Turandot, I see your wisdom now. (I'm only half joking but yes, you do have a point).

You were the one saying things like "why are there no DPs in universities?" . I only countered by saying you can't necessarily be so sure of that. There's a big difference. An unsupported claim can be challenged without proof. The challenge is to your very lack of basis for the statement. If you can't get that, I've given you too much credit in the past. I gave real world examples of my claims that keeping practice pianos in tune is a real problem. You gave nothing but a poor comparison to your own piano at home. It's nothing to do with having different standards for me than for you. I talked about my experience at several conservatories, you talked about nothing but your home. And you think I make unsupported claims? If I made my arguments the way you have in this thread, I would expect to have them ripped apart too. Please don't go all passive-aggressive as though you have been so wronged. It doesn't reflect well on you. You are misrepresenting this debate because your arguments fell into a hole. As somebody who very frequently argues very diligently yourself, you should be quite used to having to make a decent case. I think you are just used to getting your way.

Fine.

(Because I'm not interested in Da Capo al fine. "Ripped them apart" indeed. Keep your credit to yourself, I don't live off it. I can see when logic begins to fail with people and that is the point of no return. Strawmen begin popping up all over the place. An "inference" is conflated with "comparison" and all heck breaks loose. So this shall end here.)

Retreating with a few pontificating statements doesn't erase your lame arguments.

Haha, very funny video.

Hi 1BigBird, I couldn't help but notice you're from Everett, WA. If you drive down to Classic Pianos (www.classicpianosseattle.com) in Bellevue, they will let you do a side-by-side comparison of an AvantGrand with a Yamaha C3 or similar. If you call and request beforehand, the head guy tells me they will sometimes use a cloth to cover the rear components of the piano so you can only see the keyboard, allowing you to essentially do a blind test between the AvantGrand and a C3 (try not to scrutinize the pianos as there are differences in size, electronic components, etc. I am pretty oblivious to things so this wouldn't affect me.)

The AvantGrand is a very good hybrid piano, and if you like it, you should go for it. From my experience, Yamaha stands behind their products and there is little to worry about in terms of reliability. Personally, I am seriously considering an N1 for quiet practice.

As a side note, I tried playing the ocean etude on an N3. This is my test for electronic pianos, as most cannot handle sustaining a whole bunch of notes while sounding good. As well, from my experience, most uprights and electronic pianos don't have quick enough action for the repeated notes in this piece. I'll play a note only to find out it hasn't sprung back up yet.

The N3 is the first electronic piano to pass my ocean etude test. Its action is like that of a grand, and it doesn't have any sound distortion issues from my experience.

DPs cannot have distortion in their sound unless you connect them to speakers (& amps) which can't handle the power. What is limiting in my experience is that they have this definite ceiling to the power: with APs, if you really bang, you 'go through the tone' (listen to Horowitz). With most DPs, once you reach their limit, that's it.

bennevis, the N3 probably has a built in compression\limiter for those times when the piano is cranked up too far.

bennevis, the N3 uses sampled sounds. Now, I don't know if each sound is sampled at multiple different volumes and if by turning the volume knob up it plays a different sampled sound. I really don't think that's how the volume control works. I'll let others who might be better versed in how DP's work answer this. The point though is that, if sounds aren't sampled at multiple volumes, the tonal qualities of playing louder on a real piano simply cannot be replicated by the DP as somebody pointed out. Btw, even if you sampled it at multiple volumes, there will be subtle variations in tone depending on who played the piano during the sampling (or whatever other technique is used during sampling). Some people here may not believe this last part as they claim that velocity is all that decides everything about the sound produced. That's another topic that has been discussed to no end here.

I expect that they use machines to play the piano keys whose sound is being sampled for the database (is that the right word?) in the DP, otherwise they can't get consistency. And they won't want to crank up the machine to the point where the sound becomes harsh and 'ugly'. But sometimes in performance (even if it's just for a single bass note at the height of a climax, as in the big cadenza for Rach 3), you do want the sound to be harsh, and this is what's so disappointing in most DPs - that you can't get to that level no matter how hard you hit the key.

The samples are velocity based, the faster the hammer travels, the louder the sound. The amplification system works independently.

The strings in a real piano only see the velocity of the hammer, period. The strings don't care if you caress the keys like a long lost lover or if you walk across the keys with your shoes on, velocity is velocity.

With any kind of belief system, the burden of proof lies with the individual who states that something exists.

In the past I have played on various conservatory pianos. I have never seen digitals there. They were all acoustic, both uprights and grands. And they were in widely varying shape, from pretty good grands to the most crappy upright that you would not even want for free. They are clearly cutting on the maintenance costs. They seem to try to keep some pianos in good shape while others are not maintained. For the crappy ones, sometimes a key did not work; ivory was taken off the keys; in some cases I had to straighten up dampers before the note would play; and I was on the point of bringing my own tuning hammer to get some pitches at least somewhere in the right ballpark. Well you get the picture.

