Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Dealer and advertising hype

All too often the manufacturers in particular overgild the lily when it comes to product description. And never more than when expounding the playing action as akin to a Concert Grand. The real feel etc. etc . .

I think we know this is not true. So can one reasonably expect, having bought such a machine, to return it to the shop as "not fit for purpose" as a result, if we feel inclined to do so? Even say, 6 months after purchase?

I think so . . . if you`re prepared to fight.

Feel is not something You can measure and attach to a lawsuit.
I doubt, that You can return the piano because the feel of the action is different than in Concert Grand.

Advertisement is full of lies, yet there seem to be no lawsuits because that perfume hasn't attracted all the hot girls or the new beauty product didn't really work. The law seems to accept these blatant lies as valid marketing practices.

Probably the only giveaway that an action clearly cannot be similar to that in an concert grand is if the keys have no escapement/let-off 'feel', which all grands have, to a greater or lesser extent. Even the lack of graded keys cannot be used as incontrovertible proof, because some high-end concert grands have their gradation almost ironed out (making it easier for pianists to handle).

There really is a huge range of key actions among concert grands out there - which is somewhat unfortunate for pianists doing the concert circuit around the world.

Strangely, the most over-blown advertising puff is actually from the range of DPs that don't have the let-off feel, the non-AvantGrand and non-NU series Yamaha DPs. Even Roland, who has never made an acoustic piano, has it in most of their DPs. But I'm sure Yamaha has put their advertising blurb through their lawyers' scrutiny and had it OK'ed.......

OK sue all politicians as well for me.

Most of the blurb stems from the fact that most people expect some 'features' even though they might not be necessary, don't improve 'playability' or are just 'conjecture'

The real question is if the mechanisms actually influence or inform your play or if they just have to be there because you are used to them.

Take graded actions for example: High end piano makers work very hard to build actions that aren't graded because the grading historically was a technical limitation of the action. There is also a lot of personal preference about the 'heaviness' of the action. So piano makers work hard to vercome a technical limit of the instrument while DP manufacturers create an emulation of the 'imperfection'

Escapement especially on grands can be rather frustrating because you need a certain minimum amount of force to make the hammer actually connect with the strings, because for the final few inches the hammer 'flies free' otherwise the string wouldn't sound, but it's necessary for the real insrument to work.

Double escapement was introduced so that you didn't have to completely depress the key to play a new note which helped with ppp and fast repetitions.

Technically you wouldn't need any of those mechanisms on a digital piano because there is no hammer that needs to connect with strings and so you wouldn't need to work around the technical hurdles. It might also be possible to built a real piano without the 'feedback' from 'imperfect' implememntations of the key-hammer mechanism and escapement and there are great differences between brands and you can also customize those instruments to your liking.

So there is simply no 'real' piano action. A Steinway upright plays differently from a Blütthner grand and Tori Amos's Bösendorfer Grand Imperial plays differently from the one Valentina Lisitsa uses and that one plays differently from the one Matt Bellamy uses.

There is also no 'best' action because music is always created for and informed by a certain kind of instrument

Music is composed while consciously or unconsciously taking the attributes and technical limits of a certain instrument into account. You only write music you can actually play on the instrument you use while composing.

Music changed when the original piano was invented because you could play differently than on an Harpsichord or Clavichord. (much broader dynamic range and better control from pp to ff)

Music changed when the equal temperament was introduced.

Music changed when the pedalling systems were invented and escapement mechanism were perfected. It changed when the cast-iron frame was introduced, it changed when they switched to instruments with more than five octaves etc.

So for me the question is not really about emulating the 'feel' of a grand because which Grand? and from what time period? Bach composed his music on an instrument that was entirely different from the one Mozart used which was different from the one Beethoven used which was different from the one Rachmaninoff used which was different from the one Gershwin used etc.

You wouldn't play a Clavichord or Harpsichord piece on a piano but is a reproduction of a Bach piece on a modern piano really accurate?

The only question is if the instrument is good enough to let you play all of the different pieces. For that it needs to be constructed in a way that enables you to do that. I doubt that it necessarily means that you have to emulate every aspect of a grand to achieve that.

You're right. A digital action need not emulate every aspect of a grand action. The advertising hype emphasizes features. (And so does much of the board discussion.) Musicality and musicianship are more important, but neglected. Once you escalate to at least a decent action, the rest is musical skill.

