I think we all want to know this--I know I do. Unfortunately only a few people have played both and reported back. My feeling looking over the comments of people who have played both it seems that the differences are not very large. At least not large enough that they immediately get reported.

Kawai CA15, March 2013

Unboxing. Assembly. Playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SxF6sPg1JY

Great video!

Especially appreciate the segment demonstrating the sound of the keys during silent play. What a quiet keyboard! Perhaps one of the best dps out there for silent play without disturbing house mates or (downstairs) neighbors!

Thank you for the video mactoe.

The inclusion of the bench suggests that you are not based in Europe, and this model is not sold in North America, which leads me to believe you may be based in Asia.

Anyway, thank you once again for posting the video, and congrats on your new piano!

Kind regards,
James
x

Hardboard!Hardboard!
Could someone add this to the improvements list?

Now, seriously: when talking about a new or improved tone generator, what do you exactly mean? Is it better than, i.e.,ES7?

I haven't tried RM3-II but I did try RM3-I and GF. The first was a bit to heavy for me, and the second was slightly to light. Some weights in the back of the key could have been a solution. Nonetheless, the long distance to pivot is nice.

Same here, I also compared RM3-I and GF recently (since I'm interested in the VPC which also features RM3-II). Both actions (played without sound) are very good, and while the longer keys are nice for sure and make for a very enjoyable playing (I tried it on the CA65) I would think both actions are so nice that it all depends on how well sound and action are integrated.

Of course the third sensor is crucial as it influences the behavior of the action, hence RM3-I goes only so far as a comparison.

Indeed.

This is the reason I prefer Roland's offering. The keyboard may not have any wood in it like Kawai's, but the PHAIII keyboard is fast and responsive and its integration with a realistic, alive sounding tone generator is very well done allowing one to articulate and color.

The Audio Technica headphones, in the vid, do have a slight "noise leakage" at mid volume. So sound can be slightly heard from it if seated in close proximity.

Etymotic's hf5 earphones, not in vid but used on occasion, at the same level, however, produce no "noise leakage."

Saying that, I can quite comfortably be in the next room without being disturbed with either 'phone being used.

We did look at others models and piano brands, notably the Yamaha CLP430-440, if i can recall correctly. For what it is, the CA15 ticked all the requirements.





No worries.

If you can guess how much the purchase price was, I'd be even more impressed!

Hello all,

Came across this very nice video and thought might be good to share!

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

Good stuff for the kids! Reminds me of my ole Kawai . . . However good or bad one finds the piano, it is capable of playing excellent music! Are we?

Yesterday I went to a shop in Copenhagen, which have both in stock. After playing af range of different acoustic grands and uprights, I tried bot Roland, Yamaha and Kawai digitals.

Roland and Yamaha both felt unnatural to me, so it all went down to CA-15 and CA-65 (CA-95 was out of my pricerange).

I can confirm, that GF is lighter than RM3-II, which again seemed very much like RM3-I to me. Comparing to the acoustics, the GF was the one closest to the action of a grand.

At the end of the day I ended up with the CA-65. The acoustics were pretty much comparable to CA-65, with the exception being Steinway grands, which are in a league of their own (yet costs 20 times as much).

The sound of the CA-95 is a whole lot better than the CA-65, but most of the time I will be playing with headphones, so I couldn't really see why I should spend £800 more. If I want better sound, I will get a pianolibrary for the computer and connect with external amplifiers.

Just my 2-cents for now

Good stuff for the kids!

lol

Don't know exactly what this means but 'lol' in any case.

ps, it's nicely recorded and gives a brighter, possibly more sustained, sound than my Roland. The Roland, on the other hand, is more rounded and has more body & the decay is more natural. But they are not very different when put right next to each other in 'the same mix'.

Thank You Barnie, Your comparison was the first one and very long awaited for. (GF vs. RM3-II).

Could You build an opinion about other aspects of the actions, was the GF of the CA65 in every other respect better or at least equal, regarding responsiveness, fast repetition, smooth and silent bottoming. (I found the GF quiet enough but interesting would be a direct comparison though.)



I have sort of decided to get the CA65 for the same reason, but in the last time I happen to play more without headphones (partly for my neck problems, I will avoid weight of headphones with cords give some (though) extra physical burden to the herniated discs.)
So I am willing to spend 800EUR more for the CA95 but I was awaiting just for these type of comparison.

OTOH the extra cost for CA-95 is justified only if sound quality fed back from VSTis like Galaxy (VintageD, ViennaGrand) and Pianoteq using a quality audio interface to the Speaker/Soundboard system works well enough and I don't feel the need to use some extra boxes+subs afterwards anymore. Some thoughts/experiences?

I had the wife with me, and according to her, the GF is slightly more silent that RM3-II, but both are quite silent.

As far as I could tell, I didn't find the GF less competent in any area than the RM3-II. Though a bit lighter, I didn't it feel run from me like I do with some acoustic grands. I would place it in the lighter class, but the Steinway I did my warmup on was even lighter.

I have yet to connect it to a VSTi, but pianoteq has already been downloaded, so will try it out in near future. The CA-95 primarily differed in the bass. It can be a bit shallow in CA-65, whereas it is felt even through the pedals on the CA-95. Quite impressive, but still for me not enough to justify the pricegap.

The stand on CA-15 is identical to those on CA-65 and CA-95. It is indeed a bit short, and sometimes single sheets tend to bend over. A slight vertical fold helps though, and the strip of cloth helps holding up the sheets.

All digital piano music stands are too short.