So, I finally had the chance to try the PX330.

I really didn't like it and prefer my PX310.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the sound. This could possibly change if I tried it with headphones or through better speakers.

The action feels like a major step backwards to me. Quite frankly, I prefer almost all the Yamaha actions to the new Privia action. That is not the case with my PX310 or most of the other Privia models I've tried up to this new generation.

Guess I won't be upgrading any time soon.

Rich

Got my wife the PX 330 off ebay for $575 this week. She loves it and it sounds good on it's own, but when I hooked it up to my Bose system it sounds awesome. I was at the Nashville Guitar Center a few hours ago and they are having a presidents weekend sale and have the PX 130 for $399 and the PX 330 for $550.

BIG kudos to Casio for putting the same triple-sensor action in the complete line-up, rather than reserving the best action for the top models. I haven't yet tried one of these models - I am very curious indeed, especially regarding the action. Assuming the action is good (which appears to be the case), I think it would be good if Casio could also produce some MIDI controllers with the same action.

Greg.

I know where you're coming from, Rich. I used to have the PX-310, and sometimes wish I still had it. The ZPI chip seemed to do a very good job of generating pleasant-sounding tones. The action was pretty good, if slightly noisy, and the whole seemed like a very well designed package at a bargain price. However, it did have latency issues and the main piano sound lacked some dynamics.

When I "upgraded" to the 320, I was quickly disappointed. Even though the 128-polyphony and new piano tones were an improvement, the action gave me wrist-ache and there was something less pleasing about the AIF tone generation that I could never quite put my finger on.

So now I have the 330. It's definitely better than the 320 and is a much more sophisticated instrument than its predecessors, but... There is still something about the AIF chip that robs the sounds of life. It almost seems that, in their eagerness to stay up with the competition, technically, the designers failed to pay as much attention to the more subjective elements. The short decay is irritating and the quality of sound processing is not yet up to Yamaha/Roland. In a band context, the 310 blended very well and garnered praise from very surprised band members. I wouldn't use the 330 in a band. That said, I do think that it's possible to play the grand piano patches with much greater expression than on previous Privias and so, as a practice piano, it does a very good job. I just wish they had not gone backwards in terms of speaker quality, and had put more into the EPs.

I thought the same thing about the sound when I compared the PX-575 to the PX-320/120. To my ears,the sound was better on the PX-575, but I wasn't sure why. I thought it might be the ZPI chip and or the speakers as the case on the older Privias was larger and the sound is good from the internal speakers. When I played the 320, it just didn't have the same sound presence. I noticed the bass wasn't as good and it lacked the punch the older Privias had in midrange. This is understandable as Casio made the package lighter with more connectivity options, thus the tradeoff.
As for the PX-330, the piano voice is better especially the dynamic range. I agree the sustain is somewhat weak in the octaves above middle C, but thought it was acceptable. Thinking back to the Demo Mike Martin did with the PX-130 it sounds very good through the audio interface he used. I also think the action is improved over the older privias, and that strip of felt has helped quiet the key clack quite a bit when the keys return. The PX-575 is the only remaining Privia with the older sound chip, and action. I would think it's days are numbered as this model is over 3 years old and is due for a revamp. The PX-330 has less sounds, but more connectivity options and a better piano sample with more dynamic range. I can't think of anything as versatil for the money.

I bought a px330 on Monday, rehearsed with it Monday night for about 2.5 hours and played a 4 hour gig with it Tuesday night. Both bands liked the sound. These comments are subject to the "discount rule" of mine that says when making a judgment don't do it within about 30 days of using the thing for the first time. Even so, I must say the PX330 is a bargain and is really good for the use I need it for - club gigs. All I need it for is piano, and as a controller for a Nord electro2/61. I may never even experiment with the other features, which are many. I would have bought a px130 if it had 1/4" line outs, and midi. I just need a decent piano. I like the feel of the keyboard and the action suits me fine. I used Modern Piano and LA Piano most of the night. These patches seem to have a bite to them that is good for playing in a small group - cuts through. The action is super for playing the nord rhodes patches. I ran the nord through a speakeasy ama122 amp. I will always use the nord this way henceforth. The ama122 really soups up the electro organ and rhodes. I was playing mono, not stereo. I never have the stage room, nor the bone structure [can't heft too much because of a hip problem] to play stereo, and frankly, I like the sound. The gig was OK, except we had a sub on bass, which sent the train down a siding or two, but no harm. Load in and load out is wonderful with a 25 lb. piano! I read the Keyboard Magazine and harmony central user reviews before buying the board, and I think they are spot-on. I am glad I bought this board, and recommend it. Another benefit is that I have completely lost any yearning for any new keyboards that weigh more than this one, including the new Yamaha stuff, which I am sure are wonderful. All the other boards I have feel like they are made out of uranium compared to the PX330. It sounds good, looks good and is the perfect tool for my jobs!

