maybe the right question is: "how many years (or more precisely hours) of lessons/practicing do you need to realy feel an require the difference?"

Yeah I know that mwf is not Gyro - It was just that his post sounded so similar...

for a pracitce instrument you dont need anything that good, unless youre not a very good musician, if you have the passion for playing and can play a piano well, you will play whatever you can on whatever instrument you can play on, no need to be fussy, lifes too short, get on with it...deal with it, just play bye.

Okay then, lets close down this forum, its useless, just get the next Classenti style piano (or lets get a roll-up) and you're done. No need to discuss pros and cons. Just play...

Everyone is asking the OP as if they are the expert and know more than anyone else about pianos/music, some of the things he/she has come out with are ridiculous. Like:

'If you're getting a digital to practice, you should be practicing with headphones. If you're practicing without headphones and no-one is complaining, you should be getting an acoustic instrument.'

rrrrrrright. That told us.

Just because they say they're a professional pianist/teacher does not mean they know what they are talking about. I would strongly advise anyone against listening to OP's advice, its too strict overall and negative towards the more affordable DP's. You must remember that you dont need a really expensive DP or an acoutic piano to progress as a pianist.

mwf - you are clearly incapable of debate: the whole point of forums and debate is to present and discuss opinions which differ from your own. All you seem to do is stamp your feet and cry out that what is written is wrong. Saying "I don't agree" does not constitute a debate: you need to justify your assertions.

So:

1) why don't you get yourself to a shop, try out the new yamahas and give us all a review; I promise I will make my students read your review (or indeed any other review) as well as my own.

2) if you really want to start a discussion on the pros and cons of students practicing on a digital piano, why don't you start a thread on the teacher's forum?

I'm no expert on DPs, but I've certainly had a wide experience of acoustic pianos. And I can categorically say that you won't be able to develop a full range of tone and sonority and technical skill on a cheap console-type vertical piano: I learnt on a cheap Yamaha of this type (until Grade 5 ABRSM) and it wasn't until I went to boarding school and continued my piano lessons on the big Yamaha uprights there that I developed what I'd call a proper keyboard technique. The little Yamaha I learnt on at home had a tinny, very bright sound which barely changed from p to ff, and its keys were far too light (and had a habit of not sounding/sticking on repeated notes, despite the piano being brand new), and its bass sounds were just amorphous thuds.

I'd have been better off with a DP in the same price range, which would have a far better and reliable action, and far bigger range of tone and far easier to control (though of course at the time DPs didn't exist...).

As for DPs today, most of the time you get what you pay for - including all the bells and whistles. As a classical pianist, I'd be looking out for a good piano action, fast repetition of keys, and wide range of tone, and no unnecessary flashing lights and knobs and levers (otherwise I suspect that's where the money is going on). And I'd be using my own headphones to compare the sounds between different DPs, not the DPs' own speakers (I think you'd find that using headphones, there's no difference in sound between the AvantGrands and the CLPs - thay all seem to be sampled from the same CF-IIIS) - after all that's one of the main reasons to buy a DP rather than an acoustic.

You cant say anything 100% bennevis, there is no definate answer, and youre not right saying someone cant develop a full range of tone and sonority and technical skill on a cheap console piano, how do you know that for certain, to me thats nonsense, and anything is possible, people seem to be judging what they can or cannot do rather than what others may be capable of, how do you know what someone is capable of?

mwf: The limitations he speaks of are those of the digital piano. There's no disputing that the digital cannot match an acoustic piano's full range of expression.

If I were recommending a digital piano to a cost conscious purchaser, I'd recommend the Roland RD-700NX with a pair of Sennheiser HD-600 headphones. The acoustic pianos sound very good. The SuperNatural features are a vast improvement over the 5 velocity layers of the CLP-380. The action, while a little light, is very responsive. And the internal amp is powerful enough to drive the low impedance Sennheisers with the volume slider at 50 percent. You can get a lot of fruitful practicing done on this sort of set up. I'd also recommend having some version of Pianoteq available because -- artificial as it sometimes sounds -- it provides a palette of nuance that is very useful. I've been practicing Mozart with it lately, and it allows for subtleties that many digitals and software pianos obscure. Also, the Pianoteq interface is really good. One favorite feature: You can record and playback very easily, which I find to be a helpful practice aid.

I provide the above recommendation, having owned and "tested" the following products: (i) a Steinway B, (ii) a CLP-380, (iii) an AvantGrand N2, (iv) Pianoteq, (v) Garritan Steinway D, (vi) Steinberg Grand 3, (vii) Ivory II, (viii) Galaxy Vintage D.

A couple years ago -- before the AvantGrand was in stores -- I purchased a CLP-380. I think I paid more than $6k, but less than $7k. I found that model disappointing for several reasons.

First, the tuning. Through high quality headphones (Sennheiser HD 580 and HD 600), it was clear that the tuning of some individual notes on the CLP-380 was off. I specifically remember that playing the first note of La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin just made my teeth gnash. (This would be 2 d-flats above middle c, at the lowest velocity layer -- through headphones, mind you.)

