Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Were the lastest Yamaha CP series a flop?

After owning and selling both a Yamaha CP5 and CP50, I remember thinking to myself how much potential they had but seemed somewhat half baked by Yamaha. I found that a lot of retailers that stock these new CP's have new old stock and don't regularly stock them because they just dont sell well (thats what a SamAsh keyboard salesmen told me). Also Sweetwater now puts the CP5 into the "special order" category....very strange for what was supposed to be the "high performance" model. On these new CP series keyboards the vintage electric pianos were definitely a cut above, the acoustic pianos were still typical Yamaha fashion of stretching and looping. While they did play well at times on stage, i always felt a lifeless fashion about them and none of the models (including the $4000 CP1) featured key sympathetic resonance. Roland was able to remedy their deficiencies by developing and dispersing their SuperNatural technology into all of their stage pianos across the board. However I feel that Yamaha may have dropped the ball on their opportunity in 2010 to directly compete with Roland in the arena of digital piano technology. I'm curious if Yamaha may decide to stop rehashing almost 20 year technology of sampling with typical looping and stretching and possibly update the attempts made in 2010 with the CP series stage pianos at the 2013 NAMM show.

I'd say go to sleep and wait for NAMM 2020 or thereabouts. The DP market is positively glacial in its movement, and getting your hopes up in any way is a recipe for disappointment. These guys never met a shrunken sample set they didn't absolutely love, and if you can't do it with a $2 Arduino class processor forget it.

The CP1 is a fantastic board, with superb EPs and a very playable (if not terribly piano-like) keyboard action. The only problem is that it was arguably too expensive to be successful - Yamaha's V-Piano, if you will.



With the greatest respect, you clearly don't understand the economics of the industry - things often appear to be far easier when you're on the outside looking in.

Cheers,
James
x

That's a fair synopsis of the CP line in 2012. I think they are really nice instruments, the CP1 is just beautiful. Aesthetically pleasing, vintage vibe, really nice keys and action, (grossly over priced, but if the market will bear it...) it's definitely a player's instrument. But why not give it the bread and butter sounds they included in the 5 and 50? And from the other perspective, why strip those models down so much that they barely resemble the 1? Would love to see Yamaha delve into some creative use of modeling technology on their piano sounds. It's really the only thing the CP1 is lacking. Does this diminish its playability? No. Nor does it sound bad, on the contrary, it sounds really good! But their competition is innovating, and they need to do the same.

Well there's modelling and modelling. The sound engine on the CP series was called SCM - Spectral Component Modelling and Yamaha made claims about the use of modelling.

At this point in time to replace their sample-based sound engine with pure modelling would be a mistake in my opinion because the result will simply not sound as good (although the behaviours would probably improve). I think the CP1 is a beautiful thing aesthetically (never played one). My one brief go on a CP5 and I was hooked - fantastic board. But they do need to move their game on. Roland's SN is technically very superior (although I prefer the sound of the Yamaha) and Yamaha needs to show us they can really innovate like Roland has done with the V-Piano and SN.

NAMM still feels too early for CP replacements given the usual Yamaha product life-cycle but let's wait and see.

@ElmerJFudd,

As James mentioned here above, the CP1 is Yamaha's "V-Piano" with some extra modeling features, and, I decided to buy a V-Piano, instead.

Speaking of the CP1 (which is an excellent digital) I did a transcription of Katsunori Ujiie's (first) CP1 demo piece.

Here is the demo piece played on a CP1, i.e., first minute of video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_LtWSU5VaA

Here is a recording at the V-Piano of the same demo:

[There is 11 seconds of silence prior to the playing.]

https://www.box.com/s/47c3fd76f406fef9862a

Do happen to prefer the "V" over the CP1.

It's hard to assess the sound of the Yamaha from that because there is quite a heavy chorus and reverb effect on it. I don't like such effects on piano sounds, but the CP1 certainly seems like a very expressive instrument - as is the V-piano.

Usually, these things come down to money, so that would be my first guess.