So given above suggestions of the big savings for DPs, either this conservatory is consciously choosing for acoustics, or we are missing something that makes the cost of a DP just as high as an acoustic.

Maybe what we miss is the average lifetime of electronic stuff, usually set at about 5 years? Or maybe it is that conservatories consider a DP unsuited to serious practice?

For myself, even in the case of crappy upright I am not so sure if I would prefer a DP instead. Well if keys are really broken it's a clear case, but for the less dramatic issues...

If a digital instrument has a grand piano action, that action will be subject to the same wear as on an acoustic grand piano. There will be no savings in maintenance if they want the action to perform properly.

My experience with CP70s and CP80s is that they seemed to get heavier than normal wear, and the actions were not maintained. Of course, the portable folding nature of those pianos led to less than stellar action response, too.

Yes.. so prove to us that different pianists playing with the same velocity produce the EXACT same tonal characteristics. You claim that's the case. So prove it. That's the funny thing about burden of proof. It goes both ways. Science rests on the very notion of falsification. If attempts at falsification fail, then the claim is treated as something that's worth considering. Similarly the claim when presented in the first place, needs to be accompanied by proof and proof that's falsifiable in principle. So all this about "the burden of proof lies with you" stuff is nonsense. Both parties have responsibilities to fulfill.

In the current situation, when it comes to discussing this stuff on an online forum, you cannot expect people to present data with plots and equations. If someone paid me to do it, I would probably do the experiment myself and verify if your claim or mine is the right one. In the absence of that possibility, all we can do is provide plausibility arguments. My argument for that is simply that there are tiny variations in the trajectories that the hammer can take to the string.It is not a constrained trajectory that has infinite precision. That's talking about a single note. Now when you talk about groupings of notes and phrases, the precise time of striking the string matters..with a sensor waiting to be activated that produces a sampled sound, the level of control is absolutely on a different scale altogether. It cannot be compared to the level of control one might have with the grand piano action COUPLED with real strings and other physical parts in the piano. The pedal itself can do multiple different things to the tonal quality for example. Its felt lifting off the strings. You can lift the felt off either after you strike the string or before. The two produce entirely different tonal characteristics. Are you suggesting that this can be done on the AG (a clever DP could possibly do it in the future, but I don't think it is implemented on any current DP)? The resonating characteristics on the real piano can also potentially change with changes in humidity, temperature and things like that and subtle changes in these characteristics when amplified (as the piano is loud, as you admit yourself) can turn out to be not so subtle in perception.The sound emanating from inside a piano is propagated across the room depending heavily on the geometry and physical aspects of the piano. With sampled sounds coming out of a speaker in the AG, that's simply not possible. Couple that with room acoustics..and the presence of people in the room: there are nonlinear interactions taking place here leading to potentially HUGE differences in experience with a room that has a grand piano playing as opposed to an AG playing in it (note: the nonlinear interactions are important in understanding this point of mine because you might argue that there are the same people present and the same room if you put the AG in a room under the same conditions). There's multiple different things that you can imagine goes on with a real piano. So I find it baffling that you simplify tonal characteristics down to mere velocity of the hammer.

Again, these are plausibility arguments. I have no proof for any of it, only intuitions. Similarly, you have no proof either for your claim that it is only dependent on hammer velocity. So all people can do here is to read each set of plausibility arguments and decide for themselves which arguments sound more reasonable and plausible.

I think that the 'secret' of an acoustic piano is that the interaction between the hammer and the string are in essence nonlinear in nature.
Thre are many scientific publications about this phenonemon; one you can find below:
Physical modelling of the piano ...

This in contrast to the digital piano where the velocity dependent activation of the sensor must be a linear interaction.

As to different pianists producing a different tonal palette when playing the same piece even at equal 'velocity striking' of the keys. I think this has to do with the fact that playing groupings of notes or phrases has less to do with the notes that are written down on the score but rather with what is 'between the notes'; timing in striking the keys and operating the pedals is what makes the subtle differences in.

Now whether all this is of much use in this debate about the AvantGrand is not at all sure.
I find the comparison between the AvantGrand (or any other advanced DP, e.g like the Roland V-Grand)and an acoustic grand solely on the basis of touch and tone production pointless.

For me they do not have to compete with eachother as the stenghts and benefits of the two species are of a different nature. The strenghts of the AvantGrand is mainly situated in the convenience domain still having a very good touch and adequate sound: playing through headphones, practice sessions without disturbing others, practice instrument in schools with little maintenance, performance instrument in bands (pop or jazz) ...

Just my 2 cts.

schwammerl.

