I'm posting on this forum rather than the Piano forum because I can guess what the response will be from those who've never played good DPs .

A couple of days ago, I was passing by a showroom and decided to go in and try out a few of their acoustic instruments. I hadn't played on one for over 6 months ever since I bought my V-Piano, and was curious to discover what my reaction would be towards an acoustic again (having always played acoustics ranging from honky-tonks to concert grands till I bought the DP). To my surprise it was the opposite of what I was expecting: it didn't rekindle my love of acoustics, or brought out a pang of regret that I didn't buy one instead of my DP (not that it was feasible - I have neighbour problems).
I played on several Yamaha uprights, and found them too strident and shallow-sounding, then moved to baby grands, finding the same 'problem', lacking any real bass or deep resonance, and far too bright. Only the 6 footer Yamaha they had gave me any joy, though its bass still paled in comparison to my DP's. Then I tried the Bösendorfer 185, thinking that it should do the trick (my favourite piano remains the 290 Imperial, though I must admit I haven't yet heard Stuart & Sons pianos) but though its sound was richer and deeper than any of the others, its bass notes still lacked the deep resonance of what I expected (and obtained from my V-Piano). And the Bosie costs over 10 times my DP!

The showroom had a brand new Yamaha CFX which I really wanted to try, but the bloke there told me it had just been moved several hundreds of miles there and they hadn't had it tuned yet. So, I didn't have a concert grand for comparison (maybe that would have rekindled my love of 'real pianos'?).

That exercise was an eye-opener for a former die-hard acoustic piano lover like myself - if it had been feasible, I would have bought an acoustic upright for the same price, and never even bothered to try any DP, but now realise that no upright of this price range can compare with my DP's concert grand sound (which incidentally I have customized to my own ideal), nor its concert grand key action. The one thing missing on my DP was the tactile vibration from the keys, but it doesn't bother me - indeed when I tried out the Yamaha N2 (which produces the vibration artificially) in the store, I found it unconvincing as it seemed to be the same regardless of how loudly I played. Even without this vibration 'feedback', I still felt my V-Piano gave me a more direct connection from my fingers to the sound that came out.

Has anyone else been through the same process, and what are your views?

May I ask you, what speaker system you are using? The problem of DPs, in my opinion, is often, that they do not sound like an instrument that is radiating sound in all directions, but like a hifi-system.

I don't actually have speakers for my DP because of my neighbours, so I'm using the headphones the store gave me free as part of the deal, AKG K271 Mk II. They sound fabulous, better than my own Bose QC 3 (which admittedly I bought to use in-flight mainly). The sound via headphones is similar to what a 'real' piano would sound like in a medium-sized hall in terms of stereo spacing etc, from the pianist's perspective. According to Roland, the mix they use in the headphones output is the combined quadraphonic speaker system, if I was using one.

Correct, that's one of the reasons why I bought a CA93 with real spruce acoustic soundboard and advanced 6-speaker system.

I play my N3 usually with headphones but I have to say with or without headphones the N3 has sufficient bass response. When played at a level softer than what you would expect to hear from a grand piano (and without headphones), the N3 does have less bass than what I would prefer.

I don't believe this is a deficiency of the N3 per se but the nature of sound. At a quiet listening level the bass response drops off and as many old timers are aware, older stereo systems had a loudness button or switch which would boost the bass at softer listening levels.

To the original poster - you own the V Piano I see. I played one in a store so I'm aware of its possibilities. After you've tweaked all the parameters that you can, do you find yourself now just playing the one tweaked piano sound or do you constantly change the sound from day to day? ... or do you have a handful of tweaked presets that you play or a regular basis?

I agree, my Roland HP 307 which has the same key action as the V piano certainly sounds more rich and complex in the bass than every acoustic I sampled in its price range.

I get to play a (about 6 or 7 foot) Kawai grand briefly a couple times a week and other then that I have a Yamaha P155 at home. I have some larger speakers attached to the P155, not graet ones but I tried several and there are the best that "a few hundred dollars" will buy.

My opinion is that the tone oof the acoustic is better and it makes much more volume than my little 50W per channel amp can push through the speakers. The sound is not comparable.

I think the action on the yamaha is easier to play. Maybe it is not "realistic" but still it easier to play. This may be because the acustic piano needs some work, I suspect so but then most acoustic pianos are not brand new.

Possibly the tone of a V-Piano would compare more favorably than my P155 to the acoustic. But it likely depends on the speakers. Those are always the weak link on a DP. Te other thing is that I don't think the piano bench is the best location to test the sound. Grand pianos are set up so the listenersare on the piano's right side some distance back

bennevis - Last year I went out shopping for an acoustic grand. I have 2 digitals and thought it was time to "upgrade" to an acoustic. As a recently retired guy I had plenty of time to try pianos - I probably played 50 or more acoustics in the 5' to 6' range all around the greater Washington D.C. and Baltimore area both new and used, from dealers and private sellers.

After a month or so of searching I came to the realization that for me a digital is the only way to go. I bought a Roland KR17M and wouldn't trade it for a Steinway. Disclaimer: I don't like, play or listen to instrumental piano music so my requirements for a piano are probably different from a lot of folks on this forum.

If you enjoy playing your DP more than an acoustic, that's all that matters. I would say however, that while DPs are great for live band settings, a DP just does not replicate the sound of a nice acoustic piano. First of all you can't listen to an acoustic piano through headphones...only a recording. The beauty of an acoustic piano is not just in the sound that gets recorded but the myriad of nuances an acoustic piano produces.

Sure, the NP3 can try to replicate vibrations, but use it a couple of time and it starts resembling a vibrating joystick. I like what they did with the speakers and multichannel processing but IMO, it is still memorex. An amazing tool for practice, but practical considerations aside I doubt any pianist would choose to perform on the N3 over a proper acoustic grand.

I think the type of music you play what you use your piano/DP for is going to have a big impact on your view of DPs or acoustic pianos. I can totally understand why some gigging musicians or recording guys don't need an acoustic piano and prefer DPs. There are some situations where you aren't really going to notice any difference.

An amazing tool for practice, but practical considerations aside I doubt any pianist would choose to perform on the N3 over a proper acoustic grand.

If the proper acoustic grand were not regulated and out of tune, I would prefer an AvantGrand or GranTouch, wouldn't you?

this is a straw-man, it'd be like saying "what would you prefer to have, a well cared for toyota or a ferrari that needs servicing", just because the ferrari needs servicing right now it doesn't make it inferior to a toyota.

Not to mention that the AG could end up needing regulation just like an acoustic grand given that it has the same action... (the flip side is that of course any piano tech can service most acoustics, while you need a yamaha tech to service your ag)

Uhhh yes.... But if I live in the forest with no electricity I would take the out of tune piano. I'm not sure why the piano has to be out of tune or why I would need to be in a forest.

MarcoM, it's not a straw-man argument. If I had to choose between an out of tune, out of regulation grand or a AvantGrand or GranTouch, my choice would be easy; an out of tune piano makes me sound bad ... an out of tune piano makes anyone sound bad. When I'm auditioning pianos in a showroom I can't make a valid judgment if the piano is question isn't in tune, can you? An out of tune piano is too distracting to me.

Do you play publicly for money? Those very few times I encountered a hybrid grand on jobs (GranTouch), the action was in excellent condition since it was a piano that didn't receive abuse each and every day, it was only used for performances. It wasn't a practice piano.

I am well aware that hybrid pianos need to be regulated. After five years of pretty demanding use I had the action of my GT1 worked on. Even though it needed to be worked on I would have preferred that GT1 (in need of regulation) to a grand piano that was out of tune and out of regulation.

Do you not have piano tuners where you live?

I personally regard acoustic pianos as essentially obsolescent for home use. People continue to go ga-ga over them, but to me, they are, in effect, 20th century period instruments that are living on borrowed time. A V-Piano will play rings around any acoustic piano, and so the handwriting is on the wall: acoustic pianos are going the way of the manual typewriter and the film camera. And yet people still fork over $6000 for a good but unspectacular acoustic upright piano, when they could have a vastly superior instrument for the same price in a V-Piano.

Since the early 1980's I've had a high-end acoustic upright in storage (a similar model today would be in the ~$20,000) price range. It stays in storage, because I find my low-end, not high-end, $600 digital console to be a more practical, and better, instrument overall. It's adequate for playing anything, from jazz to big concertos.

I'm guessing you don't play many jobs on acoustic pianos ... or am I mistaken? Are we having a hypothetical discussion or a real world discussion?

people playing (classical) piano publicly for money usually play on fairly well kept instruments, I have yet to see a concert in person where the piano was badly out of tune: actually usually at intermission there's a piano tech touching things up as well.

Now if you're saying that you're playing a gig with your band in the middle of nowhere and your tour manager told you there was a piano on location so you don't have to worry, you get there and you find it's a turn-of-the-century upright that hasn't been tuned in 30 years... well, that's a different kettle of fish in that case having an AG in your van would for sure be helpful...

From my perspective the AG is really a home practice instrument, for concerts you either have classical (where there's no way a sampled DP would cut it) or pop (where a slab is way realistic enough in terms of action, and a lot less delicate, not to mention light). I am sure that 20 years from now the proposition might be different (what with modelling getting better & better) but IMHO for now I doubt anybody would try an AG as a performance instrument.

MarcoM, there's a whole world of hotels, restaurants, cafés, cruise ships where the music isn't necessarily classical and the instrument is not necessarily in tune.

What are the pianos like on the jobs you work?

V piano will run circles around any acoustic? Surely you mean a similarly priced acoustic. Why would someone who can afford a serious grand find it obsolete?