At http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/450564/P15/ a Yamaha rep said that, compared to the CP5, "the CP1 simply has greater ability to crunch numbers (which is important in modeling keyboards)." So there are possible answers to your questions... Why can't the CP5 do all the CP1 can? It requires more expensive processing. Why didn't they include the CP5's extra sounds in the CP1? I'd have to go further into conjecture for that one. It could be that It would have added to the price of a unit that they didn't want to make it any more expensive than it already was, or maybe they felt that it would detract from its marketing as their "ultimate stage piano" for people who simply want that with no bells and whistles. Roland did the same thing with its V-Piano... better SuperNatural piano technology than, say, an RD-700NX, but none of the auxiliary sounds.

I can totally understand Yamaha's logic in only having keyboard sounds in the CP1 that were supposed to be the best available, but they didn't. The modeling on the vintage electric pianos and the inclusion of FM synthesis is very cool, no doubt. However I would've thought that they would step their game up on the acoustic piano reproduction like Roland did with the V-Piano. I think they should have at least developed a technology like the SuperNatural technology that incorporates sampling and modeling on that level. This way through samples they can still have the "Yamaha Sound". Honestly I prefer the sound of the CP1 over the V-Piano but if I were in the market for such a one trick pony, I really don't want rehashed techniques for acoustic piano reproduction, at least be a little more innovative. I'm not bashing Yamaha because I understand economics but on the other hand their competition have been listening and developed instruments where looping, stretching and even velocity mapping have practically become a thing of the past. Even Korg has the Kronos and they decided that rather than develop some kind of modeling technology, just use full length samples!

Like I said I'm not trying to bash Yamaha because I've been an advid user for years, but I am hoping that they revamp the CP line because they are really fun instruments to play, but simply need to be developed more. As of current I'm considering one of the Roland RD's as a stage piano. Playing one and also have owned a CP5 and 50, I really appreciate the tweak able resonances (actual key sympathetic resonance and damper resonance, not an echoey reverb when I use the damper pedal) and decays without looping. I would certainly be tempted to record with one if I needed a convincing solo piano.

Well, there are the other problems of no key sympathetic resonance, the high and low ends being very stretched, and of course the sub 1 second loops. For a $5k (at Sweetwater, special order only, no free shipping, no returns) flagship stage piano the AP sound technology is fairly lacking.

The CP1 should probably be considered as more of an EP, with two smallish AP sample sets thrown in. I think Yamaha raised everyone's expectations through the roof with their new SCM terminology. But in the end, for the APs anyway, it was mostly just empty hype.

CP5 and CP50:
Cryptic, unintuitive interface. For people who have had the opportunity to test the instruments, a few seconds of unresponsive button pushing has probably led directly to the end of the session and a shuffle over to the Roland display.

Lots of extra sounds but no mod wheel. No, it's not a synth, but providing just half the cake (pitch bend) makes it almost worse than offering no means of expression. I expect a pedal can be configured to do the job, but that is not in line with most players' technique.

Nice basic piano samples but with a very static, unrealistic decay.

Fewer velocity layers as you go down the line: 4 in the CP5 and 3 for the CP50. 3 is the same as in the much older CP33, and some have noted how the piano reproduction technology does not seem to have improved since the earlier CPs. Even the P155 has 4 layers.

CP1, CP5 and CP50:
As noted in other posts, egregious stretching and looping. Compared to Roland at similar price-points, it's like comparing a Fiat 500 to a Ferrari.
(Caveat: even Ferraris have their faults!)

My perception of the line was the following: Note I only ever saw them at GC in Manhattan, perhaps SA had them as well in NYC?

Personally, I found them expensive and heavy. In my opinion, with that amount of weight I am better off with an Arius 161 for example. There was a piano that was excellent called the Nocturne grand.

When you compare the specs, its almost like they are discouraging you from getting a 50 or 5.

I think the P155 just has less limitations. I would have picked that before a CP50.

I also felt as though Roland offered better value in some of the $1500-$2000 RD and FP models.

It is difficult to perceive whom the target is.
It is very clear Arius, home user, Clavinova , home user.
How am I going to move a CP that is 70 pounds? Its going to have to stay at home, and it that case I would prefer a console.

I've been reading this thread with curiosity as to where are the fans of this DP? I know I've seen quite a few who said it was the best and even the interface wasn't that difficult to grasp.

I personally could never understand it at GC and I'm done carrying a DP that's a heavy weight and I'm quite happy with my current DP.

