Cool Martin! None of them are what you would call heavyweights.

I gotta call Zeke tonight.

Snazzy

No, not much heavier than e.g. the SP-250 when you think about it. Given their features and NW action, I actually find that pretty amazing!

They are pretty light, considering.

The acoustic pianos were awesome, but I thought the Rhodes emulations were superb. I could dump my old 73.

The Rhodes in my Avant Grand sounds similar, but is not adjustable like the C1's.

I think the idea of the vacuum fluorescent display, is that it's so highly visible on stage...wonder how it would be in sunlight, as in an outdoor gig?

Snazzy

Wikipedia says these kinds of displays can be made to be real bright, so that they could even work in sunlight. That's why VFDs are also popular for car dashboards...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluorescent_display

Andy's Music has the prices of those CPs:

http://www.andysmusiconline.com/categories/portable-keyboards/1.html

Won't you get in trouble with your employer when you are so enthusiastic about your competitor's products?

I knew someone in market that told me one time, "when in doubt, (like when they don't understand the write up from engineering) just make stuff up."

No.

Cheers,
James
x

Mission accomplished! The guys in Marketing are high-fiving as we speak.

The only real proof is in the playing.

Videos and marketing hype mean very little to anyone who would be serious enough to buy one.

Specs rarely tell the whole story.

Snazzy

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a YAMAHA Bob and a ROLAND Keith here to complement the invaluable input from KAWAI James? They wouldn't even have to be real, they could be just spectrally modeled...

Just checked the European price for the CP-1 -- €5,300, or about $7,600!

http://www.musik-schmidt.de/gb-Yamaha-CP1.html

Shucks, Martin. That's disgusting! It's highway robbery.

We don't pay near that price in the USA; the most the C1 would sell for would be full retail which would be $5999...but the "street" price will probably be around $5000.

I'm kinda struck on the C5, as it gives more sounds and still retains the wood keybed and the basic, but probably not as detailed, core of the C1.

Snazzy

Regarding sustain, one or two bass notes in the acoustics are held for quite a while in the demo video, and I did not hear a natural decay/evolution - they sounded like early looped samples. (anyone else notice that?)

Overall it sounds excellent though. The electric pianos are very strong!!

Greg.

Strange you say that, Greg, as I found the bass notes incredibly realistic with a sustain not often found on digitals and no evidence of a loop as far as my ears can tell.

I guess the only real way to tell is to listen while actually playing those notes, which I intend to do at the very first opportunity.

I thought the Rhodes sounds were very authentic, but again, the proof will be in the actual playing through a good set of speakers.

The acoustics also sounded very natural in the mid range, which is where a lot of digitals, including Roland's fancy V-Piano, sound synthetic and/or thin.

I also think they did a terrific job on the display, and having had experience with them on other instruments, I think it's safe to say they'll be highly visible in just about any kind of light.

Snazzy

Snazzy,
I'm sure they're not *actually* looped, but the sustain seemed to stay on a rather bright agressive timbre for too long, as *if* it were looped. Yes - we'll have to actually play one - very hard to tell anything for sure from demos.

Listening to more recordings of the acoustics, they lack the exquisite clarity that some software sample libraries have. Still very nice though. (perhaps some fidelity is being lost due to web streaming compression)

Greg.

I just watched the videos all the way through and agree that the acoustic pianos are samples. They say the velocity layers are undetectable, but layers are the hardest thing for me to detect just sitting at a DP (give me precise control over velocity and it becomes a much easier job). The FM DPs seem to utilize a lobotomized DX FM synth (blea!). The Rohodes and reed types I believe are using some other type of synthesis, not samples.

The only parameter they seem to have any control over on the acoustic piano is hammer hardness, which to me could easily be globally controlled via the velocity curve, coupled maybe with a high frequency control. The string resonance can easily be a sample or samples too, so probably no modeling going on there. Which is OK I guess, I generally hate fake string resonance.

They make a big deal about the preamp bands for the piano samples. EQ is a big deal? It's OK I guess but we've been doing EQ on DSPs for like forever. We got that down over a generation ago, hardly something to shout from the rooftops.


Agree, they are throwing the term "modeling" around rather indiscriminately (and to their advantage). It means something completely different for a digital acoustic piano then it does for an effects chain.


Yes, the DP for me is a total let down. The focus here is on the other instruments, which seem to be very well done but to me are just icing on an otherwise mediocre cake. Oh well...

Of course, all this boils down to whether you have the money to buy and enjoy these new products on their own merits, or just be content to attempt to criticize an instrument without actually playing it and listening in the proper environment and through a good set of speakers or headphones.

My friend Zeke has ordered one (a CP-1) and has also agreed to take my Yamaha CP-300 on trade if I like it, so I'm reserving my deepest opinions until I actually sit down and play it for an extended period of time.

So far I'm very impressed with the quality of the acoustic piano, which obviously is a combination of modeling and sampling and sounds as smooth as a used car salesman's spiel at the end of the month.

The CP-1 is cheaper, and lighter than the V-Piano, offers controller functions that Roland stupidly forgot to put on the V-Piano, and has incredibly useful and intuitive editing, rather than the long-winded approach by Roland...all these advantages are very obvious, without even playing the Yamaha.

Somehow, I have the feeling that it's going to take the breath- and nearly the monthly paychecks -away from the employees of rival manufacturers.

Time will tell.

Snazzy

It's CP-1! Don't ruin this forum's Google indexability, Snazzy!