Second, the keyboard had an odd quality to it that made its touch unrealistic compared to an acoustic. The initial touch weight of the key was too heavy, so that in quiet chordal passages, it was not possible to play all notes cleanly. These types of quiet block cords are all over Debussy's music. (Employing my hazy recollection of high school physics, I think I could say -- by way of analogy or metaphor -- that the touch of the CLP-380 is as though the ratio of the coefficient of static friction to the coefficient of kinetic friction was too high, compared to a decent acoustic grand. Compared to a typical properly-regulated grand action, you have to apply too much pressure on the CLP-380 to get the key to start travelling which means the key is sometimes travelling too fast once it starts moving. The keys on the CLP-380 thus don't "fall" under the weight of your fingers; rather, you have to give them a little push to get them going.)

I found these two factors kind of depressing. The "off" tuning meant I had to turn to software pianos, but the "off" touch made the software pianos difficult to play.

When the AvantGrands came out, I decided to trade up, because the dealer would credit my original purchase price of the CLP-380 towards the AvantGrand. I purchased an N2. The cost of the upgrade was about $4k, which I thought was a pretty good deal for the following reasons: (1) The tuning of the N2 is fabulous. I've had piano tuners, curious about the Avant, comment that the Avant's tuning is very impressive. Evidently, the ascending beat rates of sixths work exactly as they should; this is not something I, myself, can discern. By contrast, the tuning on some of the software pianos is evidently not as accurate. (Pianoteq, however, is evidently a perfectly in-tune piano. The Avant, I am told, rivals Pianoteq in terms of the quality of its tuning.) (2) The action of the N2 is fabulous. It plays like a grand -- a GOOD grand.

Having said all the above, I'm writing this post to pass on my own experience. If I were starting from scratch, I'd get the Roland RD-700NX with the stand recommended by Roland and the Sennheiser headphones recommended above. I'd consider Pianoteq too, for the reasons mentioned. And I'd then start figuring out how to get access to a good acoustic from time to time in order to make sure that I was creating music and not unwittingly pounding out dictation.

You cannot develop skills for something you cannot reproduce. So if your DP is not able to reproduce specific subtle tone differences you can't develop the skills to reproduce them. It's that easy.

The Clavinova CLP-340 suffers from the same problem. This is such a ridiculous problem concerning the so-called high-end keyboard actions by Yamaha, I actually find the GHS and the GH far more playable than the GH3 and GH3+NW regardless what the advertising departments may say. It's a double win, actually, because keyboards with GH and GHS are far cheaper than those with GH3 and GH3+NW

I give up, after the last comment by Mucci, thats it from me, you think what you want.

- hint - hint - hint -

You could reply:

Most of todays affordable DPs have enough capabilities to reproduce most if not all required skills for a beginner to intermediate player. So if you have budget constraints you could be able to maker considerable progress in learning playing the piano. There is no need to have a N3 to learn playing the piano.

And I would then reply: You're absolutely right!

Most of todays affordable DPs have enough capabilities to reproduce most if not all required skills for a beginner to Expert player. So if you have budget constraints you could be able to make considerable progress in learning playing the piano. There is no need to have a N3 to learn playing the piano, or to play at an advanced level.

Are you serious?!

I've GH3 and there's no way to compare with GH or GHS regarding expressiveness or fast notes repeating

I've tried several CLP-340s and all of them showed the same keyboard action insufficiency, so yes, I am absolutely serious. I'll also be far happier if in the future you find more polite ways to react to my opinion.

Moomintroll,

GH3 is technically superior to GH/GHS. However, if you prefer to play the latter, that's absolutely fine - each to their own, etc.

Cheers,
James
x

I, too, find that to be odd. The GH3 is mechanically identical to the GH.

If you feel a difference (GH vs. GH3), then perhaps it's related to sample variation?

I've noticed differences between the "same" GH3 keyboard on a CLP330 and that on a CLP240. Both were new pianos (three years ago).

You're... oh wait...

You almost got me!

I think the GHS had amazing fast repetition of same keys compared to the GH3. dont know if anyone else found this.

Ok, I give up!

I can't understand why Yammy spends money in developping new keybeds, adding 3rd sensors and so on.... if people don't realize any differences with older models.

the repetition of a key is a tricky one though, you have to remember that GH3 was marketed as an 'enhanced' repetition and smoother repetition of notes that blend better or whatever. At no point, I am pretty sure of this, did they mention you could strike the key quicker many times to achieve more notes per second on the same key, they just marketed it so you thought that was included in the GH3.

The 3rd sensor allows the player to re-press the key before it comes back completely, as a real piano does.

no thats incorrect, the third sensor is a sensor and only allows you to play/hear the notes smoother in repetition, its only a sensor and not an actual mechanism to allow faster reptetition of the same key. The key repetition on GH3 is rubbish, you should try the PHAIII I have on my Roland HP307 - far better!

Sorry but you're talking rubbish. I'm not a fan of Yamaha, but it's exactly as stated before: The third sensor is about halfway down the full keypress. So the sensor can detect when the key has moved up about halfway. It doesn't stop playing the note then, but if you repress the key, it plays a new note. Without that sensor this wouldn't happen...

Understood?

no, the GH3 keyboard lets you play the same note repeatedly with perfect articulation, they claim, they dont say this third sensor helps you play same notes faster, dont you understand what a sensor is? do you understand that a sensor detects your playing, does not mean it changes the whole mechanism of the keyboard when you suddenly decide to play the same key more rapidy, its a senor not a device.

mwf: D'oh! Are you trying to become our new Gyro?

GH3 Keyboard

Thanks James Q, that illustrates it perfectly. I hope mwf now understands and stops being ignorant.