look at the above diagram and tell me where it explains anything about faster key repetition, why are you showing me a diagram that does not tell you anything? it shows the simple concept of the mechanism and then a picture with 3 sensors, that told me.

My original comment was that I found the GHS to be a faster key stroke keyboard on same key, there is no evidence the GH3 is faster, only an improvement in articulation/smoothness/accuracy and the way the notes sound to your hears through use of sensors, there is no keyboard technology that allows for faster key repetition in the GH3, thus the reason why you will find quicker repetition strokes on other keyboards old and new.

The GH3 is still slow anyway compared to an acoustic key repetition, I found it a struggle to play la campanella/toccata d minor on it for example, not with my PHAIII though, far better repetition rate.

Yes, there is.

It is a big difference if you have to fully release a key and then press it down again or if you just have to travel halfway up and then press the key again. It's

1. shorter travel length --> quicker
2. although pedal not pressed down it's a continuous play rather than note off / note on (staccato like)
3. (maybe) more possibilities for expression because you have two sensors to calculate the velocity of a key (when did you reach the first sensor / when second sensor)

Sorry for my maybe clumsy explanation because I don't know the technically correct English words for some expressions.


I understand you like the PHAIII keyboard more, that's fine, but you should at least accept what the GH3 is and that it indeed helps to manage faster repetitions.

In my understanding, that's the same concept for Yamaha, Roland PHAIII and Casio. While Kawai RM3 should adopt a different approach. It allows the same behaviour (halfway travel) but with only 2 sensors, doesn' it?

The "3" in RM3 has nothing to do with 3 sensors. It just has 2 sensors. Nevertheless the travel length for release before repetition will work is shorter than a full key release (since I have this keyboard, I would guess about 60-65%).

used to own 2 different clavinovas - CLP270 and CLP380, both with GH3/the latter was NWGH3, they didnt allow very fast repetition, I was not impressed. Think what you like then... I dont agree with your further explanation, sorry. The sensors dont make a difference, although Yamaha will claim they do, its just marketing speak.

uhm... I don't know what to say to that... That's the way how it should work and the technical explanation should be correct.

I don't own both GH3 and PHAIII, I just test did drive both at my local dealer. To be honest I'm not impressed with both keyboards for various reasons, but at least I could detect the slightly quicker repetition on both keyboards compared to the CA63 I own. I personally prefer the Kawai keyboard action, its very much like the "real" (what is that?) thing. I think there is lots of personal taste in keyboard action, so lets keep it that way...

On an acoustic piano ... when a key is struck the escapement disengages the key from the hammer, which allows the hammer to rebound from the string even if the key is held down. This rebound is necessary to produce good tone.

This means that the key must be partially released to allow the mechanism to re-engage ... before you can strike that note again. The distance the key must rise before the action re-engages is much less than the full 10 mm (approx.) key dip. The required rise is significant (several millimeters) on an upright. On a grand, with its superior action mechanism, the required rise is less.

The time "lost" allowing the key to rise before re-engagement limits your repetition speed. So the shorter the required rise, the faster the achievable repetition rate.

Digital pianos neither have nor need an escapement mechanism. But the key must still rise before you can re-strike the note. The third sensor on the GH3 keyboard (and other three-sensor actions from other makers) allows the piano to sense the release sooner, and allows it to sense a re-strike after a shorter key rise. As with an acoustic, the shorter key rise reduces the time lost before a re-strike. Simple.

I played on a P-85 a while back for a wedding gig and the key repetition was amazing! I thought it was faster than GH3 models and the P-80 is GHS, thats all I am saying about it, not trying to argue with everyone, just my opinion, I was wondering if anyone else felt this?

Just agree to disagree guys...

James
x

Of course sound and key touch is subjective so we all are coming from different directions when addressing these kinds of questions. My reference is a Mason & Hamlin Model BB 7 foot grand so I am particular in choosing a digital piano. I also personally tune and voice my piano to obtain the sound that I am looking for. My need for a digital is to play when my wife is sleeping or doesn't want to hear constant repetitive practicing.