I could get a big grand, but why bother? You've got to hire movers to move it, you've got to tune it, maintain it, fuss over it. Why spend even a second doing all that when even the cheapest digital will play anything, with no tuning or maintenance? When I was 7 yrs. old and taking piano lessons, the teacher had a big grand in the studio, and I never noticed anything special about it. I still don't see anything special about grand pianos, even the most expensive concert grands. My $600 economy digital will play anything, even the most difficult works in the classical repertoire, so why do I need more than that?

Hideki, I could afford a nine footer but I suffer from tinnitus. Acoustic pianos are great for the stage but for every day practice I wouldn't want an acoustic piano in my living room (even if you gave me a nine foot Bösendorfer). They're simply too loud.

For me the action comes first (thus a hybrid piano - my N3 has a real grand piano action) and the sound comes a very close second (thus a hybrid piano - a sample from a CFIIIS).

A piano for me is just a tool. I don't have emotional attachments to them. If Steinway, Kawai or Bösendorfer marketed a hybrid piano like the N3, I'd probably trade in my N3 for something else. What I'd like is the action from a nine footer in a hybrid to practice on every day but it doesn't yet exist.

my paying music days are behind me, however being a drummer I either brought my kit or at least my cymbals and made do with what was there: not many horror stories for me...

I do think that the ones you mentioned would be served even better by a slab piano in a grand-shaped wooden wrap, after all for that kind of gigs it's more important that you have a 'piano shaped object' compared to actually having a real piano... I also don't think the real action of an AG would fare too well on a cruise ship environment compared to a typical DP's...

Dave, understood. I happen to have a large house with big rooms and although a nine footer would be overkill, having a 6-7 footer is totally practical for me. I don't find tuning expensive and only use my digital when quiet around the house is needed.

I know you are an active working musician and totally understand your practical considerations and experiences with acoustic pianos. I don't perfrom for a living but I do gig with a singer on occasion. I almost always use a digital because of practical considerations.

That being said guys like Chuco Valdes, Michael Kamen, etc. can afford to have their grands properly kept. Not easy for most but that luxury would sure be nice.

Drummer?

Am I in the wrong forum?

So do you think classical musicans should be recording on your $600 piano? I understand for practice but for recording? Plus most DPs have actions that would not be suitable as the only practice instrument for a classical musican. That seems to be changing with DPs like the N3/N2. Neverthelss, I don't see a future where classical piansists record or perform on DPs... but who knows.

Given a choice between an AG or an acoustic grand ... I'll take some tasty waves, some cool buds, and I'm fine.

If I could have an N3 and my SK3 that would be ideal... but a bit indulgent for someone who primarily plays for pleasure.

Don't know about waves but the cool buds go really well with the acoustic or digital experience... especially here in CA.

hey, you know how it goes, who are the people that hang around musicians? drummers (and bass players)

Actually as a drummer I have a pretty good perspective on the whole acoustic vs digital world (which has been going on for quite a while), and as most drummers would tell you as much as practicing on vdrums is the best especially if you don't live on 20 acres on your own, a sampled instrument will never feel the same as the real thing.

Now as a piano dabbler my 'pickiness level' is a LOT lower, but even at my lower level despite having tried the AG and the vpiano (and playing with pianoteq at home) just because of the physics of it it seems doubtful that an electronic would ever supplant the acoustic in a performance scenario where you can appreciate the difference (background piano playing in a crowded restaurant of course would not be the same thing). Digitals of course have a lot of other advantages, can't push a button and get a growly EP on that acoustic grand...

As a guitar dabbler it's the same thing, nobody will ever bring an electric guitar to an acoustic guitar gig, it's just not going to happen, but of course you're not going to play Crazy Train on your Martin for sure...

I guess my perspective is that "electronic" instruments of all kinds are the best for private late night practice, for large gigs where mic-ing can be difficult, for low-maintenance scenarios where the venue owner doesn't want to spend anything on maintenance etc. the closer the electronic can get to the acoustic the better the practice will be of course.

"acoustic" instruments provide a lot more possibilities to the musician and so are much better when the musician has the chance to use them to their fullest: a great piano player can be a lot more expressive on an acoustic than on a digital, any drummer will be able to get way more variety out of a real cymbal than a v-cymbal, any classical guitar player will be able to get endless sound shading possibilities on an acoustic.

Don't feed the trolls.

Well, that settles it. Well prepared, tuned acoustic grands are great for live performances of serious music and for people without hearing disabilities to practice on at home who can afford them and appreciate them and who are living in large houses with big rooms on 32 acres in a forest within driving distance of the beach and a bar and a tuner. Digital pianos these days are good enough for just about anybody else. Whether they are good enough to be used as an exclusive alternative to acoustic pianos depends on what you are used to, what your personal preferences are, what you want to play, how well you want to play it and how much you want to enjoy it and how much you want others to enjoy it.

Based on the samples of playing submitted to PW by Dave Ferris, Dave Horne and Gyro, we can conclude that the Avantgrand sounds infinitely better than the Williams which only exists in Gyro's imagination but that the Steinway D from Ferris gives Horne's AG a run for its money despite how delicious Dave H.'s playing is

I thought I posted in this thread. Maybe I did and it got removed.

I recently did a (literal, within two feet of each other) side-by-side playing comparison of the new $6000 Roland and a used, standard-issue Yamaha upright (I don't remember the Yamaha model for sure; it was a U1 or perhaps a smaller cousin). The action on the Roland was absolutely pitiful compared to the real upright piano; they didn't even deserve to be compared. The Roland's sound was much better than its touch, and far better than the usual less-expensive electronic models, but the upright still sounded significantly better than any of the electronic instruments.

Yes. If you are in the same room with the acoustic and the digital, the acoustic usually wins hands down.
If they are both recorded it gets more complicated.

Personally, I think that Dave Horne's arguments for the Avantgrand always make a lot of sense: you play an authentic grand action with state of the art sound reproduction including the ability to play silently or quietly.

What I never understand are all the weird arguments such as: acoustics are obsolete (really?), acoustics are heavy, acoustics are expensive, acoustics need tuning and digitals provide a superior live acoustic piano sound to a live acoustic.

I always suspect that those making these arguments only eat through the McDonald's drive through window since cooking is obsolete, shopping bags are too heavy, real food needs laborious preparation and time consuming cooking and a paper bag with styrofoam wrapped junk food is superior to home cooking any day.

.

I doubt if Hank Jone's preferred a digital piano over an acoustic, but he certainly used one in his NYC apartment.

Hank Jones is one of my favorite players. He died this year at the grand age of 91.



(The article where this photo was posted can be found here ... http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/a-jazzmans-final-refuge/ )

theJourney: That's the quote of the day What's the difference between "silently" and "quietly"?

I have now a few user presets that I customized from the various in-built ones (of which there are 24), and named them after the famous brands based on their tonal quality (Bösendorfer, Steinway, Blüthner etc) as I remembered from playing the respective concert grands. Naturally, I use the 'Bösendorfer' the most, as it's my favourite piano sound (Imperial grand that is). I've also customized a couple of period piano settings (from the Fortepiano factory preset) - Pleyel and Erard - which I use occasionally for Chopin and other early 19th century music, when I'm in the mood for nostalgia...
And I play with the several unequal temperament settings (meantone, Pythagorean, Werckmeister, Kirnberger, even the microtonal Arabic) when I play Bach or Scarlatti, which gives the music a piquant quality when the music modulates into non-related keys. But all that is only on high days and holidays, not when I'm practising properly, for which I always use the Bösie preset.

My interest is almost entirely in classical music (Gershwin is as far as I'd venture into jazz; Piazzolla as far as I'd go into Latin/world music etc) especially in the Romantic era - from Chopin to Rachmaninov. When I went around auditioning the various DPs, I played the Rachmaninov 3rd Concerto's big first movement chordal cadenza as well as some Chopin Nocturnes, and frankly, I wouldn't dare to attempt the Rach on many of the smaller uprights that I tried on Saturday (which cost around the same as my V-Piano incidentally). It really is no contest - for that price range, an acoustic upright just doesn't give me what I want from a piano in terms of power, depth of tone, keyboard action etc. And I certainly can't afford a concert grand, nor would my neighbours tolerate me having one.

But I never change the volume setting on my DP - it's always at the same realistic level, at the volume I'd expect if I was playing on a concert grand. Otherwise, my technique would suffer, when I start twiddling a knob rather than use my brain & muscles to change the loudness of what I play.

Silently is when you have headphones on and for the most part all anyone else hears is the sound of the action.

Quietly is being able to turn the volume down into a range that is unrealistic for an acoustic piano (and potentially ruinous for your technique) so that you could say still practice without headphones but with neighbors or where you could still play for friends after 11 pm.

I see, my fault, damn, English language...

.

Just curious, anyone got the make and model on his DP? I think I read somewhere it was a Yamaha.

In the article mentioned by Dave Horne you can read this:

"The Yamaha electric piano had a pair of headphones lying on the keyboard and a music exercise book still on the music stand, along with one of Mr. Jones’s compositions."

So, it is indeed a Yamaha, but looking at the picture it's difficult to say what model, although it seems like an entry level one (no fancy cabinet).

Best regards.

Two weeks ago I bought a 57 year old upright for $500 (a Baldwin Hamilton). I will continue to use my digital for gigs but for pleasure I only want to play the acoustic. The VI instruments I've tried (TruePianos, Alicia's Keys, PianoTeq) also do not satisfy.

All the stuff going on when I hit a note on the accoustic and the way the music surrounds me has increased my playing pleasure many fold. Maybe a high end DP is as good (none around here to try) but they are a lot more expensive.

I am indeed picky about tuning (DPs do spoil one) so I bought a tuning kit also. The Hamilton was pretty close when I bought it but I've already done some touching up, easily done.

