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.