who not simply made it but are part of what I consider a very honorable tradition. Likewise, I was told that they were very moved by the request and were lining up to sign the piano.

If all this smacks of elitism, so be it. But that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to share the experience in whatever way I can nor does it mean that I look down on those that own a digital piano.

Sorry, I guess I should have explained my use of the phrase "get a horse." In my experience, it was used in this context........those who had horses felt that automobiles would never surpass the usefullness of a horse....a horse owners mock of the new technology of the automobile. I didn't use the phrase to put down those who prefer acoustic pianos. Although I do think it is elitist to knock a new technology as if I will never surpass the older, it's as short-sighted as the horse lovers were. The piano after all is STILL full of full of inadequacies......it's a constant battle to
keep it operating at it's full potential........unless it's tuned, regulated, and voiced on a very frequent basis. I still love it, but realize that unless you're very wealthy and patient person, it's impractical for most people. BTW, I also had my Steinway Model B signed (by John Steinway,my piano teacher knew him personally) and loved the instrument, however I spent many many months picking out my Model B........there were many, many very average instruments before I came upon the one I finally chose, and then I had to go to the New York Steinway Hall to finally find one that satisified me.

What amazes me now is that people who produce digital instruments still feel compelled to reproduce (in painful detail at times) all the inadequacies associated with the acoustic instrument, instead of realizing that a digital piano is capable of producing any sound.........beyond sampling.

Horses aren't out of favor, they are just for those who have the resources and time to maintain such a hobby........and they'll always have the subtleties associated with their uniqueness.........but in my opinion they will eventually be seen in the same light as the fortepiano.......a link in the evolutionary chain to pianistic perfection. I'm looking at the Roland V-Piano right now because they've broken past the boundaries of the acoustic piano mold..........this is one example of thinking outside of the acoustic box.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Alright, back to the original question (sorry original poster, I wandered into another territory)

I believe that the Yamaha CLP 380 is very good, I've played the Yamaha Avant Grand, but feel that it's overly priced for the gimmick of reproducing the feel of the vibrations associated with the keys. I'm also facinated with the Roland V-Piano. These btw, are expensive $5,000 - $6,000......I'm sure there are many other good products for those who are either more computer literate, or more familiar with lower end products.

One other word to the wise, when purchasing a piano. In my experience, piano salesmen can be WORSE than used-car salesmen. They very frequently exaggerate, or outright lie in order to make a sale. Any piano salesman who promotes their instruments by trashing anothers is, in my opinion suspect. Yamaha has great technology, but I find their sampling inferior. The Roland V-Piano has no sampling, it's built on a model so a person can create their own sound........string wraps, lengths, hammer-felt densities, tuning.....etc..it's totally adjustable, which is why I'm interested in it. I've heard the Kawai makes a great digital, but, if the samples are similiar to the sound of their grands, I'd say no (MY opinion....I find most japanese or korean pianos too bright, including my yamaha) I've also heard that Korg produces some great keyboards, but they seem to be more for the stage than the home.

Hope this helps, and I hope I didn't step on anyones toes expressing my opinion. I like the saying "I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to have your own opinion."

Don't glom all acoustics into the same boat. I totally know where you're coming from about the B and the search for "that right one". However not all acoustics have that much variability, nor do all acoustics require this constant voicing and regulation. One should not assume that the (negative) attributes of what is admittedly considered the standard bearer are endemic to the instrument vs the manufacturer.

Hi!
Which DPs do you not find too bright?

Don't blame the manufacturers. Most of ther keyboards sold are NOT digital Pianos. Keyboradest have moved well past the piano sounds. In fact MOST have. The sample of musicians wel see here on the is forum is a nbiased sample. After all the name of this place is "pianoworld". But most keyboard plaers are into samples that they recorderd or found or analog synths or sampled analog synths. Just listen to any TV sound track or pop music non-piano sounds dominate. Those strings you here and that horn are maybe a Yamaha Motif or something like it.