YMMV

Speaking of picky (and not directed at you but at everybody): there's no such thing as an acoustic piano. That thing over there with the strings and hammers and soundboard is called a "piano", plain and simple. The name is already taken. Developers of new instruments using the word "piano" in the name of their instrument are engaging in (not illegal, just immoral) false advertising.

Well there is no such thing as a piano, only pianoforte's. If your really want to be pedantic those things that folks here call "acoustic piano's" can play something other than soft. I guess those who sell artificial limbs are also engaging in immoral false advertising, as well as those who make "digital cameras".

Artificial limbs are called "artificial" as part of the name. If they marketed it as "Artificial Piano" I'd be completely satisfied.

Well they are marketed as "digital pianos" as a part of their name, I don't see what the difference is (similar to "digital cameras").

If your beef is with the term "acoustic piano", that's simply a notional device employed on a forum where there can be ambiguity about exactly which type of instrument you are referring to and this ambiguity would still exist even if you swapped "artificial" vs "digital".

I cause problems over here by using the Dutch equivalent of 'acoustic piano'. Over here a vleugel which is translated as 'wing' refers to a grand and just the word piano refers to an upright.

I'm with bitWrangler, the proper name for a piano is pianoforte.

You left out banjo players.


I'm currently working out a finger controller for the Roland TD-4. The whole piezo trigger to MIDI thing is completely idiotic as it removes all nuance. Why not take the impulsive stimulus and run it through a complex resonant simulation?

There is absolutely no technical reason why we can't have electronic drums, pianos, etc. that are as nuanced to play as acoustic instruments. But we're being led by brain dead, stuck-in-the-80s corporations that are busy dumbing everything down.

actually there is, full modelling of a ride cymbal and a snare is pretty much still impossible due to how the controllers are built, or at least impossible to get all the expressiveness you need when playing jazz, for metal etc. what we have is good enough already.

Fact is with an acoustic ride cymbal you can get endless differences in sound just by changing your sticks, the angle of the hit, the part of the stick that contacts the ride and so on. Same thing for the snare, where you can also play with the tension of the wire basket, and can do fun things like use your fingers of the other hand to change the tension temporarily.

Comparatively emulating the human interface of a piano is a lot simpler, since there is only one parameter that matters really, which is the velocity of the hammer at impact, so if you have a real action (like the AG) you can focus your sensors on that one thing and you're done. No such luck with drums, acoustic guitar, violins, trumpets, etc. etc.

Dewster, somehow I have the feeling that, after some time, you overshoot the mark... It's even going into the offending direction. Do you really think that ALL digital musical instrument makers are brain dead idiots? Come on... If that would be really the case I would be more than willing to support you in establilshing our own startup digital music instrument company building the "killer DP" or "killer digital drumset"...

I though i should post to offer support to you bennevis .

Firstly, I am delighted to hear of your love for your V piano.

I too have named various pianos after the acoustic greats and I also use mine specifically for classical study. The choice of a brilliant bell resonant Steinway for a romantic Tchaikovsky piece for example or less brilliant to 'dry' for Mozart sonatas. I am currently working on Fazioli voicings and I think I am getting close.

I recently revisited many of the early online videos of the v piano . My conclusion is the demonstrations were done prematurely in the context that many use the default Vintage Piano 1 voice. If only Roland set up a piano with the help of a good tech / piano voicing specialist (built from the on board defaults) peoples opinions would have been different from the outset. However I am happy to some degree that people do not know what you can accomplish with the scalable tunable paramaters, it means I have something unique - although I truly would like everyone to own one.

I use AKG701's. No external as yet, although I have designed - drawings and a mock up of a mod baby grand case designed around the Yamaha that Dave Horne loves (and so he should) the N3. My research as to which speakers and sub woofer to use started a few months ago. No conclusion as yet.

I have been waiting to read of what others are achieving with their V piano and finally this thread arrived. I am happy to share files with you bennevis. I am also nearly motivated to create a site specifically for V piano sharing of files and demos. Unfortunately I have too much internet development work currently in motion.

Listening to the Chopin competition inspired me to resume playing with the V piano voices and specifically the Fazioli because I thought it sounded very good.

Oh, I played an upright last week and it reminded me of when I owned a couple and I dislike the sound and playing experience of an upright so much. The truth is - the question in my head was: when are they going to make an upright that can sound and play like the V piano? Evolution perhaps is in a state of reversal.

In the past on this forum people have pointed out that big-name concert pianists like Andre Watts and Valentina Lisitsa use digital pianos for practicing.

I've been doing about the same thing. Although I think I'll try something much smaller first. I think the amp has an effect too.

What speakers are you thinking about. I'm sure in the end it will come down to expensive trial and error.

Currently working on a tube based stereo keyboard amp for use in a small room. It's in very beginning bread board stage right now. (looks like a rats next of parts on a work bench) Like a guitar amp, I think the amp should add something to the sound. In this case somehow filter out the "digital" quality. My theory is that tubes and associated components are mostly imperfect mechanical objects and hopefully will impart some imperfection and randomness into the sound.

I've been piano shopping recently...

I (like most of my peers) learnt to play on a cheapish upright piano. By the time I hit my late teens I had access to grand pianos at school to practice on which was great - but still the vast majority of my learning was on an upright.

However, as an adult - once I bought a house and decided I wanted a piano again - I really enjoyed the sound, playability and useability of a DP - so thats what I bought... a few years ago now.

Now my daughter is playing and I revisited the idea of whether the DP is acceptable as a tool for learning. It wasnt until the last 6 months or so that I realised here was even any debate on the issue - but since then I've heard over and over again from many different sources concerns about the touch on a DP.

So I decided to do some real research.

I played a range of Pianos all in the AU$5k-$10k range. Top of the line uprights from Yamaha and Kawai, entry level small grand pianos both new and second hand. There was significant differences in touch between the UPs and GPs and tonal differences between all of them. I grappled with the value proposition and conidered whether I would be happy with the slightly inferior $5k pianos or whether anything short of a bankbreaking $10k instrument was going to keep me happy.
My next move - after critically analysing the sound and action of a range of acoustic insruments was to go back to a comparison of the current 'best of breed' DPs to see if there was any chance that the minority of voices saying they were still a good choice had any validity. I played the best instruments in the shops I was in (including VPiano) and found instantly that the touch was nowhere near as good as the very worst of the acousic instruments I had tried. The sound was fine, and they were easy instruments to play - but it became INSTANTLY clear to me why a DP was not a valid instrument to learn on.

Just quick response to you ChrisA,

Yes trial and error probably but hopefully avoid. Time for the research is minimal at the moment.

I am at a point where I believe near field monitors will be ineffective. The sound needs to project even if bouncing from the lid. The structure will be aluminium (frame plus sheeting) probably. So need to consider the accoustic properties of this structure. I only require the sound to fill a living room space - not a club, not an auditorium, not a concert hall.

I will need 2 pairs plus sub woofer. The pair for the ambient signal (tail end of piano) may differ from the other (front) speakers.

I have to consider powered speakers compared with amp driven passive. Can the speakers sit in the piano cabinet effectively etc? Size of speaker cabinets?

Just thoughts, however i do know the ideal speaker system could be built for the project.

Another thread has started regarding V piano speaker setup. Hopefully can learn something there from users.

V_Paino_Man

I didn't say they were idiots. Brain dead like foxes is more like it (to mix a metaphor).

I just wish I could go back to 1990 when a person could show off their state-of-the-art DP with its OMG! ULTRA HUGE 64 MB sample set! without feeling like time had somehow completely passed them by.

I must say I've surprised even myself in the space of just a few months how suddenly I've converted to the advantages of DPs (but not cheap unresponsive ones) from the acoustic junkie I used to be (when I'd rather play on a honky-tonk with missing notes rather than touch a DP with a barge pole ).

I'd also add that I'm a technophobe - I don't even own a cell phone or computer, and didn't buy my first digital camera till last summer (and I'm a keen photographer), and the only reason I bought one was because the price of slide film was going through the roof. Similarly I was forced to consider DP when my access to good pianos was becoming limited, and I really needed one at home. Frankly, I was amazed at how well the V-Piano responded to minute changes in touch, giving me full control over a range of tone colour that I normally only obtained from well-regulated grands over 6 ft long. It's something that's difficult to appreciate in a store or showroom with noise from other people bashing away at DPs or acoustics: I brought my own Bose noise-reduction headphones when I was auditioning various DPs and really found how responsive the V-Piano is (and how realistic the sound production, the pedal effects, the natural decay when the damper is off etc), compared to all other DPs I've tried. As for the key action, it's subjective, but I certainly felt more in control on my DP than on most of the cheaper acoustic uprights, and it felt 'just right' to me - in fact, it just feels like a good concert grand action (which of course uprights don't have as they use springs, not gravity). I can easily manage a piece that has rapid repeated notes like Ravel's Alborada del gracioso on the V-Piano, but I struggle with it on most uprights. But I do think you need to go into this DP business with no preconceptions if you've previously always played on acoustics, and stay clear of cheap ones.

I agree with you, V_Piano_Man, about the default 'Vintage Piano 1' setting not being the best advertisement for the quality of sound of the V-Piano (it's dry and lacking in brilliance) - once I've worked out how to do it, I changed the default setting to my own 'Bösendorfer' customized one, so that it's the one that's in place when it's switched on.

It's nice to have different varieties of 'pianos' in your living room, as you say - it took me a while, but I now have Bösendorfer, Steinway, Fazioli, Blüthner, Baldwin and Yamaha presets (as well as Pleyel and Erard period piano ones). When I get to hear a Stuart & Sons piano, doubtless I'll customize a preset for that too, as I've heard great things about its sound.

