Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards The DPBSD Project!

Dewster:

I just noticed that you have not done an analysis on the Roland KR7 (which I have owned for a few years). I believe it is very similar to the RF7.

Would you like a mp3 of the KR7?

Glenn

PS - on the Pianoteq mp3: The K1 I sent you utilized an unusual mic position (only two mics). The "official" setup uses four mics. Perhaps I could also do another K1 using the "official" mic setup?

Yes to both if it isn't too much trouble. Thanks!

I definitely think the APs on the CP5 and the CP1 are the same. You can also see the signal path chart for APs on the CP1 is identical to the one on the CP5 per Yamaha's website. On the other hand the EPs are definitely different because of the extra signal processing available. Nevertheless, the underlying sample set is probably the same. I don't really know for sure.

Dewster, how difficult would it be to include an "effective polyphony" metric in the test for the various options available on the boards? For example,

Rated Polyphony x
Polyphony with Stereo
"" and layered stereo sound
"" and string resonance
"" and extra long decay
"" etc. etc.

Good idea, but I think that would be a very difficult thing to analyze. As you know, note stealing algorithms by their very nature try their best to hide what they are doing from the player.

Playing lots of notes together would also increase the peak recording level, which would bury the decay tails even deeper into the noise floor. I guess it could be a separate file, but I've been doing my best to avoid that.

A Tale Of Two Notes: Real vs. SN vs. UPHI vs. layered UPHI
(edited to include layered UPHI)

This is a quick comparison of two notes (C3 and C4) rendered four different ways:
1. VintAudio C7 Close Miked 6 layer voice - what I'm calling the "real" piano in this group.
2. Roland RD-700GXF SN01 Grand Piano voice - the SuperNATURAL or SN piano in this group.
3. Kawai CA63 Concert Grand voice - the Ultra Progressive Harmonic Imaging or UPHI piano in this group.
4. Kawai CA63 TADutchman's BLENDED CONCERT GRANDEUR patch - the layered UPHI piano in this group.


- Real vs. SN -


Figure 1. Spectral pan view of 6 seconds each of (left to right) real C3, SN C3, real C4, SN C4. Note groups have been normalized to -1dB but are otherwise untouched.

I invite you to grab some good headphones and give a listen to the MP3 associated with this view, which is located here:
mp3: http://www.mediafire.com/?m5blnga8mqb48iz

Things I hear:
1. The "phasey" sound of the real decay is also present in the SN decay.
2. The timbre or brightness of the decay in both doesn't abruptly change, but evolves over time.
3. There is some smearing in the SN attack, as if the beginnings of the notes go on a bit too long or something.
4. The sound of the key action / hammer / strings is clearer in the real piano.
5. This particular SN piano is obviously a "darker" sounding piano than a Yamaha C7.
6. I prefer the sound of the real piano.


- Real vs. UPHI -


Figure 2. Spectral pan view of 6 seconds each of (left to right) real C3, UPHI C3, real C4, UPHI C4. Note groups have been normalized to -1dB but are otherwise untouched.

The MP3 associated with this view is located here:
mp3: http://www.mediafire.com/?w41n92904rpro8d

Things I hear:
1. The "phasey" sound of the real decay is not present in the UPHI decay.
2. There is a noticeable timber change as UPHI transitions from the attack to the loop phase of the note.
3. The UPHI decay itself is somewhat quick - the timbre sounds muffled and static.
4. Looping is clearly audible in UPHI note C4.
5. I really prefer the sound of the real piano.


- Real vs. layered UPHI -


Figure 3. Spectral pan view of 6 seconds each of (left to right) real C3, layered UPHI C3, real C4, layered UPHI C4. Note groups have been normalized to -1dB but are otherwise untouched.

The MP3 associated with this view is located here:
mp3: http://www.mediafire.com/?givayaajxohk5xv

Things I hear:
1. The "phasey" sound of the real decay is not present in the layered UPHI decay. What is there instead is an unfortunate emphasis of the loop itself - which is too short - and so sounds more like old school looping to me, particularly on layered UPHI note C3.
2. I'm not a fan of either static or pronounced loops, but if I had to pick one I think I would go with the unlayered UPHI sound over the layered UPHI sound.
3. I really prefer the sound of the real piano.

I agree that a renowned grand piano (of almost any brand) beats a DP, interesting comparison though.
The biggest limitation here is that you are subjectively comparing timbres/sound signatures of completely different brands. (I know, Roland doesn't do AP's).

