Whatever specs Yamaha will give you will sound lame compared to software pianos.

I think I've almost got it:

1. Software pianos
2. ???
3. Yamaha is forced to treat their customers rudely.

How's that?

Now just gotta figure out step 2...

anotherscott: You drive directly to the point ...... though, I presume, you would willingly add touch to the list.

For my part, I don't care what's inside. There are no means for modification, customization, or upgrades. The box is what it is. So whether they tell you the specs (which are often faked or "massaged") or not, you're still left to judge for yourself the sound and touch. Many of the specs just don't matter.

Keep thinking it over - I'm sure you'll find the answer in the end!

James
x

No, thank you, Sir, none for me

Would you not like to get an answer from a Medical, Car or Electronics company asking for routine info about its product. Info which is commonly put in their brochure or packet inserts.

Am I going to make a copy of their product with this information? Is the info a cause for litigation?

How many keys does your product have?.... Well it's propriety information!!!!
What's the weight of the keyboard? ......!!!!!!!!

I'm going to be shy asking questions?

MMM, I agree that I will not be able to change anything, but the sheer placebo effect that information can have is something which cannot be undermined. Thats the reason even subjects taking placebos in a blinded drug study show improvements.

The experts will be able to make use of each bit of info about a DP and point out any flaws or put all its functions to the best use. But to the lay person, it's info which drives one to a product.

Really, I'm still confused. This, after having bought a $4200 Clavinova a couple of months back.

1. Software pianos have great specs.

2. Yamaha realizes that their specs will sound lame when compared to 18 layers, no loops, x gigabytes, etc.

3. Yamaha decides it's not in their interest to make it so obvious to potential customers that, spec-wise, their pianos are so far behind what they could get by connecting any keyboard to a computer.

Though personally, I don't think the answer needs to be so specific. Regardless of whether you're comparing to software or not, I think it's simpler: the kind of specs we're talking about are likely to be trumpeted if the manufacturer thinks it will persuade someone to take a closer look at their product, and is likely to be kept quiet if it probably won't.

The purpose of many specs is to sell, not to inform.

Mais oui!


Exactly. Academically, it can be interesting to consider, for example, whether a given spec or feature implementation is the reason something sounds as good as it does... but even then, it's no assurance that something else with the same spec or feature will sound as good (or that one without it won't sound better). Conversely, one might consider whether a particular spec contributes to something sounding as bad as it does.

I happen to be interested in the technologies (obviously), but the knowledge is of pretty much no use in actually picking out an instrument. These understandings may help explain why an instrument sounds the way it does, but that's how I see them, as possible explanations, but not predictors.

I generally agree that one can't make sweeping spec-based statements that apply to all DPs. But there are very strong tendencies at work that one can't ignore.

The low end of sample set sized DPs tend to sound worse than those on the high end of sample size. Since manufacturers are loath to tell us this single number anymore, we have to look at attack and loop sample sizes, stretching ratio, and layer count to estimate it.

Can a DP with a smallish sample set sound as good or better than one with a largish sample set? Sure, but the odds are against it. When they start really hacking on a sample set they tend to do it in ways that are fairly audible.

Where sample set size becomes relatively moot (all other things being equal) is maybe around 4 GB. Until the day when all DPs - including those skirting the toy category - have this large of a sample (it will happen) then artifacts that are directly related to the crude reduction of sample size will likely remain a strong determinant of the potential basic sound quality.

For example, I loved the sound of my Korg SG Rack and it was 24MB in ROm with 15MB being the main piano sample.

Its not just specs though it is also the normal marketing propaganda like "Samples taken painstakingly from a concert grand"- Well I should hope its a concert grand updated!

Also, I still to this day do not know if Pure Cf Sampling on teh 105 is really that much better than the "Un-Pure" Cf sampling on the 85 and 95

Heres the answer to how many samples for th p105 (did not see a listing in this thread for it):

http://faq.yamaha.com/us/en/article/musi...p-155/318/7263/

3 it is.

Interesting. From the P-105 DPBSD review:

- This is a smoothly blended multi-velocity layer sample set (two steps visible @ v=72,90).

So I concur.