As for DPs not being suitable to learn on, I'll just give my own experience: when I played on those acoustics last Saturday after a 6-month gap practising away exclusively on my DP, I found how much more fluent & smooth I was with rapid figuration and tonal control, compared to the time when I was practising away at any old acoustic (which included access to a Yamaha grand once a week). My keyboard technique has improved immensely - yes, even on a DP.

I see that Artur Pizarro is currently promoting the Yamaha Avant Grands....

Yes but in which way? ...and which best of breed DP's did you try?

Interesting how different the opinions are in this regard:

- Some say DPs are a good substitute for APs for practicing purposes
- Some say high end DPS are a good substitue for mid range APs
- Some say DPs sound is good but the action is unacceptable compared to APs
- Some say DPs action is good but the sound is unacceptable compared to APs
- Some (one) say(s) DPs are superior in any respect to APs, even in the $500 price range
- Some say DPs are worse in any respect than even a $500 out of tune AP

...

YMMV

What would be interesting is to disclose the playing level of each one of the persons behind each opinion.

I have found that people recommending DP over acoustic ones tend to be beginner/medium level pianists.

Indeed, for advanced classical playing an acoustic is a must have, years ago in a masterclass, some teacher told us that a good pianist must be able to obtain 100 different tones from the same key, and indeed DP that I've tried are far away from that.

AP and DP are just different tools, if you want to learn how to play an AP, then a DP is a poor choice, unless you know what are you doing and how can you profit from it.

On the other hand, you may want to play pop/rock music, then an AP is a bad choice. I was completely lost the first time I used a Korg some years ago, I couldn't adapt to the touch.

Indeed, I find Kawai models more suited for practise, whereas I'd choose Roland for playing in front of public.

You were comparing the V-Piano, costing in the 5k area, with similar acoustic instruments. When Roland launched that model, my reaction was that 5k would buy you quite a lot of second-hand acoustic quality, with some diligent searching, and so I couldn't really see the point, especially as it wasn't hugely portable either.

But many of the high end DPs discussed on this forum are more likely in the 1.5-2.5k territory. IMO, it would take a significant amount of luck to find an acoustic which sounded and played as well as, say, my Roland RD700GX for that sort of money. I would expect to have to pay twice that for, say, a second hand Yamaha U1 in good nick.

The sad fact is that modern DPs in that sort of territory are head and shoulders above some of the wrecks we learned on as kids (and in my case, are still called upon to play) and I believe that anyone who thinks the the former were better practice instruments has the rose-tinted specs firmly affixed, IMO.

I don't know how advanced your daughter is along her piano journey. Is there a point when a DP will be found wanting in developing concert-standard technique? Of course. And at that stage, probably only an (expensive) acoustic will do.

But for many learners, the fact that the thing they're playing is in tune and carefully sampled from a well-prepared piano (not to mention the benefits of headphone use) is an encouragement and not an obstacle. To say these are not "valid" instruments is a sweeping generalisation.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think anyone would argue that classical (or probably even jazz) pianists aiming at the top of the profession are going to be entirely satisfied with a digital. And I agree that a well-trained pianist on a top marque acoustic can get more subtleties out of that instrument than would be possible on a digital piano (though the "100 different tones" remark strikes me as premier bullcrap).

But I'd add three words to that observation. At. The. Moment.

The current debate, it strikes me, has similarities with the digital cameras debate of just a few years ago. There were the hold-out purists who argued that pixels would never beat film for subtleties of tone and detail. Guess what? The cameras got better and better and now there are probably three people in the world left who really care. A majority of pros use digitals.

APs and DPs may still be different "tools", as you say, but advances in even the last few years have started to erode the huge gulf that was once a characteristic of sitting down at a digital after playing an acoustic. As Dewster will tell you, the technology and know-how is there. I just think that the lower profile of the market means that we will have to wait somewhat longer before we get to that moment than amateur photographers did.

I'm not saying that digital will replace "analogue" in our case. But there's no reason why it can't get even closer to the "real thing", in a sector which has really come a huge way in just a short time. Don't believe me? Try playing an RD1000

A good friend of mine is a professional pianist. Some years ago she was out searching for a practise DP because at home she was not allowed to practise with a grand. At that point in time she couldn't find a satisfying DP. Some months ago after a complaining session from her I suggested to go to the local dealer and redo the search. Guess what. She's now a happy owner of a Roland HP-307...

This remark was given in a masterclass, and indeed they are 100, but infinite I mean, understand the context it was given.

I agree, but I was talking about the current state of affairs.

How many years are we talking about? Maybe we will be lucky to see that, but I am highly sceptical. Just look at violins. And IMHO, comparison with digital/film cameras is not fully adequate.

For the record, I have not the best ear in the world, but I didn't like the much praised SuperNatural sound. It may be technically superior, but I didn't like the bass/treble mixing, disregarding looping, the Kawais UPHI have a more balanced sound.

I'm eager to try Vienna Imperial and Ivory II

As egallego is implying above that people recommending DPs 'tend to be beginner/medium level pianists', I'll put my cards on the table and admit that I don't consider myself a virtuoso, but I can play all the right notes of most piano music in the right order (and at the right tempo), if I've practised sufficiently (- that's a joke involving Andre Previn, by the way). I've already mentioned some of the music I play (Rachmaninov, Ravel, Chopin etc), which I use to sort out the sheep from the goats of any piano, DP or AP. I look for positive key action (including the ability to repeat the note even when the key hasn't fully returned - most DPs and upright APs can't do this), complete control over minute gradations of tone, with no 'stepping' involved (here, only the V-Piano's modelling technology is up the mark, as all other DPs involve stepwise progression due to their sampling techniques), 3 pedals (i.e. including the sostenuto pedal) and half-pedal effects, and no 'bottoming out' of tone in fortissimos (which few upright APs and no other DP I've found can achieve). Before anyone makes any assumptions about my strength, I'm a puny guy weighing 135 lb, and am not in the Grigory Sokolov or Andrei Gavrilov (or Evgeny Kissin or Lang Lang or...) league in terms of muscle power.

And finally, I still prefer a Bosie 290 Imperial (or Steinway D, or Fazioli, or Bluthner concert grand) over the V-Piano anyday. But not uprights in the price range of my V-Piano.

Nice to have the opinion of an experienced player like you bennevis.

May I ask which line of thought about DP vs AP do you feel closer?

[See Mucci's post for the options]

I see a DP as a great practice tool, and it can get me 95% on the way of training. The last 5% is getting used to the other piano. I much prefer a good acoustic grand over a good digital piano. However having played a lot on an out-of-shape upright, I prefer my digital piano for practice. But I'm quite sure in 2-3 years I will have moved to a bigger place, and have myself a nice grand.

Sweeping generalisation - perhaps, but *if* a VPiano is head and shoulders better then the rest of the DP world and is still completely outclassed by a similar priced AP then the point remains.

My daughter has to date thrived on the DP - its given her a leg-up into basic keyboard skills and a lot of enjoyment - but the main thing that stands between her and very high quality performances is *touch* (shes at AMEB Gr3 level). Its the main point of focus of her lessons and the part of her technique that most needs strengthening. Having 30 minutes a week playing a Kawai GP is not sufficient to adjust to the vast differences in touch response between a DP and an AP. I'd suggest that the 'point when a DP will be found wanting in developing concert-standard technique' is found much earlier than many of the DP followers care to admit and that only regular practicing on a decent AP will give control skills that can be transferred across any instrument.


On the basis of my research our piano purchasing has taken a back seat whilst we save cash for what we deem a 'decent quality' instrument (~$10k). Ironically this striving for quality will possibly hamper daughters development whilt she is 'restrained' by the limitations of our DP.



(Just as a reference my piano test repertoire includes:
- Gershwin Preludes
- Chopin Nocturnes
- Schubert Impromptus
- Debussy Bits and pieces
- Rachmaninov [extracts from concerti]
..So once again - whilst I make no claims of ground breaking excellence, I'm no 'Piano Virgin' either.)

It's true that in the educational context of that masterclass it may have had some momentary value, but this claim has been intensively tested and the actual number is closer to 10 than 100, and that is for the very best and most sensitive pianists - most of us get less than 10.

(The real sensitivity in piano playing is much greater than that, perhaps not infinite but very large - but it involves how to relate several notes to each other. In playing just one note, the number of ways it can be done is surprisingly tiny.)

Funny enough there is very little music that involves playing just one note. When you start stringing infinitely different combinations of the 88 keys played with 100 (or even just 10) different ways by our ten fingers with an infinity of different relative timings and a continuous ability to merge the sound through pedaling, the combinations are huge indeed.

You are correct in arguing that much of what we judge as "tone" has to do with how we connect notes: for example, creating the illusion of a horizontal cantabile line with legato, voicing chords, exploiting the contrast between the rate of decay of previous notes and the volume of newly played notes, pedaling to achieve harmonically musical results, etc. etc. However, I would argue that there is in fact therefore an infinity of different perceived tonal effects that different pianists can achieve playing pieces on acoustic pianos. Of course, out of this set the subset of aesthetically pleasing tonal effects that a sensitive pianist can coax out of a fine acoustic piano is smaller, but is still indistinguishable for us from infinity.

By definition, the acoustic piano, based on strings and a soundboard, is an analog device with none of the artificial, technology imposed constraints of a digital piano such as limited, stepwise increments in dynamics, finite, static samples, small number of notes that can be sustained simultaneously (polyphony), no reproduction of or unrealistic reproduction of boundary conditions that are easily produced when "banging" on an acoustic, unrealistically simulated harmonic string resonance, less responsive, inauthentic actions, etc. etc. An acoustic piano also does not have the onboard sound processing algorithms found on digitals to smooth out and homogenize our playing to make us sound more even and better than our inputs justify.

