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.