I agree with this statement 110%.

Whilst I agree the main point of the AG is not for recording it is undoubtedly unfair to judge it by a clip on YouTube or indeed any other web resource where audio is compressed. Retrieving compressed audio from the web and then replaying it on home computers is a nonsense in hi-fi terms. I had a GT2 as well and occasionally recorded it direct to CD...it was ok (and technically I got very good results) but I think the AG will have a piano sample that is very much better.

Steve

If the N2 sounds good on headphones, and it should (I know my N3 is), then it shouldn't sound bad on line outs, because technically they're from the same source. I agree with Steve that a YouTube video played back on a PC is hardly indicative of a hi-fi system setup. It sounds just about what I'd expect from a YouTube video played from my PC.

Audio in youtube clips is just an mp3 file.

Modern YouTube clips are typically in high definition with good quality audio.

It's compressed, certainly, however as bkmz notes, the audio track is no worse than the average MP3. Indeed, it should be possible to download the MP4 video file from you YouTube, extract the .M4a audio track, and even look at all the 'squiggly lines' in Adobe Audition etc.

Cheers,
James
x

An MP3 file is just a file format, it doesn't guarantee the quality of the recording, which depends a lot on the quality of the recording equipment you use. You can have a very good sounding file and you can also have a so so sounding file of the same thing if you record them differently, and both can be in the same MP3 format. The questionable issue is not which file format they use, it's what kind of equipment they use to record it with, and what kind of compression setting they use, etc.

The even more questionable issue is hearing the sound through tiny speakers on your PC. Even within these limitations, I thought the sound coming from that YouTube video is not too shabby. If anyone think it could sound better, I won't argue, except to say that the improvement could come from the approach of recording it and replaying it, instead of concluding that the sampled sound source is shabby. Evidently the sampled sound source sounds pretty good through the high end sound system built into the N2.

How do you know? My speakers are not tiny at all

And compression settings is not questionable, it's known that HD videos on youtube has 44100hz 128kbps audio (and this particular clip is in HD). Well 128 is not superb by todays standards, but it is good enough to judge about sound. And I don't think you need super equipment to record lineout sound.

FWIW I often notice the difference between YouTube and iTunes - iTunes will sound clearer with more high frequency detail.

Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQEPf-flXvw
(Ramsey Lewis playing "Living For The City") - it sounds brighter and clearer in iTunes, even though it sounds very good in YouTube. (if I didn't have a better recording to compare it to, I probably wouldn't know any better)

Greg.

AAC (as found on iTunes) supports sample rates up to 96 kHz, while MP3 only goes up to 48 kHz. So if YouTube is still using MP3 in their videos--and I think they do--, that would explain the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#AAC.27s_improvements_over_MP3

The N2 / N3 sound much better live than from any compressed MP3 / AAC files. I've listened to all the recordings I could find with the N3 including the full blown CD recordings and they do not sound like the N3 live. You need to hear the N3 / N2 through its own speakers and cabinet. The N3/N2 enclosure cabinet amp is designed as a special speaker system. Once you take the sound out of the line out, the realism is gone. The best result for a recording is to record straight to USB stick and play back using the N3/N2 itself. Otherwise, you might as well just record using Pianoteq or something that allows you to tweak for optimal listening through standard home stereo system.

Most of the digital pianos sound much better live than from recording, compressed or uncompressed.

Very cool! I'm making an assumption here, but I wonder if you perhaps liked it better this time because you were just playing, and not trying to evaluate it?

Anyway, I've played the N3 twice (in two locations) and the N2 twice (in the same location). As you've indicated "thumbs up". (Both superb DPs but I do like the N3 better). I left the store yesterday thinking, "I could take one of each!") Heh. Heh.

Lawrence (presently with NO piano in the studio . . . CP1 was sold yesterday)

I'm sure I'm not the only one here somewhat curious as to what happened with the CP1...

Cheers,
James
x

Some of us already know...

One thing to remember is that, on the N3, the sound is created not just by some stereo samples, but the fact that you have 4 separate samples, and the case, the speaker positioning, as well as the soundboard transducers all contribute to the overall sound. Recording the N3 and getting a proper representation of how it really sounds should be treated the same as recording an acoustic grand - with microphones.

But then if people are just going to use 2 microphones to record in stereo only, they can't take advantage of the 4 channels spatial effect anyway, so wouldn't it be better to just record directly from line-outs which is stereo as well?

Freeze! DP police!

Drop your check book on the ground and back slowly away from the AvantGrands...

Dewster -

You may be on to me, not that I'm going to confess . . . .

Lawrence

I wish that folks that own either the N2 or N3 would do some recording from the line outs and post. That would be interesting to hear.

Lawrence

Ha ha!

Well, perhaps you can post some clips when your AG arrives.

Cheers,
James
x

I recently just bought some quarter inch plugs to adapter to my laptop. I'll try to make a recording for this thread when possible. Please don't hold me to it, though (could take up to a couple of weeks). I'm swamped with 12 to 15 hour days at work.

Huh? That's crazy talk! Seriously. Where would you have gotten an idea like that?

Lawrence

I tried the Avant Grands (both N2 and N3) some months ago. I used to be a very stubborn die-hard spokesman for acoustic instruments, but I have to admit that the AGs are great. I felt I got very close to the feeling of playing a real acoustic grand, both with and without headphones.

Lately I have tested some other instruments for reference.

1: The Yamaha GC-2 (a real acoustic grand). Even if this is not a big grand it has a wonderful sound. The price here in Norway is slightly higher than the AG N3. If I had the available space and didn't have to think about disturbing other people I would go for the GC-2.

2: The Roland V-piano (digital piano). This was another pleasant surprise. This instrument doesn't have loudspeakers, and I tried it with headphones. I found both the sound and the action very good, and the general feeling was like playing a real grand. It costs slightly less than half of the AG N2. For the person focusing just on practicing and playing for own pleasure I think this is a very good choice. Its design, on the other hand, makes it less suitable in the living room than the AGs.


The general impression is that digital and hybrid instruments are getting closer and closer to the real thing, but there is still a way to go to match a real good grand. If I was to choose between one of the best uprights (Sauter, Seiler or big Yamahas) and Roland V or Avant Grand I suspect that I would go one of the latter.