Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Kawai CA 18 vs. CN 42

Hello Simon,

The CA18 was launched in Europe at the beginning of 2009.



Yes, however I am reluctant to talk specifically about products that have yet to be officially announced by Kawai Europe.

Kind regards,
James
x

Hello James,

Thanks. There is something else that remains uncertain for me : from what I read on KAWAI site, there has been 2 generations of harmonic imaging technology. The CA 18 has the latest, harmonic imaging II, right ?

Will it be possible to upgrade the CA 18 to progressive harmonic imaging (I suppose not) ?

At last, I would also like to know about the MIDI connection.

Kind Regards,
Simon.

Hello Simon,



Well, if we were to reference the list above, the CA18 utilises the latest generation 'Harmonic Imaging, 88-key piano sampling'.



No, I'm afraid not.



Unfortunately the CA18 is not equipped with MIDI connectors.

I hope this answers your query.

Kind regards,
James
x

Hello James & everyone on the forum,

Thanks for your answers.
I am still hesitating ... I tried a CA 18 & a CA 63 at a local store in Bordeaux (but no CA 93), and couldn't decide what to buy. Choosing an instrument is a long process.
I am looking for a digital piano in this price range (2000 euros), featuring wooden keys, a realistic action, a realistic sound (good electronic, amplification & speakers), few options (no display, USB or midi connections are needed) and a nice appearance.
The CA 18 is close to my wills, but I think I am going to wait until Kawai introduces its successor. Perhaps will it feature RM3 action & progressive harmonic imaging ...
The extra point would be a nice Jazz organ sound (no such sound in CA18) and improved amplification / speakers.
Could you tell people at Kawai to design a new piano just like this ? I would buy it right away ! :-)

Kind regards,
Simon.

I think you may overestimate my influence within the company.

However, please do remain patient...

Cheers,
James
x

I took a while to decide between the CA18 and CA63. Eventually I decided on the CA63. I found the sound the same, but the action and the fact that the CA63 had midi connections won it for me.

Hello James & everyone,

It's been a long time since my last post, and I finally set up my mind on a CA93 !
I have been able to play test this model in a new store downtown Bordeaux, and I really loved the soundboard ! I should have it delivered by the end of the week.
Still, I would like to use Scarbee on my iMac in order to use vintage electric piano sounds (I don't like e-pianos sounds in the CA93 so much). How should I proceed ? Is it possible to send the signal back to the piano in order to use the CA93 amplification system ? I don't know what kind of cable I need to buy ...

Thanks,
Simon.

Sure, you can send the audio signal to CA93 line-in. You will need some cheapo adapters for this. I do this kind of sound tweaking from time to time, and it works flawlessly. You can even combine internal and external sounds and adjust them accordingly since the line-in level is adjustable.

Hi

I recommend you spend a decent amount of money on any cables or connectors. Cheap ones work but there has never been a good reason to buy cheap cabling unless you simply can't afford them.

That's a great piano with an obviously steep financial outlay so I wouldn't cheap on interconnects at this stage..

Congratulations Simon, excellent choice!

I agree with your statement on the standard EP preset. Before buying any cables, you first might want to check out the much more exciting and dedicated 'soundboard shaking' dual voice EP's in this thread for free:
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...0for%20KAWAI%20CA93/CA6.html#Post1448603


Here are the names of the currently available CA93-optimised EP presets*:
1. Involving E-Piano
2. Dreamy Tremolo Hybrid
3. Warm Rhodes Overdrive
4. Fast Attack Fender Rhodes
5. Wurlitzer E-Piano - rare model
6. Kawai EP-308 Electric Grand
7. Yamaha CP70/CP80 Electric Grand
8. The Electric Grands Collection
9. Percussive Crystal Electric Piano
10. Herbie Hancock's Suitcase Rhodes
11. Supertramp 'Dreamer' Wurlitzer
12. Heavy Amped Vintage Rhodes

*) Except for 7 and 10, they will also run on a CA63.


Your feedback and suggestions would be highly appreciated in the CA93/CA63 Custom Settings thread.

I have to comment on this since this often has been the cause of misunderstandings. I would pay money for things that really influence the sound quality. Cabling (if it's not about extremely bad quality) doesn't influence the sound quality in an audible way. So a cable and adapters with decent quality is absolutely sufficient. No "premium" quality necessary, believe me.