As far as console type DP's is concerned, you have obviously used the single voice mode factory standard grand piano preset of both the Roland and the Kawai. Only the Kawai CA93/CA63 offer a dynamic dual voice mode in combination with UPHI, yielding an enormous versatility in piano timbres and other dynamic sounds currently not possible with any other console type DP (and way beyond the standard factory presets). Reference: http://www.attacca.eu/images/settings_CA63_93.pdf

Assuming you can handle it in a fair way, I could deliver a few C3 and C4 notes (6sec. WAV format) in CA93/CA63 dual voice mode.
Just let me know your thoughts.

I think that sounded pretty snarky.

It would be interesting indeed to see if layering two looped piano sounds would start showing the phasey kind of decay we seen on an acoustic piano and SN. I for one would like to see this.

Left or right one?

The main piano voices briefly compared here are single instances (i.e. not layered) for two reasons:
1. The expectation is that DP manufacturers put their best foot forward on their first patch, so it is a fair candidate for comparison.
2. A single instance lets everyone hear what the base samples sound like, unobscured by phase effects, etc.

If layering two pianos brings some life to the relatively (when compared to the real thing) dead loops of the CA63/93 that's great, but it wouldn't be a level playing field for comparison. Also, I'm not sure I would want to layer the VintAudio or SN pianos as they sound fairly realistic to me as-is.

That said, if you want to provide WAV or MP3 samples (with reverb off) I would consider adding them to the post, with the above caveats noted.

All in all, your reply is still too vague for me ('consider adding') and not really open minded. It would be an interesting comparison though, as I know of several people who abandoned SN after playing a CA93/CA63 in dual voice mode (while in single voice mode, some of them found the expressivity of SN to be a TAD* better). We're talking about bridging the gap, you see? (and going much further in versatility). Of course, the opposite also happens, going back to both personal sound signature preferences and differences in marketing approach.

No hard feelings: anytime, just let me know when you are ready for a clear invitation and dual voice mode comparison.

Link to the CA93/CA63 custom settings thread:
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...0for%20KAWAI%20CA93/CA6.html#Post1448603

*) What's in a name.

The MP3 files are there in the DPBSD archive for anyone to make any kind of mash-up they like. Anyone can also go to the Adobe web site and download a fully working Audition trial to do the normalization, obtain the spectral phase and pan views, and export to MP3.

No hard feelings here either, but I get the feeling that this is one effort I'd prefer to be out of the loop on.

Thanks for the confirmation. This is very clear.

Well, if the layered sounds are as good as TADutchman says they are, then the next generation of Kawai's (in a few years after the MP10 I guess since the MP10 doesn't support this sound layering) will have new standard piano voices from the TADutchman pre-set thread as one of its standard default pianos and then anyone will be able to record a standard file for the test that meets the criteria for a level playing field and comparability.

Okay, here we are:

As an answer to the last post of dewster I added a comparison of the CA63 single layer Concert Grand patch (without reverb) and TADutchmans BLENDED CONCERT GRANDEUR which is a layered sound I really like (also without any reverb).

I recorded C3 note, always the first 6 seconds.

First one is Concert Grand without pedal, second one is with pedal down.

Third one is BLENDED CONCERT GRANDEUR with pedal up, fourth is with pedal down.



As you can see, a layered sound can make a big difference both in audible and visible aspects.
Also you can see that pedal down sound of CA63 makes a big difference, no audible loop anymore detectable.

All in all I think that in real playing situations (even more when some reverb is added) there is virtually no detectable looping in the CA63/CA93 sound. Even more, with a layered sound the looping is just not there anymore.

I did this not only for C3 note, but for all octaves, and it's similar for all octaves.

Here is the MP3 to check for yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/?6knscl7oi77l1l9

Have fun playing the UPHI sound!

I understand this layering is NOT possible on the MP10 ?! (It's on my short-list, so would be nice to know...)

Well, correct me if I am wrong anyone, but, my understanding from reading the communication between KawaiJAMES and TADutchman is that on the MP10 you can only layer sounds from one sound bank to another, e.g. strings and piano, not from the same sound bank, i.e. one acoustic piano on another...

This looks promising.

However: Is there a reason you kept the graphs so short?
The more artificially abbreviated the graphs are the less apparent the looping will be....

Upon special request here's the full 15 sec length spectral view of the BLENDED CONCERT GRANDEUR with pedal up and no reverb. No visible sign of looping:

I listened to it. Comparing the first and the third (the pedal up unlayered vs. pedal up layered samples) as I said before the looping of the first sounds over-processed and nondescript. The looping of the third unfortunately brings out the loop itself - which is too short - and so sounds more like old school looping to me. I don't like either, but if I had to decide I'd probably take the unlayered over the layered.

The SN sound to me has a much more realistic decay.