More evidence of the difference in marketing between Kawai and the rest of the world?

Hey I'll promote any DP brand if I get it for free... What the....

DrPopper,



Are you referring to the staff on the Kawai booth?

Cheers,
James
x

Hi everyone,

referring to my earlier question about keybeds; I know by experience that the RM3 is a really great keybed, but going down the ladder how is the new RH in comparison ? And how does it hold up against the competing PHA-IIIs that is build in the RF7F ?

I didn't like the PHAIII on the V-piano (too much 'thumb thumb') , but I did like the PHAII on the RD700GX and expect the "new" incarnations of PHAIII to be quite good and less noisy. If the RH on the MP6 is like 90% as good as the RM3 and comparable to the PHAIII in quality, I want to make a pre-order for the MP6. Simply because it's more portable than the MP10. If it's very inferior to the RM3 in realistic touché and/or the PHAIII is really better as an alternative, than I'll either go for the FP7F , or wait for the MP10 and decide later...

Any help would be appreciated, because I'm about to pull the trigger on this for a MP6 / FP7F pre-order so I won't have to wait another 3 months before I can try it in the shop or get one from later shipment batches.

Good morning JFP,



It's really great, and can be play-tested in the CN33 and - albeit without let-off simulation - CN23 instruments that are already available in stores.



I expect only Dr Popper will be able to answer that one.



90%? What does that mean?



I expect the majority of folks here would recommend that you play-test all of the instruments under consideration before purchasing. If for some reason this is not possible, I strongly urge you to try the instruments that feature the same keyboard actions and are available.

Minimising the amount of guess-work from this decision is surely the best way to avoid being disappointed.

Cheers,
James
x

Yeah they didn't seem to pay much attention.

I've now tested an RM3-based piano (CA93), and it does NOT emulate double-escapement. I assume the MP10 will be the same.

I measured the total key travel at 11m, and the damping point at 5mm/45% release.

Greg.

Greg, thank you for providing this information.

May I ask to what extent these findings influenced your playing enjoyment? What were your overall impressions of the 'RM3 Grand' action, and indeed, the CA93?

Cheers,
James
x

James,
I'm sorry, but I only did that one test. I told the salesman that I only wanted to do a very quick test, so that's what I did.

Greg.

Okay, fair enough.

Cheers,
James
x

Come on guys, call me stupid, but I don't understand why everything that is already known for a long time is being discussed all over again here.

Just a simple reference will do (sorry for the Google Franglais, it mentions 'double-exhaust' : anybody interested in making a decent translation?):
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1492875.html#Post1493614

I didn't intend to "discuss" it. I merely mentioned it, briefly, to add on to Dr Popper's list of plus's and minuses.
That's all.

That post you referred to is long. I searched for "escapement", "triple", and "sensor", but got no hits. I haven't read the post yet though. (and I had never seen that post before)

Greg.

Okay, I see: I can assure you that, although there's quite some text, it's at least entertaining to read.

I must admit until you posted the detailed description I wasn't 100% sure of what you were on about. I'm pretty sure I've taken advantage of the feature on the CP1 without realizing it.

Dr Popper,
I suspect that if you do that test I outlined on your CP1, it will fail. I don't think the CP1 is a tri-sensor action. (I haven't tried it, but I just think Yamaha would have mentioned it if it was)

Greg. (the tri-sensor Grim Reaper ;^)

Glad to know this.
This is quite the same as my keyboard after I readjusted it.
However, because there is a soft pillow in the junction between hammer and key this will depress when playing fast.
So the dynamic release level is not necessarily the same as the static.

Therefore it would be interesting to know about the playability in comparison to your MP9000 or PX330.

Peter

Peter,
I didn't know that - that's very interesting.

To see whether it would be any different for rapidly repeated notes, we could simply use a very rigid stopper to restrict the release of the key. I think that's a good objective way of testing it. There's no way I will be attempting to do this test in a store, though. ;^) If anyone does this test, please report back.

Greg.