Regardless of the slight shortcomings of the action, the bigger problem is with the sound. Digital pianos just don't sound very good. There are notable exceptions, but aside from those few you really need piano software to bring a digital to life.

Even then there are several remaining sound problems. I think the biggest one comes across when listening with speakers. Headphones work well enough, despite their limitations. But speakers just cannot create the richness of an acoustic piano.

Kudos to whoever solves that problem.

re: Sound

I had the opportunity to try different stage pianos this week and I had that feeling with the Nord Piano.

The action is actually not very good and yet the instrument still inspired me to play. That's because it sounded great and conveyed a 'feel' for music some of the others did not.

Vice versa I played other instruments that provided a much better action but I didn't like because they sounded not as good.

I'd still consider buying a Nord Piano or Stage even though the action is bad just cause of the sound. Yeah Ivory or Pianoteq might be better but I like the 'immediacy' of a instrument.

I also know that I'd never buy some of the others because even though they might simulate a piano action more closely I simply don't enjoy what they sound like.

Vendors are now so focused on the action and mechanical aspects that I fear they seriously neglect the sound aspect.

I somewhat dissed Pianoteq because I didn't like the modelling of the D4 but I tested the Blüthener add-on and it an amazing reproduction of a real instrument. It makes a world of a difference for my enjoyment if I play the internal sound of my MP6 or one of the software instruments.

I don't believe what I read about keyboards, I go and play them and make up my own mind. My hands and my ears are what I depend upon.

Most shops have display units for customers to try. So a person returning a unit after six months of use, claiming it doesn't feel like the brochure says it does, wouldn't have much leg to stand on. Don't like the feel or the sound, don't buy the unit. It is there for you to try.

Each shop or chain has its return policies. I can see shops being willing to work with customers on exchanges, especially on gifts, and a short time window around holidays, but six months?

What is to prevent people from doing this and getting six months free use of an instrument?

with today's internet and forums they cannot lie that much anymore anyway.

I like your thinking Dave. Too bad some of the folks over at the acoustic piano side of the forum don't espouse this view. I notice they're quick to put down instruments that don't start with Steinway, Bosie, Faz, etc. I have played many, many pianos. I have played [relatively] inexpensive stencils that well outperform Steinways (in action and sound) and, of course, fine pianos like Bosendorfers that set the standard. The bottom line is: go play, listen and look. Make your own judgement. It is hard to judge quality if you've never experienced it. Look at Hugh Sung, who is just an outstanding professional pianist. At home the guy is playing a Cunningham stencil and shredding the thing. If your instrument has Renner action and Abel hammers striking Roslau wires bouncing off kiln dried spruce in a mahogany shell.... I don't care if it's made in Timbuktu. Examine the workmanship, research and then make your own judgement. For an AP, it requires a solid, reputable technician to give it a once over. Then you pocket 30-40 grand and call it a day.

So anyway, to sum it up... the same goes for a DP. With software pianos, you have at least a model for how good the sound can be. You also have a specific 'sound' burned into your brain that no one can dictate. For action, you need to cull your personal experience with various piano actions to know what you like. They're all a bit different. Play it, do some research, make a decision and then IGNORE all the Monday morning QBs who want to tear you down. Their greenbacks aren't on the line. As for advertising.... Yup, it's all to get you into the showroom.

The impetus for the posting was believe it or not, miss-selling of banking products. Like pensions, investments etc. They have in the UK, been taken to the cleaners by the Government and are having to repay vast sums to affected individuals. Despite their written warnings issued originally, concerning the possibility of "down" as well as "up" movement of shares . . .

So, applying this reasoning, it seems to me that most DP keyboard actions only replicate a grand (or upright) piano in two respects; they are weighted and touch sensitive. It is not enough, imo.

Sure. But, I wouldn't simply limit it to just the two replications. The other intangible is the feedback loop created by the acoustics. Where this can be improved (and has) is the mind-trick of creating software that has key/hammer and pedaling noise. It's a fool's errand to debate equality... but we all like to do it. AP is AP and a DP is good for practice and can be for embedded work like studio recordings, etc. I get that it's not enough and folks should pursue digital as an auxiliary. I said this somewhere else, but I'd like to meet the person who, given no logistic or economic constraints, would choose a DP over acoustic.