Does that mean that every pianist will be able to coax more out of an acoustic piano than a digital? No. Acoustic pianos are much more difficult to play well for the same reason that it is easier to flip the "on" switch on your home stereo than it is to operate a DJ mixing table. It is also comparable to why it is easier to take a home movie with a digital camcorder that has technology to steady the picture for us rather than handhold a 35 mm motion picture camera. This is also why pilots tend to learn to fly initially by handflying a real-life aeroplane with real analog controls to develop "toucher in their touche", or seat of the pants flying ability with direct exposure to the aerodynamic forces and only later use digital simulations as practice devices. Some of the best classical piano teachers focus on active listening and tone production from day one of lessons. Such an approach on a digital piano is like teaching someone to cook by using his taste buds and tasting as he cooks but only allowing him to open ready-made supermarket meals instead of combine fresh ingredients in recipes from scratch.

Sensitivity to fine variation depends not only on the capabilities of the instrument and the skill of the pianist, but also on the ability to distinguish them from the listener.

Does that mean that every listener or even pianist will be able to hear all the differences? No. What we hear tends to be based on what we expect to hear and what we are used to hearing. Finer ability to distinguish comes with experience and training. What better way to develop this kind of an ear than by starting lessons as early as possible on an acoustic piano?

+1 Nice explanation of how I see things too.

]

better way is starting even earlier on acoustic grand piano

I feel that top end (and I do mean top end) DPs are better than most acoustic uprights of the same price, but are still no substitute for concert grands if you want to make it as a concert pianist. And it would seem that some concert pianists are quite happy to practise on good DPs when they haven't got access to grands, or are constrained by their lodgings.
Frankly, I discovered that it was a much bigger switch (in terms of touch, key action and sound) from a small upright to a concert grand than from my V-Piano to the same grand. Again I would stress that if you're a serious pianist practising on DPs, you must set your DP to a realistic volume level - and keep it there, whether using speakers or headphones. It's very tempting for parents to reduce the volume of the DP when their children are playing/practising so they can carry on watching TV or chatting about Barack, which is a sure way to damage their children's ability to learn and improve.

I haven't tried any other DPs long enough to find out if they're equipped thus, but the V-Piano does reproduce sympathetic vibrations from other strings very faithfully and realistically (and you can set parameters like soundboard & string resonance to your liking, as well as alter the (de)tuning of individual strings for each note which also change the quality of the sound), and there's no limit to its polyphonic ability. But there's still something about presiding over a beautiful wooden (2000 year old Australian trees in the case of Stuart & Sons pianos, apparently) 9 foot instrument that no DP can emulate - which is why I still hanker after one .

While I'm happy that you both care about your daughter's musical development so much, and can afford to spend 10k on a piano for her, the fact remains that this is not even close to a possibility for for many families and my point remains that a good high-end digital may still be a better proposition for basic training than some upright wreck.

I play dozens of different pianos every year for a living and I could comfortably count on one hand the number I have encountered this year on which I could play more expressively than my RD700GXF.

Agreed. Absolutely agreed. But realistically, how many of us are ever going to make it as a concert pianist? It's not all about the technique, either. You also need the right character and mental focus, and not a small degree of luck. Unfortunately, these days, you can add photogenic looks to that list as well.

As I understand it, DadAgain's daughter is currently doing Grade III. There's absolutely no reason why a good digital couldn't see her through that perfectly well.

I don't doubt that this has been your experience.

Could you tell us about your initial training experience?
What percentage of your lessons, practice and playing during your first 10 years of playing was done on acoustic pianos versus digital pianos?

A travelling cook will come across all kinds of poor, old kitchens in the course of his work. However, I would rather eat a meal from a poor kitchen from a cook who has been classically trained to cook exquisite meals from scratch than a cook in a beautiful, modern, plastic IKEA kitchen whose only cooking experience has been microwaving ready made meals.

I agree, but if he can afford a good upright that he & his daughter likes, all power to him. I do think too that there's such a subjective element (not to mention innate prejudices) to choosing musical instruments that it's better in a sense that you choose an instrument that you like even if objectively, for the same price, there are better ones around. Appearances also come into it, as the piano becomes part of the furniture. My V-Piano isn't the most pretty beast around, but for me, it's purely functional...

In all this religious fervor about D vs A I think the I is often forgotten. I as in the individual. From personal experience I can tell you that my daughter very quickly benefitted from going to an acoustic (< 1 year), whereas my son would be no further behind right now if he only had our CVP. So statements like "she is only at grade III or he only has X years experience", while conveniently objective, really only paints a minor part of the picture.

I've always believed that DP's "sweet spot" is at the ends of the learning curve. They are great for beginners (price, silent study, convenience, consistency, etc) and are great for experienced folks who've already established much of their technique. It's that area in the middle where I feel it's more important to have as much face ime with a good AP as possible. Now exactly when that period begins and ends varies wildly with each person, but I think the general pattern holds true for the majority of people.

Would you mind pointing this bibliography to me? I'm really curious.

IMHO, I think getting more than 10 tones is really easy, keep in mind that not only the attack constitutes the tone, but the release and pedals. Just with some combinations of attack and release you may surpass the 10 tones easily.

Regards!

Hello everyone. New member...first post here.

Great thread, very interesting reading. I'm struggling with this very issue (DP vs. acoustic), as I'm trying to decide which type of piano to buy for my family. My 5-year-old son will be starting formal lessons very soon, and my wife would like to re-start lessons after having not played for some 20+ years. But I, myself, don't play (yet!).

I've been thinking of buying an AvantGrand, simply because I'd like my family to have the best-playing DP possible to truly grow with and develop the proper technique (and we don't have room for more than a small grand). I fully embrace all of the benefits of such a high-end DP (especially headphone practice), but I ran across this post from forum member 4evr88 in a previous thread that really got me thinking:

(Link)

Given all of this discussion about developing proper technique...from a true beginner's standpoint, would we actually be better off with an entry-level small acoustic grand (less than 5'3") or, say, a Fandrich & Sons upright with the Fandrich action? Price-wise, they're all in the same ballpark, and I'd willingly spend the money for my family as a real investment in our musical future.

That said, the piano will occupy a prominent place in our living room, and so my wife is very much against the aesthetics of virtually all DP's (even nice ones like the Roland HP series)...in her words, she's always wanted a "real piano" for her home. In aesthetic terms, the AvantGrand does seem to fit this description for her, and with a few financial sacrifices, we could make it happen. But for this kind of financial investment, I want to make sure I'm getting the best overall piano for my family to grow with...and a good acoustic seems like it could be a better overall choice to have from the beginning.

I'm really kinda paralyzed, here.

I would recommend that you buy a 6" grand piano as a gift for the wife and investment in the kid and then get an entry level digital for silent practice when you want it. The piano business is in dire straits so you should be able to get a great deal if you shop around.

As nice as the Avant Grand is, I don't think it's good to think of any DP in terms of "investment", as inevitably they will be overtaken by technological improvements.

I am trying to eventually "earn" a good acoustic piano by learning on a digital.

With that said, a good digital makes a difference. Years ago, when I was learning on a Fatar keyboard and Yamaha MU80 sound module, the feel and sound of the setup did not draw me in to a long-term learning experience. With my HP-307, I want to play (and train) all of the time.

Although I am very happy with my new DP, none of the digital pianos I tried fully replicated the 3-dimenional sound field of an acoustic piano. However, I think the DP is good enough for my current abilities, and my wife appreciates my using headphones when she is working at home.
----------------------
PS: Anyone in the market for an old Fatar weighted controller and MU80? :-)

No room...I've measured several times, and 5'3" is really the very largest grand our living room could reasonably accommodate.




Agreed. But I'm using the term "investment" to refer to my family's musical future. The resale value of the piano is not nearly as important to me as my family's long-term musical growth and relationship with the instrument.

I'd say that if your wife really wants an acoustic, and it's going to occupy a large part of the room, go for an acoustic. There's nothing worse than buying something for someone that they didn't want in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, buying a piano (AP or DP) is as much an emotional as well as musical experience. Buy with your heart, not with your head.

IMHO, if you can afford the price and noise of a good acoustic, go for it. A good upright beats the best DP in every sense.

No surprise here, I would recommend the AvantGrand and for many reasons - it has all the benefits of a digital (never needs to be tuned, possibility of using headphones so as not to disturb the rest of the family, extremely easy to record yourself) and it has a real grand piano action, a real grand piano pedal harp and it looks and sounds great.

If you factor in the cost of tuning a grand piano two or three times a year and the depreciation of an acoustic piano are you really that much better off than buying a hybrid piano? I refuse to label the AvantGrand a digital since it will be lumped in with all the slabs - this is, for all practical use, a grand piano ... and it's less than five feet deep. (4' 10 5/16")

In the acoustic side of PianoWorld there was a comment from someone about the almost magical quality of a freshly tuned piano ... and that quality doesn't last all that long. I experience that freshly tuned piano each and every day.

Even if I had a great deal of money, I wouldn't buy an acoustic grand. I owned a Yamaha C3 in my previous location. We lived in a free standing house - no neighbors ... and I still had many towels stuffed in the soundboard to quiet it down. If the phone rang for my wife, I had to stop playing. If my wife wanted to watch TV, I had to stop playing. Grand pianos are loud, period.

As a guy who has made his living solely from playing, I think the idea of a real grand piano action coupled to an excellent grand piano sample (and an excellent built in sound system to boot) is an idea whose time has come.

For practice purposes I really don't see the need anymore for a cast iron frame under tons of tension from the 220 tunable strings. Pure acoustic pianos will always be here especially on stage but for home use (and professional home use) a hybrid is a very viable option for many.