I've now tried a PX-130, to see whether it's tri-sensor action would elevate me into repetition nirvana. It did not, and my current keyboard (a very old Kawai MP9000) is faster, IMHO. It probably ought to be faster, because it weighs about three times as much. Nevertheless, I liked the overall feel of the Casio quite a lot - it's good to get a nice action in such an extremely light package.

As a sanity check I tried a repetition test on an acoustic upright to compare it with the Casio - the acoustic didn't skip a beat. (I only tried middle C though)

Greg.

I believe, the 3-sensor principle is not for repetition speed.

It is made for repetition depth. That means, you can play repetions where the key is not fully released, fast, but with reduced volume.

It should have the same effect as the repetition mechanic of an acoustic grand piano.
Its a feature made for classical music, not a feature for boogie woogie or jerry lee lewis style ;-)

A normal keyboard -as my Kawai AWA grand pro- will not reliably produce a sound, if you do this.

Unfortunately I had not opportunity to test this myself, but thats what I believe.

Peter

Yes, I understand that, however I thought that would translate into repetition speed - the key does not have to travel up as far, which then results in an increase in repetition speed.
I was aware that the reptitions using the third sensor may be softer, but I simply could not detect anything special at all when doing the two-finger reptition test. If an acoustic upright (i.e not even a grand) could keep up with me I think it is highly unlikely that I was doing unusually rapid repeats.

I also tried a Ketron (never heard of them before!), and it seemed faster than the Casio, HOWEVER, the first two or three reps would often not work, which was rather strange. Once I got it going, though, it was fast.

EDIT: It is difficult for me to play single handed repeats (i.e using the rotating 3-2-1 fingered method) on my Kawai, so I will go back and see whether the Casio is any better at this more typical repeating method. Maybe you're right - the Casio may allow me to play with less finger travel, thus increasing my repetition speed in this more common situation.

Greg.

I believe the test should be done with one finger and releasing the key no more than 50%.

Repetition with more than one finger that is fast and loud repetion. The subject to test here is fast and soft (low-keyed) repetition as it occurs in classial solo piano playing.

BTW, if you go to the webpage of Seiler -that is a german high quality piano manufacturer recently bought by Yamaha- ,they specify the repetition rate for all their pianos. For almost all pianos (upright and grand), they specify a rate of 400 per minute. Because a digital has less mass to move it could be faster - theoretically.

So the speed doesnt need testing -it is the softness combined with speed that needs testing.

With a 2-sensor system, this is not possible. If a repetition is fast it will automatically be loud. So I dont believe, Kawai supports this. They use a lot of wood, but to implement this feature you need brain, not wood ;-)

Not that I know that for sure, but that is what I understand about it.


Anyway, thanks for sharing the experience. I hope that I can test it at weekend.
I would wish the px330 had the Ivory touch feature, but honestly, I dont know yet if this makes a big difference.

best,

Peter

How would you play rapidly and softly? With one finger? (I've never been taught to do that, but it's been a very long time indeed since my last lesson!)



That's very interesting, because 400 seems very slow - Billy Joel is playing at about twice that speed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k
(playing "Angry Young Man") if I am not mistaken. (I loaded the audio into an audio editor and did a crude measurement)
I was definitely testing at a rate greater than 400 today, using the two-finger method. Could the 400 strokes per minute specification refer to full-stroke repeats? I.e - could it refer to the maximum rate achievable if the key is allowed to return all the way to the top? If not, I am confused by this specification - it seems WAY too low.



Yes. The difficult part is making it fast and at the same time making it feel like a real piano.



Why doesn't the speed need testing? Just because it is theoretically possible for a digital piano keyboard to be very rapid does not mean that every keyboard will be very rapid - as I have proved (to myself) today, testing the PX-130.



Ok, I had not thought of this. I agree - if a real piano plays rapid repeats softly (which I think is the case), then the Kawai probably does not reproduce this behaviour. However, so far, I have not witnessed the PX-130 play what I would call rapid repeats EITHER loudly OR softly. Not with any consistency, anyway. You may say that my Kawai is wrong to reproduce rapid repeats loudly, but I would prefer loud notes to no notes at all. ;^)

Greg.