If people only claimed what you claimed about the AG, I would have absolutely no issues with it. In fact, I believe you and I agree on most issues here. The point about control in between playing notes and how that affacts tonal quality is exactly what I've talked about too. With the precision in trajectory statement, I was trying to make a point that even if you talked about single notes, there are *probably* differences in tonal characteristics.

The nonlinear hammer-string point is very important too, thanks for pointing that out.

Finally, I agree..the AG seems to have a convenience advantage. All I am saying was that people seem to believe that its EQUAL in performance and experience to that afforded by a grand piano and there's lots of misleading advice and information given here that speaks of the two breeds of piano as though they afforded equivalent experiences. That is simply not true. So people will have to be wise in their choices, depending on what their goals are. Is the priority silent practice? If so, go for the AG by all means. Is the goal getting your phrasing right, gaining immense control over dynamical and lyrical aspects or subtle interpretative (including tonal control, etc) aspects? The AG might just not be your best bet there. This is all I'm saying and apparently people disagree.

Good guesses, both. I bet its the latter though.

I tried out the N3 today, after trying Yamaha's Clavinola 370, soon to be replaced, reportedly, with the 470. It was my first foray into the digital piano world. I expected to be disappointed, having an acoustical Yamaha WX3 upright that I love but can no longer practice on because of new living situation in multi-family dwelling.

The 370 was OK, but just. I then played the N3 just for fun, never thinking I'd seriously consider a piano this expensive. But OMG, it felt and sounded absolutely wonderful and was a pleasure to play. I am just an amateur classical pianist and not an expert on pianos, so pardon the hyperbole. If I were to break the bank and buy one, I would likely get the N2 (upright and $5K less). Dealer said piano technology was same in both models. Has anyone played the N2 and compared with N3?

Have been so distressed at the prospect of selling my beloved WX3. But admittedly when I played the AvantGrande today, it completely changed my view. I played a Bach English Suite and portions of Beethoven's Op. 90, to get a feel for the responsiveness of the keyboard with different styles of playing. It was so enjoyable, I forgot I was in a showroom, wearing headphones!

Would love to know others thoughts, esp. on the N2. The upcoming N1 is the lower end of this technology and will not include the TRS (Tactile Response System) that reportedly gives it the acoustical grand piano action and feel. But dealer didn't know how much cheaper it would be than N2.

Laurie

The N2 and N3 play and feel exactly the same. The action is superb. I would buy one in a second if I wanted another digital and had the $. I dont think the TRS is that important. The N2 and N3 have Ivorite keys, which I thought was not important until I got a piano with Ivorite keys and I miss it when I play a piano with plastic keys.

All are heads and tales above any other digital if you are talking about the action. The sound... I still contend a $400 Casio hooked to some $600 speakers and Synthogy Ivory sounds better. But the N1,2,3 action is as good as it gets, and in fact as good as it is possible to ever get.

Be sure that you play the N2, preferably side-by-side with the N3. The N2 lid directs some treble straight at the player, which can make some high notes piercing. The N3 lid directs sound in a more realistic way and there is no piercing treble. Also, the N3 has a soundboard that some forum posts indicate enhances realism. If the AG was going to be my only piano, I might take an "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach to the N1, N2, N3 choice.

It sounds like you will be using headphones, at least some of the time. Be sure to play these pianos with GOOD headphones (I like the Sennheiser HD 600 phones, but these are high impedance headphones that require a headphone amp on the AGs (but not, surprisingly, on the Roland RD-700NX) -- I'm sure there's a low impedance option that will allow you to avoid having to use a headphone amp with the AG). The AG samples are superior to the CLP 380 through headphones, but I prefer using Synthogy Ivory II with the N2, rather than its internal samples.

When testing digital pianos, try out quiet passages, where you might be attempting subtle voicings, articulations and dynamic contrasts (think anything Mozart and think interior melodic lines such as Brahms Op 118, No 2), to confirm that the instrument expresses these adequately. Also, play thick chordal passages in the middle of the keyboard to see if you like the sound. I find some digital samples will sound great with a single melodic line in a Chopin nocturne or waltz, but sound very "closed" or unrealistic with chords from, say, Brahms.

Finally, give the Roland SuperNatural pianos a try, especially if you need the digital for headphone practice, but would have an acoustic for other times. I really like the RD-700NX. The action is a bit light but nevertheless very good. I have played wonderful grands that have actions as light (e.g., a 7 foot Bluthner with a Stanwood touch design), but most pianos have a heavier touch than the RD-700NX. It is possible other pianos in the Roland line have a heavier touch than the RD-700NX, since it is a so-called stage piano. I haven't tried any of the other Rolands.

Finally, +1 to AlphaTerminus's final paragraph, though the Roland SuperNatural samples (and action) may be better still in bringing out the subtlety of Mozart.