Fair enough

Interesting how we get wedded to our pianos (or purchases in general). Even I can't be totally sure that all I've written here is truly objective, even by my own standards...

I tried the AvantGrand 2 together with the APs last weekend but (apart from the fact I couldn't afford it) wasn't convinced by its artificial vibration on the keys which seemed disconnected to the actual sound, and could still detect what sounded like looping going on when the sound decays after a key is struck, and I didn't find the sympathetic sound from other strings natural sounding (it sounded the same whether one note or several notes are struck) compared to my V-Piano (I used my headphones).

But I admit the AG looks more like a 'proper' piano than the V-Piano, and far prettier....

Dave, insightful post, but disregarding price considerations, would you prefer a silent grand or an AvantGrand?

I would prefer the silent grand.

Good point, my brother works in psychology/neuroscience and some months ago he showed me a study claiming that the perceived value of the same item is multiplied by 4 depending on if you own it. He explained to me that they believe this is due to an evolutionary trait to protect our own belongings.

Indeed, once you have made the purchase, you must convince yourself that it was the best choice, otherwise you'll lower your self-confidence.

I've seen this happen here and with cars, I know of a person who hated BMWs, but then he got a good deal for a 520 and now BMW are the best cars in world

My situation was similar to yours. Kids starting piano, wife who played a long time ago and just re-starting (prompted by the kids). Having the benefit of hindsight, and of course speaking purely for myself (given our family situation, house configuration, budgets, time, etc, etc) this is how I would go. If I had no piano at all, I would purchase a mid-level digital to start. Rational is that there is currently no one in the family that absolutely need a good AP right now (I read the link and I think the most important take-away is that a DP alone is fine for some period of time, just know that the time to move up to an AP can come much sooner than you think). Plus this would free up budget to spend on a better AP later. Once either kiddos or wife progresses to a more advanced level (could be a few months, could be a few years) then I'd pop for a good AP and keep the DP as a second/silent instrument.

To me the "other" benefits of a good DP are very hard to beat, esp. silent practicing. Practice times very early in the morning before anyone else is awake is a very common occurrence and if we started with only an AP, it would have either made it impossible (and thereby limiting the amount of practice) or it would have made it generally unpleasant for everyone else.

This is in effect the configuration we have now and I think that path strikes a reasonable balance between upfront costs, depreciation and deprecation, and finally long term utility.

Dave, insightful post, but disregarding price considerations, would you prefer a silent grand or an AvantGrand?

I'd prefer the AvantGrand for two reasons - the silent grand is still an acoustic piano and would cost more (all things being equal) than the N3 ... and it would still have to be tuned on a regular basis (for those times you turned off the silent feature), right?

This was without the pedal, I'm sure, and taking into account tone only, not the articulation of the end of the note. I'll have to try to look it up, but I'm not sure I even remember where it came from as it was a very long time ago and I haven't kept a bibliography.

We have no control over the attack of one single note; the hammer hits the string either harder or softer, and no other variation exists for us to take advantage of. Again, what we think of as attack control begins to take shape when we play a chord, but really it's an illusion we create. Try to create a gradual attack to a loud note, or a disordered/messy attack, or a hard explosive attack to a soft note, on the piano (all on a single note without pedal), and of course there is no way to do it - all you get is louder or softer. Voices and many other instruments can do it, but not the piano.

(We can add some extraneous noise to the attack by hitting the key-bed extra hard, but then again we could get that effect by stomping on the floor too - which some pianists seem to like!)

So it seems the AvantGrand sound is comparable to an acoustic. The N3 is far from my budget, but I'll go and try one anyways.

Interesting how we get wedded to our pianos (or purchases in general). Even I can't be totally sure that all I've written here is truly objective, even by my own standards...

Even though it might seem I'm extremely enthusiastic about my N3, I'm really enthusiastic about the idea and concept of this kind of piano.

I traveled to Vienna three years ago to try Bösendorfer's hybrid and got to play a prototype, one of three. Unfortunately Bösendorfer never followed up on their hybrid and as far as I know it has been permanently shelved.

I've written to Steinway asking them to consider marketing such a piano but my letter fell on deaf ears so to speak.

It's the idea that's excellent.

Yet we do experience very real toucher/tone signatures between pianists that sometimes completely transform our perception of the tone of the instrument and that can be recognized blind. The different perceptions in our ears/minds are very real and can make the difference between a sublime performance and a ho hum one or, more commonly, an unpleasant attempt.

Since mass hypnotism can likely be ruled out, the answer that remains is that the way that we play the piano, including the way we strike individual notes in succession and simultaneously does in fact produce different tone. The "no control over the single note due to the construction of the action" is a meaningless canard, a distracting red herring, an excuse for boorish piano banging.

IMO, the special thing about the N3 and what it makes it closer to an acoustic than other DPs is (1) the action, in that it is a real grand action up to the point it hits a sensor instead of strings, and (2) the way the sounds were recorded, processed and delivered (i.e. the mulitchannel apporach). Those two elements bring it closer to the experience of playing or hearing an acoustic grand than any other DP.

Slap on a pair of headphones and #2 is negated, but you still have the incredible action. I can understand why through headphones one might prefer a V-Piano, MP10, etc. to the N3, but when it comes to replicating the experience of hearing or playing an acoustic grand, you can't overlook what a grand's cabinet is doing and the fact that the sound is not coming through a 2 channel stereo source from speakers, let alone headphones.

Don't forget the sensual feedback of the on board vibrating elements bringing the playing experience somewhere between playing an actual acoustic piano or inserting 50cents in the motel massage bed.

LOL. I definitely don't list that as one of the important features. I thought it felt like a video game controller. That would be permanently set to off if I had a N3 or N2.

Magic Fingers costs two quarters?? The last time I took a road trip it was only 25 cents.

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

I actually have an old Fatar SL-880 controller and an Alesis NanoPiano module (both currently packed away in the basement). I did set these up with a pair of headphones for my wife a few years ago in our previous house, but she wasn't inspired enough by this to play much at all. So, naturally, I'm a bit leery about spending money for even a mid-level DP, if I know that in her heart she dreams of playing a "real piano."

Mirroring bitWrangler's advice, I'm leaning towards an acoustic.

I've noodled a bit on an AvantGrand (remember, I don't really play), and I came away very impressed. It is, IMHO, a "real piano" in that it truly mimics the visceral experience of sitting down and playing a quality grand (this was the N3, no N2 to try). The sound is rich, powerful and enveloping, and the touch felt perfect to me. In my mind, I was ready to buy!

But....

All of this debate about developing technique has really got me thinking. And I have heard (and noodled on) at least one small grand (5'2") that had a character and "soul" to the tone that I just didn't experience with the AG. Yes, the N3's lower notes were clearer, better defined, and more powerful (less inharmonicity?), and the N3's overall tone seemed more "perfectly beautiful" than the small acoustic. But even I - a non-pianist - could hear more overtones and complexity in this particular AP. I was simply drawn towards the acoustic grand in a way that I didn't remember feeling towards the N3.

But the N3 is very impressive in it's own right, and it's advantages are very appealing....

This is why when it comes to the acoustic piano sound, it's really an individual preference. What you like and prefer may not be what others like and prefer.

In keeping with the original context of the thread ...

I went to piano store and played a Yamaha C5 ( the largest piano on the floor ) I literally had 10 minutes.

The piano played well, I adapted to playing it within 30 seconds. My technique being maintained and improving from playing my V piano over last 8 months allowed me to easily command (not labor on) the instrument. The C5 action seemed lighter , easily playable (Some Chopin Op 10 i and ii) some first movement Mozart K333 Bb, and played some chordal bits and pieces

Comparatively it was just a different experience, yes acoustically enjoyable, beautiful to hear. If iI spent 30 minutes to an hour I probably would have experimented with nuances of tone etc.

I must say I could not believe how narrow the black keys were. I did not like.

Conclusion - playing both acoustic grand and my V piano are extremely enjoyable - different. I am happy I have the V.

V Piano man

Even with this aged recording, I can imagine how amazing it would have been to be in the audience for Kempff's spectacular performance. To each their own, but I think something would be lost for the listener and the artist if a DP was up there. I don't think it would just be a case of different.

I think there would be something lost if the performance would be done by a robot rather than a human being with emotions which only enables this amazing performance. The piano is a tool to express those feelings, nothing else. This COULD be done in the future with DPs...

I didn't realize this was a human v. robot thread. I think we are all willing to agree it takes a human for expressing emotions with a piano.

Of course the piano is just a tool, but not all tools are created equal. Just like I don't think human cognition will will ever be truly replicated in a robot, I don't think all the nuances of an acoustic instrument as complex as a grand piano, and the way it naturally resonates, are going to be perfected in a digital setup. Plus, why mess with perfection.

DP's are great for many situations and purposes, but given a choice, I know what I would prefer to play and hear.

Not so fast there.



What a strangely incongruous statement.
I actually share your belief that in the (distant) future it will be possible for DPs to equal acoustics in their live performance capability. I also believe that the same kind of inexorable technological developments will make it eventually possible for a "robot" to render a recording using the sound engine from such an instrument that will successfully pull the same emotional strings when interpreting a Beethoven Sonate that a human performer could yesterday and can today.

This is of course assuming there is anybody left in the resulting "Factory Human Confinement Farming" environment that we are allowing the "free" market to manipulate us into who is still sufficiently cultured to be able to appreciate Beethoven in the first place. As the current experimental elections (based on unlimited, unidentified deceptive propaganda budgets numbering in the hundreds of millions using neuroscience refined psychological mass manipulation techniques pioneered to dramatic effect in the 1930's and 1940's) in the US are showing us now, it is that you can make people believe just about anything. This is also why the most successful digital piano makers are those with the biggest marketing budgets, not necessarily the best instruments.

