Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Hammer Delay Key Simulation new Casio DPs (x50)

Here is Casio's statement about keyboard enhancement with their "Tri-sensor Scaled Hammer Action Keyboard II" keybeds to be found in each x50 DP in their current Privia and Celviano product lines:
Is this calibrated delay effect implemented in the key sensoric passing the signal with delay (A), or is this delay calculated by the tone synthesiser module (B)?

This becomes important when using the keyboard as a MIDI controller. In the case of (A) the MIDI signal will be sent only with included delay, with (B) there are still two possibilities left for generating MIDI events: with or without delay. If no delay in MIDI out, then it is up to the attached SW-Piano to reproduce this effect. I didn't see this kind of subtle timing simulation other than Casio's, even with Pianoteq or VPiano not. If SW-Piano and Casio MIDI both are lacking this feature, then the effect is restricted to the internal Casio sound. However to the contrary, if MIDI AND the connected SW-instrument both have this timing calculation included, then delayed times will be added doubling the effect in an unnatural manner (it should be able to be turn off either in the SW-Instrument, or in the keyboard).

All of the 3 sensor positions are now moved directly under the key body, measuring key position directly:

Old triSensor Scaled Hammer Action:


New triSensor Scaled Hammer Action II:

The new arrangement allows theoretically for option (B) and let for the MIDI solution both options viable for propagating hammer delay.
In previous triSensor Hammer Action two of the sensors seemed placed for measuring hammer part movement (not that of the key block) - which meant producing delayed signals only: [img]Previous Action[/img] Hammer timing seems to be a very sophisticated reality simulation feature. With real acoustics which casio's "hammer timing" now simulates it is an absolutely real and important effect.

To sum up my questions:
- how useful hammer simulation is with Casio's instrument?
- how its MIDI implementation is?
- is it parametrisable (ON/OFF, KeyBlock+Velocitiy sensitive)?
- how can it cooperate with SW-Instrument (have these such a feature, how are themselves parametrisable in this regard)?

Attila

Interesting questions. Though your analysis of the physical makeup makes no sense to me. Correct me if I have misunderstood it:

In the previous generation, there were two sensor measuring HAMMER position and one measuring KEY position. Now there are three sensors measuring HAMMER position. I see no way for this to make option B possible for the new action and not for the old action.

In a three sensor action, as I understand it, two sensors are used to compute the velocity of the hammer and the other is used to compute the position of the damper. In an acoustic piano, the dampers are pushed not by the hammer but by the key. In this sense, the older sensor configuration was more physically analogous to the acoustic.

This is irrelevant to the delay question, however. The delay in question has to do with the two velocity sensors, which measure hammer position in both cases. Whether these sensors transmit lower notes with some latency or whether the latency is induced by the electronics seems to me to be independent of the sensor position change.

Wow! What's next? Will they add tail fins and chrome bumpers?

Honestly ... why don't they drop the bull crap "features" and just try to make the pianos sound better?

+1

K.

gvfarns, You wrote:

The plot for the NEW configuration is depicting quite clearly (at least for me): all 3 new sensors do not interact with the hammer at all but only with their key above them. The key sensors are positioned horizontally in a row, but the key surface bottom above them has a 3-stepped form to allow to fire a signal sequentially of the three sensors while their key is travelling down. I think it is an appropriate arrangement to take the most information possible about key movement itself, restricting the hammer part mostly to the function to give mechanical feedback to the player.

This arrangement allows to simulate what your remarked properly:

Once again, that was my reading of the plot, but I can be wrong. (I cannot see any sensor interacting with the hammer part in the new config.)

@Temperment: Upon closer inspection, I see that you are right and I was wrong. I think that big arrow pointing down made me think that the sensors were pointing down for some reason even though that should make no difference. I should have looked more carefully. Sorry for my mix up.

We've discussed in the past some problems with key-based sensing (how it doesn't mimic the behavior of acoustics as well as hammer-based sensing). I find it curious that Casio has moved away from hammer sensing (which all the other manufacturers do) to key sensing. Maybe their electronic logic is good enough to compensate for the issues that key-based sensing introduces.

MacMacMac, KLSinCT: I don't expect much sound quality from a DP for under 1K either.

I am now seeking a good (the best) playable KEYBOARD solution to my SW-Pianos - (in the affordable league, I don't want an AvantGrand or VPianoGrand for 15K just as a MIDI Controller). I don't bother much with native sound samples coming with the keyboard: I use my configuration with Genelec monitors or higher end headphones and some better sound interfaces, not the built in cheap on-board PC sound.

Important for me are playability, authentic touch, reality simulation (all very subjective) these are weighting for me perhaps 60%, portability 20% and only the remaining 20% are built in sound quality and features.

Now I am just getting to be a new fan of Pianoteq for its playability and fantastic responsiveness after years of resisting to it - but this is another story. I have some decent sampled instruments, which are producing probably better sound than even higher end DPs, to be sure.

So keyboard features quality is a relatively independent issue from sound quality. Casio has only one keyboard version for all of Previa and Celviano line, which is even in their highest model AP650, so I wanted just to give it a chance to be considered.

gvfarn, if hammer movement is captured by the sensors (rather than key movement), the delay behavior Casio now is advertising might have been physically already inherently included. Perhaps therefore had Casio to make extra efforts with simulating this behavior in SW for triggering sensor signals too early - an this is why they are stressing this as a new breakthrough - or is it actually unique feature among all of the mainstream keyboards?

On the other side, other manufacturers having hammer sensors could have a problem with their MIDI implementation when connected with SW instruments, when the instrument simulates time delay already in their sound synthesis algorithm.

Yeah, getting back to this hammer-delay issue, I think the delay must be very small indeed if it is tied to the hammer. For example in my MP8 the sensor reads hammer movement, but the hammer is very rigid and not particularly long. I can't expect that there would be any flexing that would cause noticeable delay. I suspect the story is similar for other manufacturers.

I can't say I've noticed greater latency in low notes than high in any piano, acoustic or digital.

It should be configurable.

I could just make some measurements with quite definitive results.

Mesurement Results and Conclusion posted in DPBSD Project

gvfarn: I think I can always hear this behavior with accoustics.

Hammer delay does not originate mainly from some pecularities of the physical hammer material stress, but simply from the kinetics: if you strike a key fff, the hammer travels very fast. With ppp very slow. Delay times are reciprocally proportional to these velocities. Higher keys have shorter hammers (and consequently shorter travel times), this is the second possible source for time delay differences.

DB keybed sensor readings are related almost always to the key block movement (because the hammer is coupled to the key in a fixed manner, not as with a real acoustics, where it moves independently after initial release).

On some DP's it is.

It's not configurable on an acoustic piano.
So why should it be configurable on a digital?

If You would have it on both MIDI synthesis and MIDI Keyboard this effect, the delay would be doubled. In this case You should be able to turn it off - preferably in the SW-Instrument sound module.

But they seem doing nothing in that direction, not even Pianoteq. So there is nothing to be tuned off.

Do You know some specific DPs with this feature configurable?

Roland FP7F.

So, I would not be surprised if some other Roland's with the piano designer do too.