You may be right, and, like you, for some reason the notion of the MP6 appeals to me more than the FP-7f. However, if the difference was so small between PHI and UPHI, there would be no reason for Kawai to have the two running side-by-side. James has already said that UPHI is more detailed and expressive. I don't want to just live with my purchase, I want to love it!

"...I would say that functional competitors would be Casio PX-3, Kurzweil SP4-7 (and future SP4-8), Nord Stage EX, Yamaha S70XS and S90XS, Roland RD-300 and RD-700 series."

Casio PX-3 is a competitor in functionality, but in a cheaper price range which is easy to understand considering the build 'quality' and quality of the sounds (usable but so, so).

Kurzweil SP4....uhm...how long can you recycle the same old technology again...again...and again...not really interesting.

Nord Stage EX - way other segment (more bells&whistles, high-end / high price)

Yamaha S..SX - other segment , same as Nord Stage - different approach, more workstation alike.

RD300GX - OK , that's in the same range. But it has aged and is due for replacement, so let's see what they'll have next , RD300NX ?

RD700GX/NX is not in the same range, but in the MP10 range of instruments.

So, in fact the MP6 does a nice job for now filling a niche in a certain price segment, but the competition may not wait long before their boards are replaced by updated models. Perhaps that will already happen before the MP6 actually hits the street, or at it's latest at the next NAMM. Knowing that makes it a hard buy just for the short time being that the MP6 is the only interesting model in it's particular range. When you are prepared to spend just a little more money , the choice will immediately become more blurred by FP7F's and other competitors.

When possible I'll try both first. If that's not possible (at least for the MP6), it will be a very touch choice. But I hope when someone respected for his/her non-biased opinion and with the right playing skills is thrilled by the board , despite some of the mentioned drawbacks, I will still be persuaded to go for it. (Pity the MP10 is too heavy ; would have made this so much easier...)

My sentiments precisely. If the MP10 (minus wooden keys) was around 50lbs or less, I would already have placed my order.

To me, the FP7F is more in the MP10 category than the MP6 category, in terms of overall functionality. Okay, it has a bunch of other sounds. But I see it really as a Digital Piano more than a multipurpose instrument. Unlike the 300/700 series or the MP6, it has very little flexibility in terms of splits/layers or MIDI master controller functions.

Well, I'd guess this is difficult to achieve given the weight of Kawai's "RM3 Grand with Let-off 88 wooden keys with Ivory Touch key surfaces" action.

I have to test a Kawai again, but after playing some real grand pianos I think my choice will be a piano with full wooden keys, and AFAIK only the Kawai has it in the sub-5000$ range. And indeed I think for classical players it is a "must have" feature.

BTW, I looked hard but I didn't see a picture of the PHAIII action, does it have full-length wooden keys? What about the pivots? Should I open a new thread? I think it is similar in design to Kawai's RH action, certainly not full-length.

Kawai certainly has things to enhance: sound and repetition rate of the RM3 action; but given the sorrow state of the competition (look at what Yamaha is DOING!), and competitive pricing versus Roland, a Kawai DP becomes a very likely choice for me. Of course, they need more competition.

It seems each manufacturer like to show their best features, dewster Kawai even has glass-bound actions demo-models so customers can see the how the action works when pressing a key, while Roland praises its High-tech SN sound engine in a nice video.

Yep.

The PHA III shot from Roland's RD-700NX product page

Which to my eyes is no different than this from the RD-700GX page, so take it with a grain of salt.

Compare to Kawai's RH action

Same basic principle. The difference is in the details.

If by "full wooden keys" you mean keys that are the same length as keys on a real grand piano, you will be disappointed. They are shorter just like every other digital piano action's keys are shorter (with the notable exception of the Yamaha Avantgrand which actually has an authentic wooden grand piano action built in but costs as much as a real piano too).

What specifically do you see about wooden keys as being a "must have" feature for classical players? Proper emulation of letoff and double escapement and three sensors to provide rapid key repetition? If so, then Kawai doesn't have it and is thus less appropriate for trained classical players than other keyboards.