I have just run a completely unscientific test with my PX-330. It is possible to achieve rapid repetition both softly and loudly. The difficulty is achieving any degree of consistency with more than one finger. It works fine using alternating index fingers of both hands but the three-two-one method is problematic. That seems to be more of a mechanical issue than a sensor limitation. I have found with most DPs that unless you perform repetition with maximum leverage (i.e. right on the leading edge of the key) the lack of escapement/hammers inhibits the repetition somewhat. With multiple fingers, it is not as easy to achieve uniform pressure/leverage.

That said, the 330's tri-sensor repetition capabilities are a distinct improvement on previous (and some competing) models.

Hi,

I was at work when I posted and I had not much time.

Of course you are right, repetition needs testing. A keyboard might be comfortable for the fingers and another might not.

But this an ergonomic issue, not a technical one. From a technical point of view a digital /can/ always be faster, because it has much less complicated mechanisms and the electronic contacts dont have a speed limitation.

Im not a good player I am still learning, but I am an electronics technician and so I see it from the technical point of view.

Ok, here is an online metronome that can give an acoustical impression of repetition speeds:

http://advanced.bestmetronome.com/

Set it to 1/4 and to 400 Bpm.
Technically spoken this are about 7 Hz. The double speed is 14 Hz, and that is an audible tone ;-)
So I cant imagine that Billy repeats at that speed.
And, this is a proofable fact to me: For this style of playing a third sensor is not needed. ;-)))
(Dont misunderstand: I love to listen this and boogi woogie and other rock music, and yes he is incredibly fast)

If you want to hear how fast the double speed is, set the Metronome to 800 Bpm.

Ok, and for completeness here is the link to Seiler's technical data:

http://www.seiler-pianos.de/eng/technik/daten.htm

Note that they have a patented magnetic repetition mechanik, so they should be among the fastest possible.
I can imagine, that they can repeat faster with special plying technique, but they dont want to give warranty on this.

So, if you reach 400 or 600 then you are very good and with 800 an absolute technical limit should be reached.

best,

Peter

Peter,
400 per minute is only 6.7 per second. This is very slow - I can reach this just playing with ONE finger on ONE hand! I have emailed Seiler to try and get some clarification on this. As I say - it may be a specification that relates to full travel key strokes. (just a thought)

I found another clip of a 9 year old boy playing the same song (Angry Young Man), and he is playing at about 700 beats per minute. ;^) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcQqAFabrI8
Load this up into an audio editor, and measure the time taken to play the first three notes, and then work out the repetition rate.

I completely disagree with you that a digital piano will automatically be faster than a real piano. Yes - they could EASILY make an action that was much faster, but they CANNOT easily make an action that is faster AND which feels the same as a real piano. For example, I am sure that a dirt cheap Yamaha keyboard I have is as fast or faster than any real piano - however - it feels like an organ - not a piano!

Greg.

I have seen this yesterday evening.
It is clearly audible to me that he plays a digital piano.
I could not figure out which brand it is.

I agree in the other points. A digital will not feel exactly like an acoustic, because there is no damper connected to the keys and no escapement mechanics.

An example: some people say, the kawai ca63 repeats faster than the ca93.
The ca93 has escapement keys and the ca63 has not. So the escapement makes the keys slower on a digital.
However, the purpose of escapement in a real acoustic is to make repetition faster.

On a digital escapement has no other purpose than feel and fingertraining but it doesnt improve repetition.

Thats what I understand about it.

BTW. I believe, the speed that Billy Joel reaches is far beyond a normal repetition rate. This is not possible for each of the keys of the piano and I believe, to get this speed it is necessary to utilize a sort of natural mechanical -ballistic- resonance that the key possibly has.

That means if he really plays at 800, then he cannot do this at 600 because there is no resonance for this rate.
He can do it at 400.
I think this is beyond normal repetition rate and might even not be possible witch every acoustic piano.


Peter

Peter,
I agree - it's a digital. (I would like to know which model!)

The idea of mechanical resonance is very interesting, and would certainly explain the 400 reps per minute spec - maybe Seiler are being very honest, and do not include "resonant peaks" in the response.

I have started a thread over on the technicians/tuner's forum, here: Reptition rate of a grand piano

Greg.
p.s I have edited this post and removed some stuff, mainly about the behaviour of my Kawai. (I can't reproduce the behaviour at the moment)

For those who bought the CS-67 stand. Can you tell me if this stand should lean against the wall? I am curious because the keyboard's speaker is in the back. If you lean the stand against the wall, the speakers will be blocked, right?

In addition, the attached music stand also extends beyond the keyboard's foot print. I wonder if the music stand can still be attached if the keyboard with CS-67 stand is leaning against the wall?

The music stand for the PX330 protrudes about 3.5 inches so that is the minimum clearance against a wall (if using the music stand).