Martin, you're a stickler for accuracy, and I'm glad you are. Thank you. I have revised my posts accordingly.

Snazzy

Snazz, you're criticizing me for technically judging it only from a video, but you're loving all over it judging it only from a video. I'm not sure who's got the moral high ground here.

I really don't think it is "a combination of modeling and sampling" the DP seems to be pretty much pure sampling. The low note sustain sounds good (again, from the poor quality audio in the video) but I would need some time with it to really tell (and so would you).


Except for the fact that the V-Piano is a real modeled acoustic piano, where the Yamaha DP is a sample set. I can't comment on the editing though, not having touched either of them (and there being no manual yet for the Yamaha).

This new CP series looks like Yamaha's version of the 'Korg SV1' with modelling technology, option for Natural Wood keys, VFD display among others... They all focus basically on sounds of the acoustic grand pianos and vintage electric pianos with those amps modelling. Anyone has done a comparison of they sound? I did try the SV1 which has great piano sounds and feel.

The SV1 and the CP50 are of similar price, would be interesting to compare those two models. On the higher end, it's great to finally see some competition to the Roland V-Piano. Looks like it would be another 'battle' coming for the Modelling technology as what we have now with the multi-level Sampling technology....

It's what they call "performance modeling", not physical modelling as in Pianoteq.

The difference is at which level the model operates. What they've done is recorded lots of samples. But not just velocity layers. They have samples for higher level harmonics and fundamental string sound. Then the model applies an envelope to each of the components.

In a pure sample system the user can't adjust parameters such as the hardness of the hammer felt but the CP-1 allows this. What they've done is modelled the performance of a soft felt by changing the weights of the samples. The performance model, models the ratio of various overtone over time. A physical model would compute what a string does after being deformed by a hammer impact.

From the literature available:

"A unique new SCM (Spectral Component Modeling) tone generation system faithfully recreates the 17 selected sounds of acoustic and vintage electronic pianos and responds to the player's touch to provide more creative expression than ever before possible.

The Spectral Component Modeling system starts with a fundamentally different tone generation system than Yamaha has ever used before. By combining Sampling and Modeling technology, it optimizes tone generation for each instrument so that every nuance of the player's touch is translated into expressive tone."

From the above, it appears the acoustic piano is using modeling as well as sampling.(My italics).I believe Roland does this with some of their higher end pianos, so it's no real surprise Yamaha picked up on it...maybe they already had it, but decided to carry it further with the additional sounds.

I think Korg has the modeling devoted to only the Electronic pianos and organs. I played an SV-1 and it's alternate sounds are far better than the acoustic...reminds me a lot of the Nord instruments.

Dewster, I apologize if I seemed to be using a double standard...I'm just plain old excited about this product, as you can plainly see, and sometimes I type faster than I think.

I'm surprised you think it is solely sampling, considering you're one of the smarter people on this forum (except for me, of course )...don't you think Yamaha is just as capable of combining the two technologies (Modeling & Sampling) as well as Roland?

I'm almost afraid it's gonna sound better than my Avant Grand.

Snazzy

I came across kind of harsh, very sorry Snazz.

Even the Yamaha guy said it was really hard to hear the sample layers switching, so I have to believe it's just sampling. The rest I would chalk up to market-speak. Were it modeling in the Pianoteq sense it would be a huge deal, they would have a bunch more parameters they could change, and I think they would at least talk about that in the videos. Those features being so conspicuously absent in the video tells me all they have is some vaguely new spin on sampling (itself probably not very earth-shattering).

*Yawn*

They are very good at creating buzz, I'll give them that. If I wanted some vintage EP sounds I'd be all over this, but the acoustic grands seem to be almost an afterthought. Meh.

Oh lord, if they would just do a single, close-miked sample of ~2 minutes or so of each note @ 12 layers (6 up/down) I'd be satisfied. I don't need parameter changes at all if the source piano is good enough and the sampling done competently enough.

Why can't they do that before they go crazy with the too short samples to accommodate all these pseudo modeling parameters?

I just don't understand the DP industry.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, Dewster.

Spectral Component Modeling ...to me it really does seem to be a hybrid of sampling and physical modeling. It's obviously better than pure physical modeling, especially when it comes to complex tones like the Acoustic Piano and the Rhodes.

Pure physically modeling works great with very simple, static waveforms, like modeled tone-wheels etc. But with the hybrid, you have both working for you with accurate sampled waveforms, but with virtually no velocity jumps and much more control over key elements of the sound and how it responds to touch.

The bottom line is, it doesn't really matter much how they do it, as long as it works...and it sounds pretty darn good in the demos I've heard.

The real proof is in the playing...hopefully we won't have to wait too long to get one, as they might be a bit popular. I think it is far more useful an instrument than the V-Piano, but, that's my opinion. I also think the CP-5 might be the more stage/band practical of the bunch.

It sure is generating a lot of buzz on other forums.

Snazzy

That's encouraging. The weak / synthetic mid range of the V-Piano in my studio has become really tiresome.

Lawrence

More information:

CP1 / CP5 / CP50 Brochure

and

CP1 Illustrated Guide

Bah! The links don't seem to work. Click on one of the links above, and then click on RESOURCES, and you'll see the links for the items.

Lawrence

Melodialworks,

How much of a hassle it is to access the alternate sounds inside the V-Piano from it's own keyboard, or is that actually possible ?

Could you place another keyboard(controller) on top, and access them through MIDI?

What is their quality like?

I have a friend thinking about getting one.

Snazzy