It is telling that most of the classical players that have been lucky enough to actually audition various instruments side by side rather than order them sight unseen and who later reported on their decisions here have generally have chosen the Roland.

The Kawai seems to be the most popular with brand new piano students or those playing new age church hymns. The fact that many of the Kawai models with their best keyboard come equipped with beginner's books and lessons, Czerny exercises, etc. seems to indicate that Kawai has been aiming up to date with the RM3 keyboard at the beginner's market. After all, most classical piano teachers are quite snobbish about their students only practicing on an acoustic piano and are thus also susceptible to marketing games touting a "wooden" keyboard as a potentially acceptable digital piano.

I have to correct you: The RM3 keys have about the same length as of a real acoustic piano. See this picture:

http://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/IMG_5810.jpg

Other plastic keys like on the Roland PHAxx and Yamaha RHxx are much shorter.



What kind of general statement is that? Do you have a proof of this? BS.



So for you the real thing is Roland while Kawai is just for bloody beginners... BS! You're getting offending again. Playing new age church hymns? You're again starting to degrade people that are in favor of something you apparently don't like.

I have read some years ago in a journal that among Roland Kawai and Yamaha, Yamaha GH(3) has the largest distance measured from keyfront to pivot point. Kawai has the shortest ;-).

Closely looking to the images of the RM3, it appears to me, that they have made the white keys even a little bit shorter and therefore they had to shift the pivot for the black keys, because these would be too short after this modification...

Peter

No, I (again) have to correct you: the keys even on Kawai's best digital keyboard, the RM3, are shorter than those on an acoustic grand piano. If you don't believe me, ask James.

If you want proof of the other statements, you only have to open your eyes and read the posts here for the past few years. Simply use google on this forum examining the posts containing the results of those threads detailing the demographics and purchase decisions of those who have actually auditioned the pianos side by side as well as those containing the playing samples provided for illustrations. You will find among the Kawai purchasers a preponderance of beginners and non-classical pianists. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, the sales were made! However, it does tend to contradict the statement up thread about classical pianists to which I was responding and to which you are interrupting.

Kawai makes no secret of the fact that they go after the beginner and learner markets and the church markets. Their marketing and advertising activities tend to reinforce this. In fact, it is a bloody smart business model to follow given that most pianos are purchased to learn the piano and many are purchased, particularly in North America and developing markets, for use in places of worship. An even smarter model to follow recognizing the role that piano teachers play in influencing purchasing decisions and making a connection between what conservative teachers might value as hot buttons and what their product offering is (wood).

Kawaian/mucci, instead of being so defensive about your own biases and taking things personally, why not be open to Kawai being that what they are in the real world?

You can't just set your personal opinion as absolute. That's what I consider as arrogant and what I criticize: You define what Kawai is like in the real world and what their market is, and I just have to accept that... Weird... And criticizm of your opinion is of course not allowed. Never. Watch how you paraphrase things, and how you induce people. Sorry if my words are not 100% accurate, English is not my mother language.

I don't comment any further on your other statements, just this to the length of keys:

Well, it might not be the exact length of a piano key (I talked about an upright, BTW, which is different from a real grand piano action), but it's much longer than all the other DP keys (except for, as well known, the N2/N3).

And to hpeters comment: The pivot point is placed at a very similar position as in an acoustic piano, right in the middle, rather than at the very end of the key, so at least it's (probably) easier to implement a behaviour very similar to an acoustic piano action.

Real grand piano action (pivot point about in the middle, pivot of the black keys a little behind):


RM3 (pivot point about in the middle, pivot of the black keys a little behind):


Roland PHAIII (see pivot point at the very end, much shorter):


Yamaha NW (it's extremely difficult to find an illustration of any Yamaha keyboard action, so I have only this indirect link, pivot point at the very end, much shorter, there are only some thin pieces of wood applied to the visible sides of the white keys):
http://www.mediafire.com/?v4bpgf8m76w5fai

EDIT: Finally I found a picture of NW action I can directly link:

Nice comparison.
I asked the same question some posts above.
Is there any chance to compare PHAIII action too?