The newer CLP serios (440, 470, 480) with its RGE (Real Grand Expression) is a sound that is getting closer to an acoustic piano. It IS better than the previous serious and so far the only digital piano that I would consider. The first time I played the CLP 440 I immediately noticed a more realistic acoustical sound and less of the typical digital, electronic sound that most other keyboards produce. Is is not what my M&H sounds like but it was the first digital piano that I would consider.

Key and pedal feel again is much different from my grand but then again given the price difference I wouldn't expect it to be equal but it is acceptable. The increase in amplification as you go up the series (440, 470, 480) will help reproduce the complete range of sounds. Dedicated speakers to the various frequency ranges will always produce better sounds than when one or two speakers are used for the entire range. All top end stereo systems utilize multiple speakers. More power will produce the deep base sounds when using speakers IF you are playing at normal stage volume levels. If not then power doesn't buy you too much. If you use headphones then this increase in power doesn't buy you anything.

All in all the 440, 470, and 480 in my opinion are worth the investment as they ARE better than the previous series. Comparing the 440 to the 480 the 480 has better/more speakers, wooden (more natural) keys, speakers for each frequency range, more amplification power, and linear graded key weights as you go up the scale. This is an attempt to be similar to a grand piano. The pedal also has a more realistic feel (force profile) compared to the standard digital piano which is pretty much linear in feel. And if you are into recording the 480 has 16 channels to record on as compared to 2 channels on the 440 or 470. This is important if you want to record and play with multiple instruments. Finally the 480 has a much greater amount of songs (instruments) than does the 440 or 470. Again, this is only important if you are into recording group sessions.

Kawai has some excellent pianos but my opinion is that while the keyboard has a better touch/feel than does the Yamaha the sound is still too digital. So is the Kurzweil. Way too electronic in sound.

There are comments about going with an upright or spinet acoustical if you can afford one. I disagree. Until you get into some serious money or a medium or greater grand piano range the sound of these lower end acoustic pianos are honky tonk, twangy, and in no way sound like a piano should. They will however have a better key touch/feel than do any of the digitals. Several years ago I was making a decision between a lower ($5000 range) end acoustic and a better digital ($3000 range) for my grand daughter and it was an easy decision. The digitals won hands down every time. To me all of the acoustic pianos sounded like what you would hear in a saloon. And the key feel/touch of a digital is more than acceptable for the first four or five years of piano playing. For the more experienced pianist you learn to live with the differences. If a student gets serious after that move up to a good grand piano and skip the uprights, spinets, etc. Again, my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

Some of that is true. But I don't share your excitement.

Don't kid yourself with the information from their promotional literature. The keys are not wood. They simply place wood shims on the sides of each key. They look like wooden keys, but they're mostly plastic.

As for the speakers: "Dedicated speakers to the various frequency ranges will always produce better sounds than when one or two speakers are used for the entire range." Well ... they still don't sound very good. I was not impressed.

"Linear graded key weights as you go up the scale". All but the cheapest pianos have this. Again, nothing special.

"The newer CLP series (440, 470, 480) with its RGE (Real Grand Expression) is a sound that is getting closer to an acoustic piano." But it's still not very impressive. It seems most people here prefer the sounds of the Roland V or of the various Kawai consoles. And I've found that most PC-based piano libraries are far better still. In the high-end range I think Yamaha's sound trails the pack.

Nice and interesting review. Thank you very much.

Are you saying Yamaha is guilty of fraud when they say:

"the keys are made of solid wood that has undergone the long drying process required for use in a musical instrument. By selecting only the highest quality sections of each piece of wood, keys that are more resistant to warping and deforming than those of laminated wooden keyboards are created."

True. Some time ago I discovered what the difference between GH3/NW and the "new" Linear Graded Hammer is. It's just that in GH/GH3/NW there are only four different weight zones (that is, for instance, A0 and C1 weight the same, when we reach the next zone, for instance, let's say, G2, then the counterweight is lighter and so on). On the new Linear Graded every single key has a different weight. That's in my opinion a very subtle improvement.