The latest keybaord Korg is pushing now is sold as being able to play "vintage sounds" like Hammon B3, 60's electric pianos and so on.

bitWrangler. "Don't glom all acoustics into the same boat. I totally know where you're coming from about the B and the search for "that right one". However not all acoustics have that much variability, nor do all acoustics require this constant voicing and regulation. One should not assume that the (negative) attributes of what is admittedly considered the standard bearer are endemic to the instrument vs the manufacturer."
_______________________________________________________

Unfortunately, in my experience, (and I don't want to turn this into a contest, so I won't list them)if an acoustic piano doesn't need that kind of frequent attention, it also doesn't have the ability to perform to the standards of the Steinway B, or similar performing acoustic pianos.

Like higher end automobiles (Ferrari, Lamborghini....etc) most items that are high performance, (many are hand-crafted), have the down-side of higher maintenance and costs. I wish it weren't so, but that seems to be the way of things. Now, however it's about memory chips and reproducing the samples or bits reproducing those sounds, so it's not about the hand-made anymore...........just as in electric cars (Loremo, Fiskar) who are now breaking speed records past the gasoline powered ones............I'm quite sure these computer models with eventually surpass the acoustic instrument, and at a far smaller cost.

Huygens "Hi! Which DPs do you not find too bright?"
____________________________________________________________

Honestly I haven't played all the digital pianos to be able to say..........I was more less referring to the acoustic pianos the samples are derived from.......Steinway, Bosendorfer......etc. I prefer the non-Japanese, Korean piano samples because like the acoustic pianos, they tend to have the ability to express a wider range of emotion without the unpleasant harshness of a Japanese or Korean acoustic piano. (BTW, in all fairness, I haven't played an acoustic Samick, Kawai,Young Chang....etc... in a few years, so they MAY have made improvments, I'm basing my opinion now on the DPs which had their samples..(Kawai, Yamaha)....and I still found them too harsh.......so I'm assuming their acoustic instruments are still very bright).

My favorite piano is the 9' Steinway, although I've heard a Bosendorfer 11' Imperial grand that was unbelieveable also.(btw, these pianos were stage pianos, were perfectly tuned, regulated and voiced)...they should be, these are $100,000 + pianos. So in answer to your question, I guess I'd have to say the Roland digital pianos would probably be better suited to my tastes since they incorporate Bosendorfer, or Steinway samples into their digital pianos. However I now have a Yamaha CLP 380, because I was convinced at the time I purchased it, that I wasn't going to find a better piano playing experience. My feelings are after owning it for about a year, somewhat mixed..........it does have settings to soften the tone, but then, if you push it, it lacks the brilliance you find on a great acoustic piano. Which is why I'm interested in the Roland V-Piano. (I even went as far as to buy the Garritan Professional Steinway computer program and have played it through my Yamaha and am now convinced without a doubt that these acoustic piano companies (Yamaha, Steinway) aren't inclined to put in great samples, because they're afraid of cannibalizing their acoustic sales). The good news is that for the computer initiated, the technologies now exist that can enable the average person, for a very small amount of money, to have at your disposal the sounds of a concert grand piano for very little money.) One other reason I'm starting to gravitate towards Roland, or even a computer based keyboard and software. The companies which produce these products aren't reliant on acoustic piano sales (like Steinway, or Yamaha), so they're not going to hold back good samples or technologies.

Again, these are MY opinions, based on MY experiences.

I hope this answers your question to your satisfaction

Thanks, I'm looking for a digital pianos of the more mellow kind. I've now been to 2 shops and (in 1st shop) tried the Roland RD-700GX which was too bright to me, and (in 2nd shop) I've tried the RD-300GX (with some other kind of unknown setup), and the RD-300GX had surprisingly a more mellow tone.

One of my shopping attempts can be read in this forum.

I might be deaf, too.

Yes, trying a digital and then an acoustic is a great way to tell what is happening. Interesting thing to consider is that, the other day I tried 7-9 Yamaha grands (not the full size one, but the smaller ones) and then the various digital ones, including the Yamaha Modus, and found that in the acoustic grands that the lower notes sounded very disappointing and stodgy (unpleasing voice) worse than that of many Yamaha uprights. In the past I have rarely found some upright Yamaha with superb base - but that's another story.

Anyway, the Modus sampled from a better grand (CFIIIS) and I found that though the base notes more fake, but had the characteristics of a better piano, and so was actually 'better' in this regard.

So which do you prefer? A real acoustic grand with unsatisfactory sounds but with a real soundboard, or a digital with samples from a superior instrument but which sounds a bit more fake??