I think the basic questions is; when you actually play the instrument with rapid repeating notes, do you experience any limitations / drawback in the keyboards performance ? If so ; does a 3-sensor keybed perform any better in practice (not on paper) ? If not - then what's the problem ? If you feel the 3-sensor version DOES indeed relieve you of some limitations that the RM3 poses to your playing, then that board is a better choice for you.

In other words ; play the instruments in the way you would be playing them in practice and see what you like best. I think that may be a better approach then the clinical trail & error tests that are being performed now...

So if someone could test, or already say by experience, that a 3 sensor key is really better for the experienced player in real-life practice, that would be nice. If it made no difference at all in your opinion, that would also be welcome information. In fact, 3 sensor could be more more marketing talk than an actual noticeable difference...who knows.

Peter,
Do you mean the pad that the capstans press against? If so, I don't think there's much "give" in those pads at all. (also, as they age, little pits develop in them, which would reduce the amount of give further. Fortunately, it is trivial to adjust the capstans to compensate for these slight depressions that develop in these pads)
I'm assumning that the RM3 pads have a similar design to my MP9000. (looking at the photo of the RM3 action, it does look very similar to the MP9000 indeed)

Greg.

Ah, the reasonable voice of balanced logic; like a breeze of fresh air.

The trouble is that very few of us "play our instruments in the way we would be playing them in practice" by hanging out for an hour in a noisy store environment with different acoustics than home or gigs.

There was a dealer that used to deliver an HP-207 and a CA-91 to your home and then come back two weeks later to pick up the one you didn't want to keep. Too bad this approach doesn't seem to be very popular with the current generation of instruments. I suppose one could purchase an MP-10 and a RD-700NX from two dealers with generous return policies and create your own program...

I think this 3 sensor thingy is a technical method that improves repetition.
It has the advantage that repetitions can be played without damping the string and with only partial key-releases.
For this playing style

this should be very helpful.
So we should give her a Casio Tri Sensor, a Yamaha GH3 and a Roland PHA3 and a Kawai R?3 and ask her what she prefers ;-)

That was beautiful. I have a feeling that someone with her chops wouldn't waste their time with the kind of toys we all are buying.

Exactly - I posted a link to the same work just recently in another thread! (different performance, but same work, and same pianist!

If any digital piano is capable of that, they should put the clip on the product's web site!

Greg.
p.s I found a clip of a male playing the same work - he was playing even faster, HOWEVER, it was not as clean and consistent.

Yes, I agree with this completely. The work I have done is the easy bit. (but at least it's OBJECTIVE).

Greg.

Btw, I might compare legato behaviour of my Casio to the MP9000. Just maybe, I will be able to demonstrate an improvement with the Casio, due to the fact that the top sensor is higher up than it is on the MP9000. I will be able to control each other's sounds with MIDI, too. I don't know if/when I will do this. If there is a difference, it may be that it's only noticable for sounds with a rapid release, which may exclude acoustic piano, in which case it wouldn't be very relevant for most of us.

Greg.

But I'd have to get it out of the road case to do that
I'll give it a go at the Newport Arms tomorrow.

My legato testing won't work, because it also depends on key travel velocity. It's very tricky business. I think I will leave the rest up to good pianists.

I don't see what is wrong with my statement that the RM3 lacks a feature - it's just a simple truth. I did not say it was a terrible omission. It may well be a box that Kawai have decided is not worth ticking. However, if that's the case, it might be prudent for Kawai to give some kind of an explanation, because if I can buy a Casio for 1/3rd or 1/4th the price of an MP10, that DOES tick this box, ON PAPER it looks a bit strange IMHO. I would expect the MP10's action to be better IN EVERY WAY to my Casio.

Greg.

Yes, of course I know. I remembered it and tried to look it up and then found this by accident.
She is older here, but I think she further improved in playing...
Admirable.

BTW, I dont think it makes sense to compare MP10 and Casio.
The closest competitor -and with double escapement- will probably be the RD700NX or the FP7's successor. For me that are the next test candidates.

A grand piano has double escapement.
My Casio has double escapement.
The Kawai RM3 actions do NOT have double escapement.

That is all I am saying.

Greg.

Including value for money?