Admittedly, we're just speculating about how this thing works. But the idea of using an actual piano action coupled to pressure sensors raises some weird questions. Will it be possible to voice an Alpha Piano the way you do an acoustic instrument (with needles, sanding, etc.)? Would such a connection between the action and the sensors create a unique sound for each individual instrument? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Fundamentally, the output of the sensors is still used to select from among a finite (although large) set of sampled sounds, right? So is there anything to be gained creatively from creating a less deterministic connection between the physical action and the samples?

To me this idea of using pressure sensors again raises the philosophical question about how far DP manufacturers ought to go in trying to replicate each and every idiosyncrasy of the acoustic piano.

B.

Voicing of hammers is already possible/available on DP's (Roland comes to mind, maybe others?).

Perhaps some day they will even include a 'Prepared Piano' preset with different objects to choose for XX-Century repertoire, like they already have a de-tuned piano?

On a more serious note, it would be interesting if not so far into the future DP developers start experimenting and possibly create a new instrument in its own right, kind of a Wurlitzer of the digital era. And yes, I'm aware there is such a thing called a synthesizer, but I'm talking about something more specific.

The idea behind these digital piano will always be an oxymoron, anyways. And as far as I know, all major players have these kind of thing built into their machines (damper, voicing of hammers, etc.)

Sort of. With respect to Roland's so-called Piano Designer functionality, you can adjust what they call "hammer noise" globally but not for individual notes, I believe. I don't know about other DPs.

I suppose the output of the sensors (simple hammer velocity, or whatever else) could be used to decide what kinds of signal processing to apply to individual samples, but that would imply a DSP signal path for every note up to maximum polyphony.

I'm assuming current instruments don't do that, correct?

B.

I requested the test from other AG owners but maybe this is not an interesting subject.

Anyway I did the test again to my N1 and it surprisingly passed it. The reason that it didn't pass earlier is that I expected exactly the same response like I do on the C1. The N1 simulates the double escapement but it's more difficult to achieve than on the C1. On the N1, I have to realease the key very carefully and higher than I do on the C1. That's why N1 requires a little more practise for the repetitions (which is actually very good for practising reasons)By the way, about 5 days ago, I tried a Celviano ap220, it has the double escapement effect but it's way too easy to achieve than on a grand piano. So you maybe tricked when you practice and may not achive the same response on a grand. So not a very beneficial practise tool for the repetitions.

My appologies for any inconvenience about the wrong results of my first test.

Yesterday and the day before I played the Gershwin Rhapsodie In Blue on a beautiful Steinway D. After practising on the N1, the fast repetition section of the piece was easier to achive on the Steinway D.

Ozgur: Good news!

I don't know whether you looked closely at the test procedure (in that other post I referred to), but I said to release the key to a point just before the note is damped. If you do that carefully, you will be able to reliably determine whether it has double-escapement or not. Of course, once you determine that it does have double-escapement, it's then a matter of determining how much key travel's worth of double-escapement you have.

It'd be interesting to know how much difference you perceive between different acoustic pianos - for example, do real pianos differ by the same amount that you are experiencing between digital and acoustic?

Greg.