In theory the speakers will be partially blocked but I would say it depends on the size of the room. My PX330 is not against a wall, in a medium size room with few soft furnishings, and when not using headphones I rarely have the volume as high as even half way.

Hi All,

I was going to get myself the Px330 as I did not need a stand, but now i'll be putting my new keyboard into another room. I was looking at the prices of the 330 with stand and pedal and I can get the Px730 cheaper as a complete package. So i was wondering why people buy the px330 and still get the original stand and pedal?

Is there a difference in keyboards?

Should i just go for the Px730 which you get the stand and pedal included or buy the Px330 and get stand and pedal seperate.

cheers

Waza

Waza,
It appears that the 330 has many additional features over the 730 - that would explain the price difference I think.

Greg.

Yes, that's right. The PX-330 has the most features in new Privia line. I also bought this DP with original stand and pedal unit and after while remove the pedal unit and buy ordinary oem damper pedal because it's more comfortable.

Mostly you never know untill you try for a while...

ah cheers guys for this....

Just watching the PX-330 demo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpX9Etxwtc (as mentioned earlier in this thread).

I can't believe it - at time 5:25 there is an entirely decent sounding Wurlitzer electric piano!! Not only does it sound authentic and good, but the change of timbre with velocity is very smooth. Hats off!

Greg.

The PX330 is doing very well. One more gig and a few more rehearsals and it is still doing its job. In rehearsals the on board speakers are very useful. The rhodes and wurl. tones are adequate, although I will still use the electro2/61 or the xk3 for organs. I am very pleased with this board.

daviel, do you prefer the Casio's Rhodes/Wurly sounds to your Electro2?

Cheers,
James
x

There are 2 headphone jacks on the side of the PX-130. I noticed that when I plug in a pair of headphones to one jack, the sound is good. But with the other jack, I can hear some noise. Possibly results from bad contact. If I use an 3.5mm extension cable, the noise is gone.

I am kind of concerned about the wear and tear on the jacks. But if I leave the extension cable plugged in, the speaker will be muted. What should I do?

Uhm, So I am completly new to keyboards and have no idea about anything but I was looking to get myself a 88 with hammer action, and it seems to me atleast that Casio PX 130 or 330 is the way to go for me. (is 88 keys with hammer action, can plug into a computer, and is of decent quality.) I am not really sure what the difference between 130 and 330 are though. Obviously the 330 has alot more different sounds, but i feel like I wont really miss them, also if i have a computer nearby cant I just get whatever sounds I may want through some software in the computer? (I have no idea if this would or would not work, but it seems plausible seeing as you can hook up the keyboard to a computer.)

Apart from that I also read somwhere that 130 lacks something MIDI related (not sure what) That 330 has? As far as I understand MIDI is with relation to plugging your keyboard into a computer, and seeing as my keyboard will the vast majority of the time be standing right next to my computer and will probably plugged into it alot of the time this is a pretty big selling point for me. Are there any other big differences I am unaware of here? (The LCD Screen i guess, but I guess as soon as I learn to use the PX130 i wont miss it that much.) Thanks in advance for anyone who hoepfully takes the time to help me out =D

Edit: So i read the 130 does not have a midiport, but the 330 does, but I am not really sure what this means/how this affects anything.

James, I don't want to steal daviel's thunder, but I don't prefer the Casio over the Electro2 in the EP department. The velocity switching on the 330 is crude - there are only two levels, I believe - and it's not really possible to control the dynamics. The basic EP sounds are not bad, but they don't have the expressiveness of the Electro, and you can't have the Wurlitzer without tremolo. I'm not a committed fan of the Electro2 EPs - they are not that inspiring in a solo context, and the Wurlitzer has an odd pitch thing going on in the attack/decay envelope - but they sound great in the mix. If I could justify upgrading to an Electro3, I would, more for the improved organ section than the EPs, although the release samples would add another dimension to the Rhodes and Wurlitzer sounds. Meantime, I'm waiting to try the CP50, and I'm still considering the SV-1.

voxpops, I'm in exactly the same boat! I would love to upgrade to the Electro3, but unless someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse on the 2, just cannot justify it...

I gave the most recent Pianoteq trial (v3.6) a blast for a few hours last Saturday. The Rhodes/Wurly presets sound great, and there's obviously no velocity switching going on, however I rather missed the overdrive functionality on the Electro, giving you that nasty, fuzzy bite.

Cheers,
James
x

That's interesting about the velocity switching in the 330 - in that YouTube clip I posted a few replies back, the Wurly sounds very smooth. Hmph.

Greg.