Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards The action in the Roland HP508 and HP506 respectively

I don't think anyone here griping about the various PHA4 monikers is seriously agitating for Roland to change them retroactively. I personally didn't pay too much attention to "Standard", "Premium" and "Concert" because I didn't always encounter them in the ads, and when I did encounter them I figured the PHA4 part meant they were all fundamentally the same mechanically, and that the descriptors were more for cosmetic and other minor details like fake let-off and the like. I could be wrong but I believe that's what the PHA3 designation meant. "Ivory Feel G" let us know it wasn't based on the PHA3 mechanics, that it was a completely different thing designed primarily to be light weight and inexpensive. Before I knew better I also assumed any PHA4 was highly similar in construction - and likely an improvement over - any PHA3.


You look at sensor count, right? Are you interested at all in down weight? Grading? Long term durability? If so then you care at least somewhat about the details of key construction. I doubt anyone would think of you as a massively obsessed spec hound if you investigated various technical aspects of a variety of automobiles before you made a purchase.

DP actions are simple enough that their response to mechanical stimulus could probably be described with a small handful of numbers (specs!). If those numbers corresponded to some degree to things the player experienced while playing then they would be quite valuable to the informed shopper. Nailing stuff like this down would remove much of the subjectivity of picking an action, and render 50% of the Q&A here at PW moot.

Still, all those numbers don't meet the subjective criteria of "How do they feel under YOUR fingers" The subjectivity is what makes some pianos "good" and some "bad" even though their sample size is larger, they still have loops. Or very little looping despite a smaller sample size. Your own DPBSD shows that.

To go back to your car analogy, The Mazda3 has 155 horsepower and decent handling and fuel milage, but horribly uncomfortable seats. The CX-5 has the same engine, almost as good handling and slightly worse fuel milage, but the seats are BEAUTIFULLY comfortable. You may know what 155 horsepower feels like, but you have to sit in the seat and see if the car "fits" you before you buy it.

Jay

Oddly enough, I didn't when I bought my V-Piano. I didn't look at any websites (partly because I didn't own a home computer then ), nor any brochures. I just went traipsing around all the DP stores I could find from the Yellow Pages (do they exist in USA?) and just played on all the DPs there, one after the other.

Exactly the same way as I'd go around looking for an acoustic piano to buy, in other words. (Except that I brought my own Bose noise-canceling headphones with me, rather than use the DPs' own speakers - because I'd be playing my chosen DP exclusively using headphones).

Is that unusual for a DP purchaser, just to 'road-test' all the DPs rather than scrutinize manufacturers' blurbs? Frankly, if I'd looked at those 'facts & figures' I'd be totally flummoxed by them, and stress myself out trying to understand what they mean in relation to actually playing the darned things. And all I was interested in was to find a DP that was satisfying to play, and the closest in responsiveness to a good acoustic grand. And with a good sound that I can live with for....the rest of my life. Not one with the biggest numbers in its.......whatever.

In fact, I didn't even know how the sound was triggered from the key-strike, and frankly, didn't care. "Sensors", "folded-back action", "looping" etc, etc are all terms I discovered when I found PW - which I joined mainly to chat to other classical pianists, and then got hooked into the DP forum too......just because my piano is a digital. I avoided all the threads that seem to be all about computer-speak, then and ever since, of course.......

P.S. when I buy a car, I road-test it first. Then I look at just three figures - the mpg, the top speed and 0-60mph time. And the road tax I'd have to pay - zero, preferably - like my present car (1 liter engine, low emissions).

I recall that from my days in the local Audio Society. There were those who simply listened and determined what to buy based on what they heard, while others were deeply involved in the "facts and figures" aspect of the same equipment. Every once in a while, there would be some piece of equipment whose specs were average at best, but still sounded very good. The Advent 300 receiver was one of these. Subsequent discussion and analysis by various magazines at the time determined that it really depended on which specs actually affected what we heard what were acceptable ranges for these. People could go on for hours and days about these things, while others simply liked what they heqrd and bought accordingly. These are simply different approaches, each individual decides their own approach that they feel works best for them.

