Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Specs on paper vs overall sound

Had a slightly odd experience when in a shop back to backing Yamaha and Kawai digital pianos. Had already tried the Kawai CN 35 and CA 65 and felt the touch of Grand Feel and RH3 actions a bit noisy in the higher register keys almost too long compared to acoustic uprights and sound occasionally overbright and 'fake'

Was entirely expecting the Yamaha CLP 545 as the one to go for, with its decent samples and plenty of speakers though was hesitating a bit again with the noise and this time heaviness of the action and a bit of an indistinct register from time to time.

Then I played the Kawai CS4- on paper an entry level model in the range, a lot less powerful speakers than Yamaha, and older RH2 action and Progressive Harmonic technology

And yet....it sounded great- better than both the Yamaha and supposedly higher specced Kawai, and more importantly the RH2 action felt fantastic!

Why? Am I a sucker for ebony polish, or does that make a difference to acoustic property? I know the 2 way speakers probably help compared to the CN range. Being a CS piano, is it therefore subtly more geared through over design areas to feeling closer to an acoustic upright independent of the specs? If they upgrade it in March will they get rid of the RH2 action which paradoxically feels better for me than RH3? Or am I going mad??

Have you ever come out of a movie thinking ... "That was a terrible movie" ... and overhear someone nearby saying ... "Wow !!! That was a great movie !!!"

Welcome to the world of differing opinions.

You just go with what you like and others do the same.

I RECKON rh2 to be one of the very best on the CN24 and es7. Maybe the velocity curve of the piano kicks in here, to give a decent dynamic capability which has the all important feelgood factor. . . .

Glad to have found someone else that likes RH2 too! Yes I think it may just be a finely tuned sweet spot that is pushing all the right buttons. I know technically people say you get more expressivity and control with Grand Action, wooden keys, longer keys etc but ultimately I don't need to pretend to play a grand piano....an upright feel with keys that I feel comfortable without a feeling of notchy clunky keys will prob suit me best, and I think will still be plenty for my son to learn on, assuming piano teacher doesn't slam the RH2 for not being realistic enough to play the piano properly

Im one of the few that prefer the RH2 over GF action. GF is technically better action, but I could care less if one is better than the other.

DMD said it perfectly in his post above "You just go with what you like and others do the same." The RH2 fit like a perfect glove for me, more so than GF. And as Peterws said "...has the all important feelgood factor" YES! there really is a feelgood factor that only you can find when demoing pianos (or any instrument for that matter). Both spot on comments.

I can also say that the RH2 is very durable - not that it really matters quite as much in a console as stage. Nevertheless, lets just say it will exceed your exceptions over the long run. Over two years and 1000+ hours on those keys for me in every environment. Not a click, clack, or clop in any of the keys. As good as the day it came out of the box.

Thanks for your suggestions. Listened to your advice, played on them again and ordered the CS4 due to the action and the penetrating quality of the sound even with reverb on without being shrill (some digital pianos have a tendency to be a bit muffled in the middle register)

You`ll have much fun on that. And we`d like to see and hear it when you feel good and ready!

I think sometimes older engineers retire, get downsized, or otherwise move on, and hard-won knowledge critical to entire product lines is lost. There have been huge steps backwards in a variety of things I hold dear because low-information coders and other corporate drones now seem to be in charge of the details.

Having worked for decades in big IT, there's so much truth there - even more poignant when you consider the rhetoric espoused by big IT.

Attach that argument to Government and . . .

Probably appplies to any big organisation.

It's now more important to appear as if you're doing something well, as opposed to actually doing something well.

That, and things like controls and compliance really being a means to an end - but these days, an end in their own right.

edit: and just meant to say - in my experience, it's not because people at the work-face aren't competent, per se - it's that big organisations no longer seem to worry about whether they're actually good at the particular area of expertise, and no longer value expertise to any real degree. It's the tick-in-the-box mentality - "good-enough" rather than "good".

And the people that perpetrate it? They peddle the lie that it's what's good for the "business" or the organisation - but it's not true at all - that's a rather tertiary issue, because if you seek to point out that what they're doing isn't actually going to be good for anything more than the brief period they can put a tick in a spreadsheet as complete, and then move on. The reality is, it's individuals all acting in their own self-interest as "appearing" competent at delivering and moving on to the next thing, that's masqueraded as actually being good for the businesss or organisation.

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

There are some interesting points here, but they're painted with a very broad brush. So it comes across more as rant than as fact. I see no factual substantiation.

What's doubly bad is companies compete with each other via explicit policies to not share information that might otherwise move a technical field forward, and by actively undermining each other financially. I'd like to see some kind of arrangement that was less adversarial and more efficient.

I certainly feel sometimes durability is a compromise in newer equipment. At my parents house my my old Atari ST computer with ancient MIDI keyboard is still not missing a beat. Glad the RH2 seems quite resilient

I think they call that ... Communism.

We (United States) have opted for Capitalism.

Just a different approach.

Whilst I see / get why some people seek to impose political labels, I'm not entirely sure I'd opt to damn opensource as being a communist ethos, per se.

Apolitical, more like.

Raspberry Pi?

Labels and boxes are often restrictive in our understanding - but a crutch of convenience in terms of people putting things in tidy boxes and categorising them.

Regardless of what the approach is called it always seems to boil down to a few ultra rich power obsessed guys running our lives.

Cooperation is the only way things really get done - competition is a crock, and literally everything is fundamentally derivative in one way or another.

Competition means a lot of development chugs along parallel lines. Might seem wasteful, but when this happens, the product will be a good one. Eventually. . . others catch up but the game has moved on by then, pushed by the big players.

Interestingly, much development takes place during times of war. But I rather think Digital Pianos will remain unaffected by this, at least until cessation of hostilities . . .

This is what I mean by "rant":

Well, then you favor communism. That is basically the philosophy behind it. Everyone does what they can for the good of all. No one individual receives any more than anyone else regardless of how much they contribute. Communism in its purest form.

In capitalism, individuals benefit for bringing an idea to market first ... so they do not share their ideas with others.
Not real efficient but the "profit" incentive seems to override that lack of efficiency in the long run. It seems to have worked for the U.S. for almost 300 years, anyway.