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

i would agree that its hard to figure out what goes on in the engineering and marketing departments of these manufacturers. Particularly Yamaha and Roland. i always refer to DP's as computers, after all they are microprocessors, integrated circuits, memory and keyboard controller devices. Which would make me believe the manufacturers would constantly innovate to take advantage of the constantly improving performance at a lower price aspects of technology.
But truthfully, for most people, the purchase is more like buying a refrigerator or washing machine than a computer or cellphone. You aren't buying this to get rid of it in 2-3 years. so maybe the DP makers don't see much reason to innovate, and there goal is to drive their margins higher through improvements in the manufacturing process- which is usually disrupted by model changeovers.
Which gets me back to why I feel separating hardware from the software brain is advantageous to the consumer. It certainly adds additional hassles for the user and is not really practical for portable playing (although someone earlier referred to rack modules- you'd think we'd be seeing a renaissance of these with some of the great VST's out there (why is this not happening?)), but you also get some freedom to broaden your choices of quality sounding pianos. A boutique company such as Nord seems to get it better than most with their downloadable sample libraries. its too bad Yamaha or Roland won't move to this approach, although they may fear doing that really will lock us in to the same keyboard for a decade.

Thank you for giving us further insights into the Physis, Steinway170. The demo posted above also helps. Although it sounds a little dull or muffled in that example, it is being played very gently, and, as you say, it probably uses one of the more mellow tones.

I'm not totally discouraged, but at the price being asked, I'd have to believe the Physis would not be bettered in the foreseeable future. I think gaining market recognition will be an uphill struggle, although the fact that a forum is talking about it must be welcome news to Viscount: a premium product that is ignored would be a disaster!

So, I played the Physis H1 in my local store today. Gave it about 20 minutes, amplified first, then with my AKG K501 headphones I brought with me.

Let's state first that I regularly play a real Bluethner grand, and combine my Kawai CA95 with software pianos at home. The main SW piano I use nowadays is the True Keys American.

Here's my verdict:
My immediate initial impression was that the Physis seemed like a hybrid between my old Yamaha CLP-170 and PianoTeq.
The main reasion was that the keyboard felt like a slightly lighter version of the Yamaha GH3 action in the CLP - rather short key pivot length, some initial resistance on key strike (but less than I remember from the CLP). So I felt at home immediately, but was not impressed - after all, I did get rid of the CLP because I wanted a better action.
In my opinion, the Physis action is not in the same league as the Kawai Grand Feel action, and I would also rate it below the RM3. However, the Physis is a stage piano format, so I certainly did not expect miracles from the action. I assume it is competitive to other stage piano actions.

The sound was not good enough to make me suspend my disbelief, mainly due to its somewhat artificial attack. FWIW, I tried all the piano sounds as well as the upright bass (yes, that one is a winner... real fun!), and of course some patches work better than others.
I quickly settled for the "S&S Stage Grand D" patch as my favourite of what was available, but it did still not inspire me to spend much time with it. It did respond well to key touch; I tried several touch curves and settled for the "Light" curve.
Overall, the sound really reminded me of a cross between the Yamaha AWM sampling and the PianoTeq D4 - good resonance implementation and seamless nuances, but all in all a bit too thin and with a not quite realistic attack. Certainly nice to play, but not convincing when compared to the real thing or the highly regarded software pianos. I think the available demos give a pretty good picture of the sound quality.

Also, after coming home, I fired up the PianoTeq Trial version to compare (haven't used it for months) and found that I got more immediate inspiration from its response. Honestly, I think the PianoTeq Bluethner model sounds more realistic than what I got from the Physis, so if you are into modeled pianos, I'd recommend PianoTeq over it (at the price difference its pretty much a given!).

But I also want to say, after all that, please do not let yourself get discouraged from trying it out, as your mileage may vary!
FWIW, I have played the Roland V-Piano Grand numerous times and never really got into it, and I don't use PianoTeq although I enjoy its response and acknowledge its strong points... I guess I'm just not much of a modeling fan at this point, because I need a really convincing sounding attack to let me suspend my disbelief.
The Physis may not be interesting for me, but it might be interesting, and most certainly is aimed, to the stage piano crowd.


