Here's the PHAIII in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLsNgJELxpU

Go to time 2:10.

For PHAII, I am quite sure the key would have to be released approximately 2/3rds the way up before a new note can be played.
(I have measured the note termination point, but did not bother to check partial release behaviour because I am confident that PHAII has no sensor to allow a partial release repetition)

Yamaha's GH3 and Casio's new action both pass this test too.

We do have to be a bit careful to seperate functionality from implementation though. The Infinite Response VAX-77 MIDI controller also has three-sensor functionality, but it doesn't have three sensors - it has a hall effect sensor which allows it to sample the key position many times per second as it moves which is of course better than having sensors placed at three different positions. So, I don't know whether Roland have ever actually stated that PHAIII has three sensors - it just seems to be common knowledge. Anyone got a link?

Greg.

I'd wager the "S" in PHA-III Ivory Feel-S means standard. As opposed to deluxe in the RD-700NX.

This is why I think the -S stands for "solid" (or "standard" as jscomposer suggests) (emphasis mine). I think they are trying to differentiate it from the imitation wood sided white keys of the NX which they market as a deluxe feature (which jscomposer also suggests).

Does anyone know if this fake wood side thing is new to the NX?

Also from the brochure (thanks!):


This is why I'm sure it's a three sensor (emphasis mine).

The V-Piano has the fake wood on the sides of the keys:

Thanks for that 7even! Nice pic...

It sounds like would be similar but a RD700NX is a far better board for only a few hundred more.

How would you rate the following KEY ACTION (1 -10, with 10 being best of an Acoustic):
GH3, Yamaha
PHAIII, Roland
Tri-sensor Scaled Hammer Action, Casio
RH3, Korg
RM3, Kawai

How would you rate the following Piano SOUNDS (1 -10, with 10 being best of an Acoustic):
Pure CFIIIS, Yamaha
SuperNatural, Roland
AIF Linear Morphing, Casio
EDS, Korg
Ultra PHI, Kawai

Brian

7 Pure CFIIIS, Yamaha
9 SuperNatural, Roland
5 AIF Linear Morphing, Casio
4 EDS, Korg
? Ultra PHI, Kawai

dewster, these links may help to refresh your memory:

Link 1
Link 2

Cheers,
James
x

Thanks James!

In light of that (and I should have qualified this list as largely off the top of my head):

7 Pure CFIIIS, Yamaha
9 SuperNatural, Roland
5 AIF Linear Morphing, Casio
4 EDS, Korg
7 Ultra PHI, Kawai

dewster, 88-key sampling isn't important to you then?

James
x

You mean 84 key sampling like in the CA63?

Yes stretching, particularly if it is audible, is very important to me. But there are other things like note decay time, looping, etc. that can be just as important if not moreso. Like I said, the numbers are the result of a quick impression, not a deep data dive.

dewster, 88-key sampling is 88-key sampling - regardless of what your test may suggest.

Cheers,
James
x

James - Have you got your flack jacket on? Dewy gets sensitive about his test results/conclusions!

So how do we determine if the NX will sound better than the GX?

Whatever claims are made on either side, if I can't tell the difference with my ears, I don't really care. AUDIBLE stretching/looping/layering is where the problem lies.

What I will say is that now the manufacturers are aware of Dewster's tests, they are likely to be a little more careful with what they put in print in future.

By waiting until it's released and then trying it! Life was so much easier when a Steinway was a Steinway, and always would be.

So I take it that you checked with the engineers on this issue? If indeed there is stretching in the CA63, the claim that there isn't any would bother me a bit, but practically it is fairly moot as it is minor and inaudible. I do take some issue with the noticeable looping and somewhat short note decay.

With the caveat that ears can, over time, be trained - intentionally or not - to hear things that they previously couldn't. And there's the rub for DP sound technology. We can't really know now what our ears will become wise to. I just wish they'd try harder at keeping mine satisfied long-term.

With regard to the CA63, I'd mentioned about the key action viz a viz the K6 side by side.

As far as the sound goes, the K6 was clearly superior and very pleasing with the sound resonating beautifully.

Dewster mentions about note decay in the CA63. The notes to the right of middle C decayed faster in about 8-9 seconds whereas the ones to the left held longer for about 12 seconds.

About the difference between PHA III and PHA III-S:


Could it be that in the PHA III-S, only white keys have the ivory feel, while black keys have the standard plastic feel?

Also, one wonders why they would bother calling the two keybeds differently if the only thing that changed was the color of the sides of the keys. Who even cares about that?

There's no reason to call the two actions by different names if only coloration is a factor. It would mean confusing your customer.

The RD-700NX (series) has better electronics and features to warrant a better price compared to the FP-7F (series).

I once again request someone who has tried out both PHAII and PHAII alpha to tell what difference is there between those two.

Brian

Good point unpia.

Also, the V-Piano PHAIII text explicitly mentions ebony feel for the black keys.
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=978&ParentId=87

Greg.

Is the FP7 PHA II or PHA II alpha?

The FP7 uses PHAII.
The FP4 uses PHAII alpha.

James
x

FP7 has PHA II. I believe the alpha actions were reserved for the narrower, lighter weight boards. In the RD-300SX (which I have) it was called Compact Progressive Hammer Action, which was then changed to PHA II alpha in the RD-300GX. From that history, I doubt whether the FP7f action will differ much from the NX.

Sorry, James, I was still typing (sleepily) when you posted.

Also to refresh your memory: your judging is incomplete (couldn't find an even friendlier word), because it is based on a basic CA63 factory setting, without dynamic voicing or string resonance. As you know, advanced custom piano presets for the CA93/CA63 include dynamic dual voice piano layering where there is no audible looping. Please be my guest and demonstrate that direct competitors like the Yamaha CLP and Roland HP series also support dynamic layering of acoustic piano voices.

Have they fixed the no string resonance with MIDI playback issue that plagued all of the Kawai DPs I've tested (Roland HP-307 has similar issues)? That's the reason my testing was done that way. And the factory default main piano voice is what I routinely test as DP manufacturers generally put their best foot forward there.


1. I could layer two separate piano voices on our old P120 (not comparable?).
2. Roland SN doesn't really need this to sound good.

The idea of masking looping with more looping layered on top makes me kind of tired. I'm sure it helps the inherent lameness of looping, but to me it is firmly in the 2 * wrong != right category.

And before anyone thinks I'm singling out Kawai for ridicule here, I'm really not. James brought up the subject of minor stretching in the CA63/CN33 and again failed to clarify it with feedback from his own company. Since I can't read minds over at the Kawai engineering department I'm at a loss as to how to even discuss the issue.

Well that proves my (previously stated) concern about assuming that all PHA III keyboard actions will be the same. This is not a valid assumption. Why do I say this? I say this because my experience is that not all PHA II actions are equal.

I play PHA II (FP7) and PHA II (HP-207 and RD-700GX). The FP7 is inferior, bottoms out much harder, is more fatiguing etc. They are not the same action, even if they have the same name designation. I enjoy the action far more on the RD and HP than the FP.

Some here are assuming that the NX PHA III action will be identical to that of V-Piano. Well, maybe -but I don't think you can make any assumptions about action.

The proof will be in the spanking - of the keys.