It's the other way round: The black keys are a little bit shorter and therefore they had to shift the pivot for the black keys (exactly like in a real acoustic piano). See my previous keyboard action comparison.

I believe that real pianos have the pivot points for black keys shifted as well. So then what you describe makes the RM3 more authentic, not less.

The question should be - does it really matter that much where the pivot point is in real-life use ? In other words - do you feel the difference when it's in the middle on the Rm3 or at the end as in de PHAIII, or are other parts of the key-technology more important for the touch&feel in the end ?

The only honest way to compare this, is if you would have a PHAIII with end pivot and exactly the same PHAIII with middle pivot, so only one variable is changed. Of course this is not possible in real-life. So perhaps we will never know if it's really that important for the end-user experience and it all comes down to just trying the different boards and choose the one you like best. Regardless of pivot-middle / -end / on top / bottom or anywhere else...

Cheers, J

The comparison consists of Real grand piano, Kawai RM3, Roland PHAIII and Yamaha NW. The latter three should be the most advanced DP actions currently available.

I don't know about wooden keys being a "must have" feature, except that, to the extent that one wants the keyboard to feel like an actual piano, since actual pianos have wooden keys, it is probably easier to get a little closer to a real feel if you use a wooden key than if you use something else to simulate the feel/mass of a wooden key.

As for whether "proper emulation of letoff and double escapement" is a requirement, I would say that, again, I would not necessarily see it as a "must have" feature, especially since most people (even trained classical players) find it acceptable to practice on an upright piano, which does not have these things.

Sure it is!

From the pictures, I don't see relevant difference between RM3 and PHAIII.

The touch action, from a mechanical and dynamical point of view, is influenced by the distance between the key and the pivot point. They both look similar and both are smaller then Real grand piano action.

May be PHAIII is a little bit longer than RM3 and it should help the touch. It deals with vertical excursion of the key. The more far is the pivot point, the more similar is vertical excursion all key surface along.

JFP, you're absolutely right. We should try the keyboard action and not speculate and get the one that fits us the best! On the other side it's interesting to see how differently keyboard actions could be built. It's like the DPBSD thread of dewster...

To changing one variable: If you would change just the pivot point of a keyboard action, then the other parameters of the keyboard would also need change, because everything is (I guess) fully optimized to a key that has pivot at the end of the key. So there is a completely new design of the action necessary, I would assume.

mucci, lots of pictures and lots of words, yet although you have accused me of not telling the truth, at the end of the day, even after your posts, my original statement remains standing and true and your criticism remains unfounded and misleading.



As you now also have conceded, this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.

The comparison was to the "real wooden keys of an acoustic grand piano".

We have a situation in which the RM3 keys are shorter while still trying to look like an acoustic grand style pivot point and hammer/sensor placement. Just a little physics knowledge tells us that that is not going to provide the same leverage and response. Combine that with a much less realistic emulation of letoff/escapement and less signal granularity and repetition speed provided by fewer sensors combined with a less organic, static sounding piano tone engine and we are left with the key differentiating point being that the keys are made of wood and that the keyboard itself is less of a precision manufactured consumer product and instead assembled with keys that become uneven and screws that come loose and rattle and buzz and require servicing (see recent threads on this forum).

I see relevant differences. The distance to the pivot point is only one parameter of a lot of other important parameters of a keyboard action. In the RM3, the pivot is not "fixed", it is just "laying freely", like in a real acoustic piano. So if you hit the key, the key can almost "jump" a little bit out of his keyboard bed (hope the word I use are correct). This is not possible with PHAIII. Furtermore I can almost "see" the thumping effect on the PHAIII action, because of the missing continuation of the key after the pivot point, etc. etc. But as I said: You have to test this for yourself, picture don't help in this respect whether you like an action or not.