There seems to be a "rationing" mentality. It's as if they want to keep the flagship unaffordable and too heavy for the average player. When comparing Yamaha with other manufacturers, apart from the MP10 which utilizes Kawai's wooden action, I see no reason why any of the flagships should exceed the 55lbs of the RD-700NX - and even that is somewhat bloated due to the (unnecessary, IMO) extended width. I believe the action in the CP5/CP1 is a variation of the older type of action that appeared in products like the P120 - that board weighed 41 lbs!!!

If they really wanted to sell their best technology in stage format, they would make the products usable by the average gigging musician. Let's not forget that it's the younger players who still have the brawn and spinal strength, but it's often the older players who possess the available cash!

My Kawai MP6 weighs around 47lbs. It has an excellent action. If it had world-class APs, and a couple of pounds shaved off the weight, I'd be wedded to Kawai for the rest of my gigging days. The Yamaha CP50 weighs around 45lbs. Again, why could a successor not have the best of Yamaha's technology? The only reason I can think of is that they want their flagships to have a "presence" dictated by size, along with a carefully rationed set of electronics. The end users' criteria hardly register with them.

And have you seen the weight of the V-Piano?

In the end it's all about marketing...

Like many of you guys, I've played all of these instruments for many hours at a time and also feel the same way about the current Yamaha CP line. For a gigging musician, a lighter keyboard with more than two AP sounds would be ideal. The V-Piano is heavy for gigging but does have a larger sound palette that gigging musicians need. It's about time for Roland to step up the game and finally release a lighter, cheaper V-piano light that is fully modeled and as capable as the current generation V-Piano. At the very least what that would accomplish is in the moving forward of this technology into the mainstream where it needs to be. Yamaha needs to adopt a different release strategy of technology updates. Utilizing $2 processor parts and 32MB sample sizes instead of the GB's of sample sounds with very long decays that would please everyone is what is keeping them back. So Roland took a chance with the V-Piano and failed to market it correctly. Yamaha failed to come out with new innovation that they are capable of if they want to. I see two companies I love, both failing at a time when there are less and less musicians out there in schools. We all are so few here in this forum, however we all want to see a higher quality digital piano that is better than what is available today. We all want innovation to finally catch up with current technology. Alas, I may only be dreaming. 13 years ago the Yamaha CLP990 was truly an innovation. Since then, only Roland has attempted something so bold as their flagship. It is time for Yamaha to come out with the modern day equivalent of the CLP990.

Larger sound palette than which model? The CP1?
The V-Piano certainly offers a very expressive piano tone (thanks to modelling), however I don't believe the 'sound palette' (i.e. the number of different sounds available) is larger than the CP1. Where are the electric pianos, for example?



I would argue that the AvantGrand is an innovative instrument.

Cheers,
James
x

pv88: Thanks for the demo - FWIW, I thought both the CP1 and your V-Piano sounded great. Yes the CP1 is obviously layered with another sound which is slightly detuned wrt the piano sound, so I did my best to block that aspect out.

Greg.

I'm speaking of AP acoustic piano sounds, not EP's which Yamaha's do have the best in my humble opinion. The V-Piano has many different sounding acoustic piano's to choose in comparison by default. The AG is innovative but not as innovative as the CLP 990 was at the time. I can elaborate on that more with side by side specs, however Yamaha fails to leave certain specs out that they used to boast about. For example sample size details etc.

I agree with the sentiment of the original poster. The CP50 and CP5 are almost never discussed or recommended on this board because they don't seem to represent significant innovation, but they do cost and weigh a good bit. We talk about the P155 and even the ancient CP33 and CP300 all the time as price leaders and decent packages. The CP1 is a special animal of its own that could and does elicit varying opinions. The other CP line pianos need to be either cheaper or better, in my opinion. If you are stepping off the low end of stage pianos, I just feel that Roland's offerings are more attention-worthy at the moment.

We can cross our fingers for interesting announcements at NAMM. Given the relative scarcity of such announcements last year, perhaps we will be rewarded to see that they were saving them up.

The CP50/CP5 do get knocked on price and weight, but more than that, I think, that many people find them among the most difficult to use. Many people do really like that CP5 action, though.