Here's another example. I fly very big jets for a living and also instruct in flight simulators. Now the flight simulator is a pretty darn good solution to the problem of training emergency procedures and flight maneuvers. It's full motion, wrap around high definition screen with satellite photo-realistic imagery is a sight to behold. BUT, with all the three dimensional hydraulic motion it produces, there's one thing it can't do. It can't simulate the very small transverse G inputs that your inner ear perceives and feeds to a pilot's brain telling him something is off. So, while we can turn it, make it bounce around in weather or lean the thing back and give him the feel of forward thrust, we cannot give him the feeling of his stomach coming up into his throat that a pushover maneuver will produce. Or, feedback a twisting, yaw motion. I call it a 95% solution to a high tech problem. There is some work being done to produce gyroscopic type simulators for upset recovery and out of envelope flying but it's EXTREMELY expensive and the units take up huge amounts of space. They will likely end up very few and for specialized training.

This is what digital pianos are for me. The general feel/action of my MP6 is pretty darn nice... almost as good as my real grand. I can dial up a great software and come close to the feedback loop. I'll not get that last 5% until you can feed the imperceptible vibrations into my fingers. Then you have the monitoring problem... a whole different ball of wax.

My main thesis for all of this is economic. I'm glad we're democratizing these fantastic instruments and giving folks the chance to taste some of the finest wines in the world. Overall this will serve to improve the quality of lesser instruments. I can't afford a 200k Bosie, but I get the general feel when I play Kip McGinnis' 290. And if you come fly with me in the sim, you'll still get a pretty big smile on your face when you push up those engines and rumble into the sky

"I'd like to meet the person who, given no logistic or economic constraints, would choose a DP over acoustic."

Ya just met him! Trouble is I don`t like any o` the other digitals either. Only my own, and previous purchases.

Your response about simulators was great; I can appreciate the limitations in them. . . . but I find the limitations and shortfalls in an AP are what others call "character"; present day DPs are more interested in creating such character.

Stuck in a time warp, that`s me. Head in the clouds . .

I have met two actually...

Gladly and without hesitation.

The nostalgy factor aside an upright piano or grand is a very limited and impractical instrument.

Even if I had the money and space I probably wouldn't consider buying a grand piano.

It takes up a lot of space, it has to be maintained properly which adds to the cost of ownership it isn't in the least portable and you only get one kind of sound.

It's the real deal, yes but taking your point farther I'd need a whole bunch of instruments to even come close to the kind of versatility a Nord Stage 2 or a good controller plus PC offers.

I'd need several Bösendorfers, Blüthners, Steinways and several uprights, I'd need several Rhodes and Wurlitzer Electric Pianos a few hammonds and a whole zoo of analog monophonic and polyphonic synths.

If I wanted the original undiluted sound and the real experience I'd have to build a whole museum just to hold all of the stuff.

One Piano is simply not enough if you really stand behind your argument about reality and the feel of the original.

Want to play Rachmaninoff? You'd need a Blüthner Grand. Gershwin? Steinway Grand or Upright. Nine Inch Nails? at least a 303 and 808 plus several M20 and a few Moog. Deep Purple, good luck getting a real 500 pound B3 you'd probably have to pry it out of John Lord's cold dead hands (god bless his soul)

Unfortunately the whole argument usually goues like 'you should own one Piano, just any will do'.

I wouldn't want to play Prokofiev's 'War' on a Steinway Upright and I wouldn't play prog rock like 'Yes' on a Bösendorfer.

I also don't want to become a curator of a huge museum-like structure that houses all of the instruments I'd need to recreate the original feel and sound to the last detail.

As a famous austrian musician said. 'That Bösendorfer is great but I can't turn it down and I can't carry it around'

I like your analogy about simulators.

Would you argue that owning a Piper or Cessna is really enough to experience the whole spectrum of flying? Would a Gulfstream be enough or would I have to buy an Airbus A380?

A simulator might offer exactly the same experience as the original but it gives you alot more flexibility and it enables access to things you might never ever get to do in the real world.

I will never own even a Piper or Cessna but I could probably buy an hour of time on a commercial simulator or spend $5000 to build the best Flight Simulator setup possible.

I will probably never own a Bösendorfer or even a Steinway Grand but spending %5000 gives me the flexibility to recreate a lot of different sounds with an accuracy that's orders of magnitude better than the accuracy of a commercial simulator.