I'll agree to disagree then

Cabling does very much affect the sound quality, albeit in mostly a subtle way. The quality of the materials right through the build, length, gauge etc are all factors.

That said, I tend not to get silly about the amount I spend on cable, but I always try my best to get the best cable (or quite often make it myself) I can for the job. I never buy anything cheap...

Regards. Rimmer

List of significance for sound:

1. Loudspeakers / Headphones
.
.
.
.
.
2. Quality of sound source (if it's at least a decent soundcard)
3. Sound setup (EQ, other effects, technically correct volume settings...)
4. Quality of amplifier
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5. Quality of analog audio cable
.
.
.
.
.
9999. Other Voodoo stuff like quality of digital audio cable which has 0% influence on sound quality

"Cabling does very much affect the sound quality, albeit in mostly a subtle way."
What way is that? I've never heard any such difference. Voodoo, indeed!

In a cheap cable, under that plastic jacket .. there's wire.
In an expensive cable, under that plastic jacket ... there's wire.
The only real difference is in the connectors.

Cheap cables have connectors that are pure crap (as in flimsy connectors and flimsy strain reliefs). Not good. Aside from that, there's not much difference.

I can only recommend that you guys therefore buy cheap copper compositions. There is nothing more wrong in my opinion in ignoring the differences in the quality of a signal chain and cabling considerations. How do you guys feel about the flow of electrons when it comes to cable marked with a direction arrow? Everything from the stuff used on hifi interconnects or speaker cable to the stuff they lay for telecommunications? Just interested more than anything.



Regards. Rimmer

Mac is right, only the connectors matter, they should be firm and not loose, there must be a good contact.



Voodoo. How do electrons know in which direction they need to flow?



We're talking about short interconnections. Small length - almost no impact; long length (not relevant for inhouse conncetions) - some impact.

Not to mention digital signals - for digital signals there is only a "does work" or a "does not work", no decrease in quality possible.

I wasn't going to join this part of the discussion because it's OT from the starting subject.

I don't have any real experience and don't buy into the argument that oxygen free speaker cables are better as loved by so many audiophiles.

I do know from experience that more expensive cables used for analogue signals are superior to cheaper cables, usually because of the connectors, wire gauge, construction - pair twists, separation, and screening.

Then comes the digital discussion. There are different grades of 'category' types of data cable, examples CAT3, 5, 7 and so on, with different construction to provide for the different bandwidths. As you may guess the higher spec CAT cables are more expensive.

So my guess is that all cables are not equal.

CAT 3/5/etc cables are a different story. The signal frequencies are VERY high, in a range where cable characteristics influence the ability to carry the signal. There is a difference between CAT 3/5/etc. Rightly so, because they're intended for different purposes (10 Mbps vs. 100 Mbps vs 1000 Mbps).

But the discussion here focused on analog audio signals, where frequencies are ultra-low. A cable's transmission-line characteristics are negligible in these circumstances (low-frequencies, short cables, low impedances).

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables

As for oxygen-free copper cables ... Wiki claims a difference of about 0.1% in conductivity. That's beyond negligible. The claimed benefits of oxygen-free copper is a marketing fantasy, invented to spur sales of high-priced goods by preying on ignorance. When your business stands before people who have lots of money and little information, you can pocket a tidy sum.

When buying cables, just be sure the cable is rugged enough to endure in your intended application. A band on the road needs to use rugged cables because they'll be pulled, twisted, stepped on, and otherwise abused. At home, when wiring a piano to an amplifier, the cables may go untouched for months or years, so ruggedness is no issue.

Again. I'll agree to disagree. Buying quality cable does make a difference on a number of levels other than durability. The gauge of speaker cable for instance will vary the frequency spectrum. The shielding on unbalanced cable will make a difference. The length of the cable (and this should be discussed when claiming all cables are equal) makes a lot of difference.

The whole cable making industry aren't trying to have everybody over. Granted there are times where spending £100 on a meter of monster cable will be a waste of time if the equipment you are using is incapable of benefitting. Spending £10 on a cable from a crap electrical shop that sells at a 500% profit is another example of a waste of money. Buying a crappy length of thin gauge cable and saying it's exactly the same as a quality screened equivalent is not good advice...

Regards. Rimmer

Yes, it is. It is good advice because it helps you to keep your money for things that really matter.