Exactly right. Discussion of these various technical details is all interesting on an academic level, and may prompt some of us to actually want to try some of these models ourselves, and may ultimately explain why some of us prefer certain designs. But in terms of deciding what to purchase, it's not very relevant. What matters is, which one(s) you go over to, start to play, and say "ahhhhh." Regardless of which combination of technologies they use to get there.

NO, I never did accuse you of lying!!!! I said I have to correct you, because I though you were wrong!! That's a big difference! I had no problem with this specific part of your post! It was about the other stuff you posted.



They are longer than every other digital piano action (except for... you know). Full stop.


Like any other DP.

proof?

Proof? Compared to what? Sound depends on individual taste.

Proof???

Proof??

I'm sorry, but your statements are nothing like a big Kawai bashing. It's like a small kid yelling to get it's way all over again, but this is not helping us if it's true or not.

Some time ago you told us you would like to test a CA63 / CA93 in a store soon. What's about that? Don't tell us theory after looking at pictures or specs, get your own experience and then tell us what you like and what you don't like.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...tml#Post1528568

Sorry, amusing but wrong post, should have been this one:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1532856.html#Post1532856

...or this one:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1528396.html#Post1528396

Exactly. Therefore your claims that Kawai is equivalent to an acoustic grand piano or superior to other digitals based on having the same length of keys of an acoustic grand is false.

The RM3 on the CA63 doesn't even implement it.
Two is one fewer sensor than three.
Not being an implemented feature and having fewer sensors is pretty good proof that the feature is not implemented and that there are fewer sensors.

And your individual taste has you jury rigging a netbook loaded with Pianoteq to get an acceptable tone. Do you see the hypocrisy? See the DPMSD thread for more details on the objective proof the less organic sounding decay for example.

For just one recent example:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...tml#Post1538520

If you want you can find lots more ever since the CA51 came out.


I did post my initial impressions of playing a CA63 a long time ago. You even responded to them. Do you want me to prove that we had that conversation already as well or do you remember even what you have posted in the past?

Kawai RM3 action is much more equivalent to an acoustic piano than other DP actions. I never said it's identical to to AP action. I never said it's therefore superior. You have to test drive it to find out.



Again, you're only looking at the design and not how the actions feels.



You take whatever you like to get proof of your biased opinion, eh? I would also use a similar combination with both Roland and Yamaha DPs. I even like the sound of Kawai DPs better than Roland SN, but that's personal taste. I stated that several times, but you seem to ignore this (deliberately?).



Same applies to other DPs. See Roland artificial ivory problems, buzz/hiss problems etc. Don't think that Kawai has more quality problems than other manufacturers.



Okay, that's about initial impressions... Any desire to perform a more in-depth test as you stated in one of your recent posts?

Well, I have one comment here because of the current lack of possibilities for objective testing using a Midi-file (as also admitted by Dewster): this was only a basic test of the standard concert grand single voice mode with firmware v1.06, while leaving out all sympathetic resonances, right? That's not what I call a realistic and objective testing environment, especially when making direct comparisons to competitors afterwards. By the way, there's nothing static about a CA93/CA63 in dual voice mode, but we'd better not mention it here, because Pianoteq, Roland and Yamaha cannot follow, right?

About the advanced dual voice mode:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1489257.html#Post1489257

I was listening to the MP6 audio demos a couple of days ago (German site I think) and noticed a rather static/flat decay to the final sustained bass note. I was actually grateful that Kawai didn't do the usual manufacturer's trick of only demonstrating with fast/staccato passages. I think this reinforces what people have been saying about where Kawai's sound technology stands in relation to the competition. Having said that, I find the overall tone pleasing. Your opinions?

The basic sound signature seems to be partly comparable to CN33 [PHI] level, so I'm not surprised about your remark on the bass note, but I'd have to do some live tests to confirm. Based on what I've heard so far, i.m.h.o. Kawai could benefit from professional presets development for the MP6, as there seems to be a lot of headroom (e.g. having 4 sound layers at your disposal) and 256-preset space with USB load/save options.

OT: voxpops, you're also very welcome at the CA93/CA63 custom settings thread.

Guess who could possibly be the main contributor to MP6 presets!