P.S.: Since it was asked in another thread a few days ago - I apologize for not giving you guys a review on True Keys yet, I know I promised it. Actually started to write one weeks ago but it is far from finished. However I did create files for the DPBSD project the day after I got it, so I hope dewster will have the analysis for you soon. And you can be sure, if I get the review done, it will be quite the novel to read.

Thanks so much for the detailed review, Aeons. That seems to dovetail with the impressions I got from listening to the demos, and from my experience with other Fatar weighted actions.

Interesting experiment, but I think I'll stick with my NP88!

It's likely very difficult to beat Pianoteq when it comes to pure modeling, particularly when you're ponying up the hardware on which to run those SW algorithms. Pianoteq has just been at it longer and they don't seem like a bunch of slouches. I certainly wouldn't want to take them on.

Hybrids like SN likely use sampled attacks. This is where all the complex action happens in the piano tone (hammer hits the string, bounces off, hits it again, etc.). They seem to use that to excite multiple digital waveguides or similar for the decay phase.

If done well, full sampling with DSP / convolution resonance effects will likely beat the above two methods every time in terms of realism. I'm not sure why manufacturers keep pursuing the pure modeling and hybrid approaches. Sampling is falling off a log these days.

I did layer Pianoteq and the Kawai piano sound at times. When carefully balanced and tweaked , you could get a very nice effect. Kawai provided for a good and realistic attack phase, Pianoteq for the decay and sustain an added effects + liveliness.

If Modartt would include an option where they provide sampled attack phases - they can be really short- that are well matched to their modeled presets, they would blow away much of the competition. I know it's the hybrid approach , but it works quite well.

Somehow modeling doesn't cut it as far as the most early transients / attack phase is concerned, so why not acknowledge that and bring out a hybrid model with let's say 5% sampling (short transient) and 95% very good modeling. You ear is most sensitive and focussed to the transient / attacks and that's where it fails to convince.

If I am not mistaken, pianoteq already does include short samples of various (trivial) phenomena for increased realism where modelling would not provide any material benefit. However, addressing attack with samples would be a distraction from continuously improving the model and would ultimately greatly increase the now tiny size of the pianoteq binary.

Pianoteq is mostly modelling with some short samples thrown in while Roland supernatural sound is mostly sampling with some model-ish sound processing thrown in.

Hi Aeons, thank you for your testing feeback. It seems that you was not as impressed overall as myself with the Physis. Interesting to hear different opinion from different bechmark! Just curious, what is your Style of music? I feel that the sounds are very well tuned for piano Jazz but may be a classical musicien would have a different percepition. In regards to the keybed action, I got the opposite sensation, in fact the pivot lengh would be' actually a little longer than on real piano keybed. I ma looking forward to more testing feedback.

I don't think this is quite correct. Pianoteq does appear to use pre-computed samples (not actual recordings) for some portion of the attacks, but not necessarily in a "trivial" way.
Refer to this post and this post

Greg.

Hi, yes I am sure the playing style does make a big difference in perception.
I have a classical background and nowadays only compose and play my own music. I would describe my composition style as a mixture of romantic classical and new age piano, with a heavy melancholic touch. And it's exclusively solo piano, because for playing in bands I prefer my electric guitars and basses.

Also I compose mostly on the real grand, so the closer a digital or software piano gets to recreate all the nuances and subleties I am going for, the more I tend to like it.
Or in other words, I'm just awfully picky and have a strong preference in what I like in a piano sound.

I can totally see how a jazz musician or stage piano player in general could have a totally different (and better) impression of the Physis. Just an entirely different application, so as I said, everybody interested in the Physis should give it a try.

Thank You Aeon for mentioning Your upcoming review to the True Keys Pianos - I regard Your opinion always as very well founded.

