Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Kawai VPC

The Alpha piano apparently uses a pressure sensor. That's the only one I know of. Since no one ever sees or plays the Alpha piano, we may never know whether it really does use a pressure sensor or how well it performs.

In this forum we often find ourselves thinking wishfully about other sensor designs. For example, I had in mind that the AvantGrands use some kind of continuous measurement sensor for the longest time or perhaps that they had a sensor at the strike point so whenever the hammer moves there we would get a note. It doesn't. The hammer shank interrupts optical paths and gives two discrete on events. The time between them is calculated, similar to what is done in a regular DP. It is possible on the AvantGrand to toss the hammer up (for example, while playing off the jack) and not get a note.

I think there must be good reasons for using these two- or three-part sensors, unfortunately.

Cost, added complexity, you need a switch there anyway for damping, they don't want to try something new when the old bog simple $0.02 rubber boot over $0.02 of PCB is selling fine, etc. - otherwise totally doable and would make a lot of sense for a hammered action instrument like the piano. I'm kind of surprised none of the "I tore apart an old real grand and made my dream DP" threads around here have taken the logical step of utilizing the original action with piezos retrofits or something.

It's something of a shame two or three switches work as well as they do, it keeps the entire industry mired at a certain "good enough" (or so they think) level of performance and realism with little desire to move up. The influence of MIDI has done the same for decades now.

Manufacturers are huge risk averse fraidy cats when it comes to doing anything boldly new, even if it makes infinite sense. But DPs exist more to make profit than actual music so I suppose we're just lucky when anyone involved in their design actually cares enough to make them slightly better.

Right. It's trivial to measure velocity between 2 time points, but much harder to measure instantaneous pressure with consistency across 88 sensors. Periodic calibration needed for sure.

That previous topic was about the suboptimal use of the 3-Sensor keyboards as the GF is. The intriguing problem was that while the last 2 sensors are able to generate Key ON events during fast repetitions, for single key press it was not possible. I guessed this behavior was due to a simple algorithm issue in the GF, but the question was, whether this is unchanged in RM3 Grand II (which is presumably more similar in this regard to GF, bot to RM3 with 2 Sensors only.)

I think it is a more relevant issue, which cannot be captured by MIDI events at all.
I think this complex physical phenomenon of (re)striking of an already vibrating string (which has obviously also a short dampening effect etc...) has not been reproduced with present sampled pianos at all - which shortcoming impacts most significantly the attack phase.
(What is the case with modelled instrument?)

AFAIK all of the DPs simulated hammer actions have a mechanically coupled hammer part which. It is than up to the manufacturer to place some of the sensors or all of them on the key block or on the hammer part - completely irrelevant.

It is very interesting experience to play a real acoustic clavichord, which has no mechanical hammer or plucks - and the key block builds the hammer as a unit. In that regard it resembles to a DP action (with 2 parts but which are coupled.)

The player for Vienna Imperial triggers different release samples depending on how long a sample has been playing. If I'm not mistaken, this is done precisely for the reason you mention.

While You have completely right with MIDI, I am not sure how important it is to completely mimic an acoustic action. I mean not for the manufacturer, but for us customer too.
With the DP you have the playability (smoth, accurate, expressive playing) the only concern, with acoustic you had to move a big apparatus with physical weight, length, etc. It was not invented for just playability, but for generating a big, nice, rich tone. When you don't need it the only purpose to mimic this is to build a practise instrument for rehearsal.

But to play only - I can imagine an ever "better" action from the scratch. (I heard very often the myth of the "perfect piano" - mostly from elderly piano teachers in my childhood.)

We don't carry all of the parts of horse drown vehicles in our cars...

"1,200 recorded samples per key" - wahnsinn... Vienna Imperial (Bösendorfer)

I'm not very interested in replicating AP actions either. I firmly believe there are many alternatives waiting to be discovered which will in many ways feel more responsive and superior to AP actions.

But in terms of connection between the action and the sound, I'm convinced high resolution positional information is the best way to go. From there you can calculate velocity, acceleration, and any higher order moments. Given two or three discrete positions you can't do a whole lot, even when you get to pick those positions.

I still don't see why. If the instrument you seek to replicate features escapement, there's no need for any information besides velocity at the point of escapement. To have an action where that was not the case would be very different from a piano (digital or acoustic) indeed.

Of course, that assumes that velocity is measured at or past the point of escapement. Unfortunately we have observed that that is often not the case.

James... I'd like to thank Kawai for the VPC. I'm always looking around for my upgrade. I think I found it.

I'd like to thank Kawai for listening. My intuition tells me where this is going. Including, finally, some Kawai's in software pianos. I like it.

For those who need key vibrations. Somebody needs to come out with a DP stand that is made of two speakers. That should vibrate the keys. If that isn't good enough. A piano bench speaker. But then, that wouldn't vibrate the keys. Either way, they get a vibrator.

Again....I'd like to thank Kawai. I've always loved Kawai's sound. It is my opinion that it competes with the best.

Thank you Ron!

It's interest to note the varying reactions to the VPC1 across the different internet forums. Some users can get very, shall we say, passionate!

Cheers,
James
x

Started my quest a couple months ago looking for a midi controller with GP feel, had this been available I would have purchased it on the spot. But since nothing was out there I turned my attention to cabinet DP's and landed on the CA65 but now that the VPC will be available in a couple weeks I'm starting to rethink my decision. I really like the idea that the sound emanates from the cabinet like a real piano but another stumbling block is that the VPC does not have the GF keyboard, yet cost may be the determining factor for me if there is a substantial savings. Lets do the numbers:
CA65 (2800-3400 USD) $3100.00 average
VPC $1850+ $350 (descent monitors)+$200 (stand/bench)= $2,200.00

Even if I was to get the CA65 for $2800 there still is a $600.00 difference. Wonder if the GF keyboard and sound quality with the onboard speakers worth it. Not factoring in VST's because I plan on using them know matter what.

Yeah, tough to know. We haven't had all that many people comparing GF and RM3 yet. I'm still looking for a chance to test this myself and see if it matters to me. RM3 has been beloved for quite a while in this forum.

You won't be happy with $350 monitors. They won't live up to the sound from the VST's. Figure on at least $1000 for monitors. More like $1,500. Also need to figure in a good sound box. Not a PreSonus either. Unless you're running a Mac? You might want a good sound box anyways? You'll have, arguably, better sound than the best DP out there.
Just to mention...a real good sound box can be a good pre amp for an SM57. You'd be surprised at how good an SM57 sounds with a good pre amp.
Either way...with the VPC, you can always upgrade everything else.

F-30 pedal set.

Perhaps this was asked before, but can they be used with an es7 ? I know it's not available (yet) as a separate product, but would like to know if it works with the ES. Thinking of a VPC as fixed setup and use my ES for take away. Could then take with me the F-30 as well..., instead of f-10 + f-20

Hi JFP,



I'm afraid not.

As mentioned earlier:



The ES7 is the same situation as the MP5/MP6. Essentially, the F-30 will only be compatible with boards that included the F-20.

I hope this answers your question - sorry if it's not the response you wanted to hear.

Cheers,
James
x

You are right that there are much better speakers to be had, but I would imagine that a pair of monitors costing $350 would compare with the onboard speakers of the CA65. So for purposes of comparison it's not an unreasonable assumption. Don't you think?

Odd,
From all appearances the F-30 is 3 pedals, the right hand one (at least) is a continuous controller, the others may be switches or continuous. I had "ASSUMED" that the 3 cords could plug into 'anything' and be assigned midi controller numbers - I had assumed the f-20 was VERY similar.

The Roland 3 pedal board may be the solution ?