Or I could buy a piano for that price which would be a VW Beetle compared to a Steinway or Blüthner just so that I can say 'at least I own the real thing even if it's just a Ford Pinto'

As a classical pianist (yes, Gershwin is also in my repertoire), I find it odd that you think one needs different pianos for Rachmaninoff and Gershwin and Prokofiev. You're obviously brought up on electronics & music rather than purely music, but classical pianists need just one great piano to play anything from Byrd and Bach to Stockhausen and Vine. We adapt our playing to the music and change our styles accordingly - one doesn't play Mozart like one would play Rachmaninoff -, not rely on the ability to change sounds with a dial or lever.

BTW, Rachmaninoff's music is more suited to Steinway than to Blüthner, especially in the concertos: the latter's mellow tone wouldn't be able to cut through the dense orchestration and lush harmonies of those works; and Rachmaninoff certainly expects the pianist to be heard at all times even when he's accompanying rather than playing the tunes.

That wasn't my point.

If we're talking about accurate and original reproduction vs. emulation then the point is moot if we're not also talking about historically informed reproduction of the pieces.

Proponents of the acoustic highlight that only the real deal is sufficiently able to offer you the original experience. This point is ultimately flawed because it implies that there is a 'generic' piano and that all instruments sound and feel pretty much alike. That if you buy the 'best' instrument you're pretty much settled for life.

A modern grand is so far removed from for example an instrument Bach would have used though, that this simply isn't true. You might adapt your playing style to suit a new piece. That doesn't change the fact though that it's an interpretation played on an instrument with significantly different features and tone from the one the original composer might have used. Do you play all of the pieces of the well tempered clavier in their original tunings? Do you retune your piano to the concert pitch used at the time a pice was written? etc.

So what is the meaning of 'reality' or 'original' in that context. Yes a real concert grand is a whole different experience than a DP but even the real acoustic doesn't always faithfully reproduce a certain piece.

With a DP or a capable software I could at least reproduce the sound to a certain extend or easily switch to a Werckmeister tuning or influence the pitch even if the sound is only reproduced to a fault.

Your Rachmaninoff example is a good example for the kind of thinkingI often encounter in those discussions (and I don't say this to offend you) you might think that Rachmaninoffs music is better suited for a Steinway, he wrote most of it on a Blüthner though so one could argue that the Blüthner tone was exactly what he was going for.

We can't on the one hand debate about the 'accuracy' and 'realism' of DPs when all that get's thrown out of the window as soon as all agree that yes you should own a real acoustic.

A baroque piece played on a 2012 Steinway is not an 'accurate' or 'realistic' reproduction, it's just played on a 'real' instrument, a real instrument that is probably as far removed from the one the piece was written on than than a DP is removed from a AP.

Digital instruments offer people access to playing music that would have or could have never bought a real piano which in my mind is a great thing.

Digital instruments also offer you the opportunity to experiemnet with a braoader range of sounds, tunings, tones and parameters to get you closer to a historicaly accurate interpretation of a piece of music without owning lots of different instruments which I also hold to be an entirely good thing.

That there is a gap between the sound and feel of a real grand and a digital reproduction seems to be an acceptable trade off given the advantages.

Bach wouldn't have played his own keyboard music on a period piano, let alone a grand. A digital is not a substitute for a harpsichord - it doesn't feel anything like one (and frankly, most don't sound like one either). And many harpsichordists today play Bach using the tunings and temperaments of his day, but pianists of course can decide whether HIP is for them. There are many pianists who refuse to play Bach in public for this reason, just as there are many who play Mozart and Beethoven on reproductions of fortepianos of the period (Walter etc).

I wasn't talking about historical accuracy in my post (I was just talking about why pianists don't need a different piano for each different composer - composers themselves used many different pianos too), but in fact, Rachmaninoff also used a Steinway (which Mikhail Pletnev has recorded on for a CD). And I believe Rachmaninoff made his historic recordings of his concertos on Steinway too, not Blüthner. Today's grands are very similar to those he used in the 1930s.

And as I mentioned Carl Vine earlier - his piano sonatas have been recorded on Stuart & Sons as well as Steinway by the same pianist (Michael Kieran Harvey), who worked very closely with him. The two pianos sound completely different.