I think Yamaha Clavinova division has become comfortable with it's big name and sales and lost its real entrepreneur and innovator spirit. While Kawai, Roland and even Casio has evolved many times their actions over the last years, Yamaha still uses basically the same action they are using since mid 80's. AE (Action effect) was created in 1986/88 and it was used during many years, it was probably the best for its time. Then it was replaced by GH, Graded Hammer around 2000 (year more, year less...) and it's almost identical to AE, except for the graded weight keyboard. And this evolved to GH3, just the same with a third sensor. NW (Natural Wood) is the same GH3 with a slim wood decoration with, in my opinion, no real function. And now we have, on the most expensive models, a new variation of NW, Linnear Graded. More of the same, no significant improvement IMHO, except for the Avantgrands and NU1. That's the reason I chose a Yamaha Silent with a real action a few years ago instead of a Clavinova.

Courtesy of a previous thread on PW and pictures by member jve, we have this picture:


Now this is what Yamaha calls a wooden key. I'm afraid I don't agree!

This is simply untrue. I used to share your view and would never have entertained the idea of an upright piano (any upright). I am now the very happy owner of a Kawai K3, having sold my AvantGrand N3. I can assure you my upright piano sounds very much like a piano should! I agree there are benefits to grands (good ones) and it is my long-term aspiration to be the owner of a Yamaha C3 or Kawai RX3 or similar when I have the space. But my 48" upright has a better bass than any grand I've ever heard up to about 5'5" and is a genuinely satisfying musical instrument to play - far more so than any digital I've ever owned (and I've owned them all!).

Wow EssBrace - this is the first of your posts that I read where you tell us you DID it! Congratulations on your acoustic and welcome to the club of DP fans who know (and own) the real thing as well!

Enjoy!

PS. And be sure to let us know, in a while, how you re-evaluate the DP's that you play(ed).

It's not fraud, it's called marketing.

I would like to point out that GH and GH3 are mechanically the same action. They share the same touch/feel.

And the NW action is GH3 with the wood strips.

Thanks. Yes, I did it! And no regrets either. In fact although I had a small Yamaha grand for a few weeks and it didn't work in my small room, I really regret not considering upright pianos before.

The way I recently described it to someone is that playing a DP is like seeing the world in ten colours, playing even a modest upright such as mine is like seeing the world in a thousand colours.

I'm not sure this is actually true. I spent some time demoing Yamahas the other day and the NW actions definitely felt different (and better) than the GH3 actions to me. I have heard people in this forum say that there is little or no difference between GH and NW, but my experience doesn't corroborate this. The use of wood does seem to be something of a gimmick to make people think it's more authentic in design than it is. It doesn't necessarily follow that it's not superior in other ways to GH. I definitely preferred it while I was demoing.

Whether this could be a psychological effect I can't say with certainty, but it at least cast doubt on your statement.

There may indeed be differences between GH3 and NW, other than just the wood strips. Moreover, I've found that two pianos with the SAME keyboard can feel very different. Is it manufacturing variation?

Great, thanks for the picture. As an engineer that makes a lot of sense to me. The keys aren't 100% wood as in a acoustic piano so I'd say Yamaha is stretching a point by saying "the keys are made of solid wood". But they appear to use substantial solid wood around a plastic core rather than just putting a paper-thin veneer over plastic for looks. Certainly the wood serves a marketing purpose, but the construction also makes sense from a design point of view. The plastic core is a manufacturing advantage and the wood provides some damping and a little mass that affects the feel and sound of the keys as they are played. Had they only wanted a wood look entirely for marketing purposes they could have used a less expensive laminated process, so that part of their claim makes some sense to me. I can certainly tell the difference when playing my keyboards with the "Yamaha wood keys" compared to just plastic keys, although not all other variables are the same so that is not a definitive comparison.

I found the same and strongly believe in manufacturing variation. I found variations for 'identical' Yamahas, and also for 'ídentical' Rolands. (I in my HP-505 review in one the paragraphs wrote in detail on my impressions on this.)