So, regarding the question about robots and / or digital pianos, the question becomes: why would we necessarily want to? Or in other words...



I believe it will be more likely in our lifetime that there will be video games produced that are compelling enough that young people will be disengaging from an active life even more than they are today, wanting to spend more time in their fantasy bubble than the real world than that we will be filling classical concert halls with souped up versions of the Avantgrand.

Well I will say that given the choice between playing like I do for eternity and having the finest grand piano or being able to play like Kempff and being stuck with a V-Piano for eternity, I would take the latter.

I didn't realize this was a human v. robot thread. I think we are all willing to agree it takes a human for expressing emotions with a piano.

That's another discussion. What some interpret as emotions at the keyboard are technical expressions of subtle control.

I would never tell a student to play with more emotion as that says absolutely nothing. I would give concrete musical instructions (and reasoning) - faster, slower, louder, softer, gradually slower, gradually faster, etc., etc., etc.

When folks audition for a symphony orchestra they sit behind a screen so the judges cannot see the individual ... only hear. Some folks are greatly swayed in their opinion by physical movement. I just use my ears, they're more accurate. But as I stated initially, this is another discussion.

Very often, the emotions are in the listener and not necessarily in the performer.

Well said. Much of what is behind that which elicits certain emotional responses in the listener is simply the result of a conditioned response of our senses vis-a vis our expectations based on a lifetime exposure to a culturally mediated, historical convention determined arbitrary representation. What delights us often is this expression in the music of certain combinations of motif devices, melodic line, harmonic progression, etc. chosen by the composer and how the relative dynamics, voicing and specific timing chosen and executed by the performer oontrast subtly with our, often unconscious, expectations and anticipation.

As long as the robot is pulling on these same conditioned responses using the same devices of relative dynamics, voicing, pedaling and timing which are at the end of the day describable, objective and isolatable devices, it will be able to elicit the same emotions.

However, if the palette it has to work with is limited to five static samples with limited polyphony versus the infinity of a continuous analog instrument, the robot will be easier to program but the results might remain as mildly dissatisfying as many human perforamances today on digital instruments.

I wasn't looking to get into a pedantic discussion about what consitutes evidence of human cognition or emotions. The point was simply that it is obvious the person playing the piano is going to make an impact on the presentation of the music and I don't think we need to bring robots into the equation.

I think any teacher who simply tells their student to play with more emotion would have a high student turnover rate. I'm not sure "emotion" is the right word but certainly human cognitive processes have an impact on the way music is created and performed in a way that can not be genuinely reproduced with artificial intelligence. They have come up with some computers that come eerily close, but much like DPs, the transparency is just not there. I guess the future will reveal if we ever get there.

Yes, but that robot can can only follow instructions which have been programmed by people. It can't any given moment make a choice about what it wants to do in a any particular phrase unless it has been programmed to do so. If you give a computer notes without any other instructions and give the same notes to a person do you think the robot would spit out something that sounds interpretively coherent or just randomly faster, slower, louder, softer, etc.? If it does have a program to recognize and "create" something coherent, it still is just doing what it has been programmed to do by people.

You are right that if a robot is doing all the same technical things the listener won't know the difference an experience the same "emotions." But, as long as person is telling the robot what to do, the listener is actually hearing the efforts of a person who has just decided to play a piano in a more indirect way.

OK, now I don't even know what I'm saying. My original point was... give me Kempff on an acoustic grand. Does it get much better than that?

Look into the eyes of someone who is playing with lots of engagement a musical piece and you know if he has some emotions about what he's playing or not. For me there is a big difference auditioning the piano without seeing the artist or including the artist. Technically, it might be an identical result, but there is something about the whole expressiveness of how the artist performs which is unique. Anyway, I didn't want to initiate a discussion regarding the possibility to simulate human aspects with a robot which I anyway doubt and even if possible would not welcome. A human being has a soul. But now it's getting too philosophical...

That's the thorny thing about carrying on a discussion on a public bulletin board. Even if you start the thread, you can't necessarily control where the discussion heads.

To the extent that Dave says "What some interpret as emotions at the keyboard are technical expressions of subtle control" he would seem to be making a case for acoustics being inherently superior to digitals since it is undeniable that there are more gradations of 'expression of subtle control' available on an analog, fine grand piano than on a high-end DP.

We appear to be more in agreement of the advantages of the acoustic grand than the illusion of disagreement.

This will also be able to be "programmed", just like computers have been able to be programmed to choose the right strategies dynamically to beat world champion chess grand masters, which is much more complex than knowing that if you use a little sentimental rubato at the end of the phrase you can get the women weepy.

The key operative is bolded above. If you give a random person notes without any other instructions and you give the same notes to a classically trained, professional pianist, do you think that the student would spit out something that sounds interpretively coherent? If a pianist does have a program to recognize and "create" something coherent, it still is just doing what it has been programmed to do by other people.

The choices made by a pianist are many, but they must fit into a rather tiny and narrow spectrum of that which is culturally expected and possible to objectify (and teach to others). A pianist that suddenly starts playing a March a la Martian is not going to experience any more success than a robot doing so.

I totally agree with this... but having heard Dave's recordings I still believe there's some "emotion" coming though there, whatever that means. Sounds too good to just be the result of calculated technical manuevers.

Going back to the original topic, I started out with a mid- or slightly upper-range DP (Roland HP203) and then bought a grand piano half a year ago. When I had only the digital, I had some trouble in the beginning adapting to my teacher's grand (Boston GP161), specifically the pedaling and pp playing.

However, she told me pretty much everyone has trouble with that as a beginner, DP or no DP.

Since I have the grand (got it after playing for 1.5 years), these troubles have pretty much disappeared, but I couldn't say whether this was due to my general progress or the grand. In pedalling though, having the grand is a real benefit to practice.

Now, regarding touch weight, I believe that the "heavy or light" discussion is a bit oversimplified as it's also very much about intertia. The initial reaction by anyone when going from my HP-203 digital to my Renner action Estonia grand is that the action of the grand is definitely heavier. And you do need more muscle power initially to play arpeggios in the bass, for example.

However: This is mostly because of the inertia of the hammer at the very beginning of the depressing of the key. After you managed to get the key to start moving, you can immediately relax your fingers and need almost no strength to complete the movement to the keybed. This sounds like an academic point, but the end result is that I now often find my digital to be "heavier" after some time on the acoustic, because the keys give you a constant resistance, and I found I sometimes didn't reach the keybed and no sound played in a pp section, because I was used to the GP action and immediately relaxed my fingers after the key started moving.

The bottom line is, I am extremely happy I have both. The DP wins out with it's instant recording and playback features, in not annoying the missus during scales practice, Cembalo voice. The grand wins out in terms of sound, "magic", pedalling training and the subtleties of the action (if your goal is to play acoustics! The grand action doesn't help in making you a better digital piano player). Having both and a 3rd instrument at the teacher's has the advantage of preparing you to play well faster on any 4th, 5th and 6th instrument you will encounter in your life, for example that first recital

I can therefore recommend buying a mid-range or better digital with great headphones, then your dream acoustic when your proficiency, space and budget allow for it, and keeping both in your home.

YMMV!

Bunneh

Definitely. In fact, even if Dave would be playing the recorder we would be hearing the emotion coming through his playing.

Just because the maneuvers that result in sounds that elicit a an emotional response in us might be calculated unconsciously doesn't mean they weren't calculated just the same. If they can be calculated, then, theoretically, they can be calculated either by a trained pianist's brain and nervous system or by a computer/robot controlling a sound engine.

I actually spent quite a few years in the AI field... and its hopeless if they are trying to recreate true human cognitive processes. Computers have the ability to beat chess champs but they do so by a very different process and those processes are still defined and created by people. The raw power need to analyze chess moves is actually quite simple compared to modelling human creative processes in other areas. They have been pounding on the chess problem for decades and even 20 years ago everyone in the AI field thought it was just a matter of time. Interestingly though, they gave up on trying to model the way those computers attack chess after humans and just used raw power instead.

But honestly, I don't think anyone really understands human cognition, which makes this talk of robots fruitless.

Future DPs with massive sampling and / or improved piano simulation may equal APs in performance. And who knows, DPs may be even better someday (Simulated pianos would allow things that cannot be done in a real piano).

But making a software playing with emotions? (and by that I don't mean doing a playback of another human that previosly played with emotions, but 'generating' them). That will happen when Ariticial Intelligence will become a reality, and that, IMHO, is a very, very distant future. I know a AI specialist that tried exactly that: develop a MIDI player able to play with emotion, and I would rate the results as an epic fail. Emotions come from the limbic system, and, even with technology improving at the current rate, as far as I know, we are very far away from being able to simulate that. Trying to simulate emotions with algorithms won't work... you need some kind of consciousness and self-awareness for feeling emotions. Emotions are complex and simulate them is much, much harder than make a DP sound as a AP.

And yes, computers play very well to chess, but playing chess from a computer programming point of view is just an heuristic search algorithm on a very big tree of movements. No intelligence involved, just algorithms.

Sorry for the off topic...

Actually a digital player piano is exactly what you are describing, except it is getting more direct instructions on how eveything is to be played. I just don't think that AI scientists are really ever going to get to the point where a computer actually functions like the human brain and can make true choices based on qualitative assessments... although many would argue we don't make true choices either.

Yes exactly, raw power. 20 years ago they thought they could do it by emulating the way a chess player thinks and modelling the human brain, but they realized that just didn't work. Or at least they couldn't figure it out. Instead they just went with raw power which made the whole chess machine v. humans debate a lot less interesting and more like losing to a calculator at multiplication.