Another question: do You have an opinion about how RM3(I/II) and the GF keyboards compare (Playability, responsiveness, smooth touch - perhaps over there in the VPC or CA15 topics...)

Thx

I am fairly sure Pianoteq has a randomize function, though I haven't looked into it so I don't know what it can be applied to (or how).

Certainly the user group has a lot of pre-sets that anyone can download to enjoy - and I do.
I have no way of knowing how closely any particular FXP approaches a PHYSICAL Bosendorfer, Steinway, Bluethner, or Rhodes (Ahh, emulation of an old time emulator) but I enjoy them.

Sound experimentation in my view is a whole 'nother pastime, I enjoy listening in on others' efforts once in a while, but mostly enjoy (trying to) play.

EDIT:
I just went to the pianoteq user forum to check with a quick search for "randomize".
I can't reproduce it all here, but a member (who is also a piano tuner) describes how he introduces various imperfections to more closely approach physical pianos. One response is that he is making a "new" piano sound more "used" and I think that may be an aspect of realism that some folk find missing in sampled as well as modelled pianos (DPs too).

"Removing excess perfection" may be analgous to making plastic more "wood like" and I don't mean just adding fake grain and texture, although those were the first steps (-:

For who may be interested, there is a new version 1.1 just released for the Physis. I have download it and installed on my piano. There are many new preset and further improved acoustic piano sound particularly noticeable when using the sustain pedal. Great improvement also with the electric piano. I suggest that you make sure the new version is installed when testing the Physis. I understand from Viscount, that the software road map include monthly update at the moment.

That's interesting. It sounds like Viscount released the Physis before it was quite ready for prime-time. It's encouraging that improvements are happening now, and are to be a regular feature, but I hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by having a substandard product on the showroom floor at the beginning.

I wouldn't presume it was released prematurely just because their are rapid and/or frequent updates. In a sense, in these days of software based instruments, almost no product is ever "done" - it's more a matter of "we have to get something shipped" intersecting with "we have a usable product here." Nord, Korg, Kurzweil, have all come out with software updates that, besides offering new features, also fixed bugs, but I don't think that translates to having released the boards prematurely. It's good that the Physis was built with significant field upgradability in the design. If it works reliably and sounds good out of the box, I'd say they did their job well, and then future enhancements are icing.

If you've read the posts above that are critical of the demos heard when the product was released, then you might conclude that with upgrades that impact the way the models sound taking place so soon after launch, the initial release may have been a mite early. First impressions and all that...

I know software is where the lion's share of the complexity lies, but IMO bugs of any sort are prima facie evidence of premature release (also unpopular with the ladies!).

Haha

Complex software is rarely bug free. And a company can go out of business waiting until they have everything perfect (that is, never shipping anything). Heck, if Microsoft didn't come out with Windows until it was bug free, we'd still be waiting for Windows 1.0 ;-) Really, Nord and Kurzweil, whose boards are generally above the norm in many respects, have still released updates with bug fixes years after the associated keyboards first shipped. And I bet they still have unfixed bugs in them!

I accept all that, but it sounds like we're talking more than bug fixes here, but changes to way the Physis sounds and responds.

It is being marketed as a premium product, costing thousands, and in direct competition to Roland's V-Piano. It would make sense to hold off releasing until you have the sound and response as good as it possibly can be, so that you don't disappoint or put off potential or actual customers. If you turn people off at the outset, they frequently don't come back for a second look.

I understand the point about companies trying to release as soon as they have a usable product, and needing to start to generate cash flow, but this is not a $50 piece of software. It is a flagship product, and you don't want to be seen to be playing catch up so soon after the launch of such a product. For example, it took a while for Toyota to rebuild trust in their products after the recalls of a few years back, and Viscount does not, I presume, have Toyota's deep pockets or reach. I'm not saying that there are fundamental flaws or things that are insurmountable with software updates, but simply that you need to create a positive impression with an untried product from the get-go.