I agree that we don't understand human cognition. I also recognize that some of the greatest achievements of AI have not been trying to recreate human cognition. However, we are able to observe inputs and outputs. I may have completely different internal strategies and cognition and neural functioning as you do, but for the purposes of determining if either of us is an accomplished pianist what counts is if the black box between what we do and how others react is consistent with our determination of what an accomplished pianist should be able to do.

The same in the case of deep blue versus a chess master, it is true that the computer relies on brute force while the chess master "appears" to use "intuition" or other creative strategies. I would argue that you are correct that we don't understand cognition. We therefore cannot say that what happens in our unconscious is also not our version of brute force, despite our not being any more conscious of it as we are of all the trial and error processing of the computer.

I agree that AI has not met up to its hype in the short term, but I do believe that it will be possible in future, however non-trivial the task of achieving this, for a classical piano playing computer recording music to pass the Turing test.

I disagree that talking of robots is fruitless. Anything that can focus our attention on concrete things about deepening our understanding and mastery of what we can do in the physical world rather than hiding behind primitive, mystical mumbo jumbo or false dichotomies of mind vs. brain, or consciousness vs. soul, the better off we will be.

Well said! That is exactly what I was trying to say in my first post which started the whole "robot" side discussion. AI ist something completely different than "just" reproducing the complex way the piano sound is produced. We're getting better in DP sound each year (sometimes slowly, but sometimes also with big steps forward), but AI is somehow stuck and miles away from something that can "produce" or "simulate" what we perceive as human emotions.

I agree with you there. I was just trying to end this tangent that I started. As for AI, I think there is going to have to be a fundamental change in the architecture of computers before they become useful again as models of human cognition. That's the opinion I also had 20 years ago when I left the field.

All this talk about chess is right up my street - I used to be a county junior champion, and still play occasionally. Computers beat humans by sheer brute force of calculation, and some of their moves aren't pretty (computers have no prejudices); since then humans have begun to think laterally too and consider 'ugly' moves that might just give them the advantage. (Look at Bobby Fischer's or Capablanca's games for beautiful chess - which probably won't win any tournaments today).

But classical music is different. Pianists have their own distinctive tone which they can reproduce no matter what piano they play, including on responsive high-end DPs. It's all about the weighting of chords, the touch and articulation within passagework, the little accents here and there, the rhythmic quirks...for an example of what I mean, listen to any of Mikhail Pletnev's CDs - he's got one of the most individual styles and tone of any pianist today. When I record myself playing on my V-Piano, I recognise the same characteristics that my recordings on acoustic pianos have. You do need an instrument that enables you to have complete control over tone and articulation and everything else to do that, and that's where I find most DPs lacking, maybe because they rely on sampling techniques that don't give an infinite/seamless gradation of tone.

That was probably why I didn't much like the N2 when I tried it - apart from the fact it didn't feel as responsive to my touch as the V-Piano. But as I can only use headphones at home anyway (otherwise I'd have to turn the volume right down which would create havoc with my technique), I really can't see any advantage of the AvantGrand over an acoustic baby grand for the same price.

Just to be clear, it's the bass response of the human hearing system that drops off at lower levels.

Greg.

Since this somewhat relates to DP's and piano playing, I want to point out that the biggest problem with artificial intelligence is the "natural" intelligence that's trying to program it. I have no doubt that we fully possess the tools today to at a minimum mimic and in many areas surpass most human brain function. Alas, it's our brains and that very same cognitive abilities that we're trying to mimic that is letting us down. Saying that today's computers can't properly be programmed to rival human thought is kind of like saying that a particular piano isn't capable of performing a piece, in reality it's the carbon based mass hitting the keys that's the problem.

Sometimes one has to wonder if mother nature (or whatever deity tickles your fancy) intentionally put some DRM in our brains to prevent us from copying ourselves digitally.

I would agree in that limitations of understanding our own cognitive processes are the biggest bottleneck to creating something that replicates our cognitive processes. While computers today are fully capable of performing many tasks better than people I don't think the piano analogy really fits. We know that in the hands of a skilled artist the piano can be used to create beautiful music. I don't think we are sure that computers are actually the right model for human cognitive processes. They can perform tasks, but most people in AI these days actually think classic computers that rely on a bifurcation of data and processes are the wrong approach to modeling human cognition. It isn't just what comes out of the box that they are trying to recreate. It is that elusive, and perhaps fictitious, concept of "self awareness."

Nevetheless, I totally agree that we aren't going to be able to mimic the human mind unless we understand it, and that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. I also don't think DPs are going to recreate the acoustic experience any time soon... but close enough for many purposes.

"Has anyone else been through the same process, and what are your views?"

Not exactly that process but I played several DPs and acoustics when I tried to find a good piano.

"The one thing missing on my DP was the tactile vibration from the keys, but it doesn't bother me"

When I bought my acoustic I did not even feel that vibration. Now that I have been playing some time I can feel that and also the mechanics and springiness. I like the feel, gives you more connected feeling; but not sure if it helps with playing.

I am pretty sure that your ears get used to the piano you play on each day. That fully explains why you find all other pianos sound worse than your DP now.

I guess that the bass on your DP is a bit overpowered and now you find all other pianos underpowered ;-)

I had a Kawai upright before I bought the Clavinova. I didn't notice the key vibration on the upright, but it became glaringly obvious when I started on the digital. In the end, though, I don't miss it at all.

On another topic ... I don't have any problems with the artifacts and other anomalies of the digital ... looping, lack of string resonance (which I never found at all compelling), etc. As imperfect as the digital may be, the only faults that bother me are:

1. The internal speakers are lame. I added external speakers to solve that. It's still not perfect, but it's acceptable.
2. I miss the dynamics of the upright. I had a tough time with pp on the Kawai, but that might have been inexperience, and a worn action.

I really miss the fff. There just isn't much dynamic range in the digital. I can raise the volume to make it very loud, but then p and pp become unattainable. Oh well.

Not sure which DP you have? I have a Kawai CN33, not even one of the high end CA series, and find that by having the volume up quite high, uncomfortably high for mf or f, then with practise you can get close to p and pp, in fact quite a good range.

I did wonder whether I've got so used to my V-Piano that I don't find the sound of acoustics satisfying anymore (though I would stress that I've customized a wide range of piano sounds which I use occasionally for playing specific composers, some of which are much lighter in bass and resonance than my usual Bösendorfer preset). So I made a point of returning to that showroom yesterday to see if their Yamaha CFX has been tuned and available to try: it was, and the sound is definitely more powerful, richer and rounder than any Yamaha I've ever played, including their former flagship CF111S. I could have stayed there playing all day, if it weren't for the fact that there were customers queuing for their turn. And guess what, its bass is even deeper and stronger than what I've customized for most of my several 'concert grand' presets (- looks like I'll have to twiddle a few knobs again to upgrade my 'Yamaha' preset). I wasn't deceived after all - all the acoustic pianos smaller than a full-sized grand cannot match the deep bass resonance or power I can achieve on my DP, and it wasn't because the V-Piano has an exaggerated or artificially boosted bass.

Yep, I admit the CFX has got me envious again of all those people who have a 9 foot grand at their disposal....but I still wouldn't trade in my V-Piano for anything less. I certainly felt the bottomless power of the CFX which the smaller acoustic pianos don't have, which I think is a very major weak point of uprights (especially) in the 6K or less mark for any pianist above intermediate standard. Even with my puny strength, when I practise even something short & sweet like (say) Schumann/Liszt's Widmung, I need to restrain myself at the climax on uprights.

Are you comparing the bass you hear through your headphones to the bass a grand piano can produce naturally? That isn't really a useful comparison. The beauty of a grand piano is the sound it is creating as it is coming from the cabinet of the piano. You will never be able to do that with the V-Piano.

The V-Piano is always going to be limited to being heard through headphones or speakers. As enjoyable as they might be, headphones are a distorted way to listen to music. Not only do we not hear things that way in the world, but virtually every headphone has a very non-linear response curve. I am very much a headphone guy (AKG K1000's, Sony Qualia's and Senn HD650s being my favorite), but I also realize that headphones serve a purpose, and it isn't reproducing live sound.

I'm not sure what headphones you have but you should realize most headphones have a bass bump and treble roll-off. If you go to Headroom.com, you can see the curves for most headphones.

Edit: Just noticed that you use the K271 MKIIs... also my daily favorite. I use them with the CP1 because they sound more natural than some of my other cans. I never took to the K701s. The Sennheiser HD800s are supposed to be amazing but I haven't heard them yet.

Home speaker setups can also be really enjoyable with a DP. I used to run my Fantom G8 w/ ARX2 through a TACT-based system using corner load subs and 8 ft. Epiphany line source speakers. The sound was amazing, but I would still much rather listen to a nice grand piano of just about any size...ok, over 6'.

I do understand your preference for the V-Piano. It is much more practical than a grand, useful for recording and practice, and can be used to create beautiful music in proper hands. I would also choose it over a similarly priced upright. I'm trying to decide between the 700NX or MP10 as a replacement for my CP1, but my decision will probably be based on which action I prefer.

I was reading the leaflet of one of Keith Jarrett records (Jasmine, with Charlie Haden, btw a great record) and at some point Jarrett says this:

"This recording was done in my small studio. It has very dry sound and we didn't want to have the recording sound like anything but exactly what we were hearing while we played. So it is direct and straightforward. I chose to use the American Steinway that really isn't at all in the best of shape, yet I have this strange connection with it, and it is better for a kind of informality and slight funkiness that was going to work with the music."

I doubt there is any artist that feels this kind of connection with a digital instrument. And as Jarrett says, it wasn't even in the best of shape.

Just my contribution to this long thread.

Best regards.