I see similar activity here in this forum, with bennevis squarely on the side of simply buying what plays well for him, while others are deeply involved in the technical nuances of the various products. Nothing wrong with either approach.

Tony

I guess I was talking more about the physical response of the action rather than ultimate response from the sound transducer. The action-to-sound response could be covered by another set of numbers. I'm sure Roland has something like these figures in-house, otherwise they'd be flying blind.


False dichotomy. Perusing specs doesn't automatically rule out physically trying the product and vice versa. Of course you would want to try out a car or DP before buying it. Meaningful specs can help you narrow the field and save time when shopping by limiting the number of things you need to demo. If one wants a red car it might be behoove one to make sure a particular candidate comes in red before road testing it.

What you are describing is the exploration of what we should be measuring in terms of figures of merit, and the exploration of what weights the listener should give to those various figures. This is a quite normal process in any newly emerging technical area.

Beyond that, audio subjectivism has polluted literally everything it touches. Audio designers are quite keen on what "good" means and will go to the ends of the earth to do whatever it takes to quantify that so they can incorporate those featurs into their products, and subjectivism has been a particular horrible circle of hades for them. Read any book by Douglas Self. I suppose this is why I push back so adamantly against creeping subjectivism here at PW, all it does is cloud the issues.

I'm with bennevis here (a musician's perspective). Musical instruments are things, individuals even when they are at their best, which you select for the way they 'behave' and sound. Only personal use can tell you whether an instrument will do, and what it will do, for you. Even the 'hard facts' such as weight, speaker volume, or the number of sensors in a digital action, do matter only insofar as you can hear, or feel, or otherwise sense them.

There is one feature though which IS important and which you can't easily infer from personal trying: This is longevity/durability. But here you usually rely on the experience of others, either directly or indirectly (via brand reputation).

An observation is that for some properties, personal impression does roughly agree with specs on paper; for others, it doesn't.

James, I do very much appreciate your and Jay's and Mike's presence here. But I'd like to point out that everyone else here contributes entirely in their own free time, whereas however rarely reps contribute while at work they may be thought of as being compensated for their participation. And it's an opportunity for reps to push their company's products, so there's that too.

You are indeed a brave man for representing your company here in "nit pickers heaven".

Very few forums have any industry representation for just the reason we see here. No explanation is good enough for some and any explanation is simply viewed as a "self serving, fraudulent marketing gimmick".

The car example is good. Call Mercedes and tell them you want pictures and complete specs on the the cylinder lining process in their engines and see if you get even a reply.

And you won't get any information from them because any information you did get would not be important to the driving experience. That's why you drive the car, review the price and warranty and then make your buying decision.

Engineering diagrams and cutaway drawing don't provide information relevant to the purchase. This is because the piano player is not a piano engineer and the engineer is tasked with creating an integrated instrument where all the parts work together to create a whole. Playing the instrument does tell the buyer how the whole works together and having engineering information only provides grist for internet web sites that have tired of rehashing the last iterations meaningless specs.

While it is entertaining for some people, watching the usual pack nipping at your heels is painful for most. Of course, you do bring it on yourself, so there is that.

How often has dissatisfaction set in only when the user finds out, or is told by someone else (likely from here ), that their DP is deficient in so-and-so, or lacking in something that (apparently) is crucial to your enjoyment, which you didn't know before, and have been merrily enjoying your purchase until you've been shown the light. But now you're enlightened (you've glimpsed Nirvana ), and you realize how you've been fobbed off by the manufacturer who's been cutting corners, leaving lots of essential gimmickry out of your precious purchase, all just to lower the price so that you can afford to buy it.

If only you'd discovered all this cost-cutting sooner, you wouldn't have bought the DP in the first place, because you'd have settled for nothing less than the best, because you're worth it. So, you wouldn't have taken up the piano at all, because you can't afford the best.

You'd have taken up the guitar instead.

Hey now I resemble that remark in some respects. I have played guitar as my primary instrument for many years, largely because as an acoustic instrument, it is very portable and self-contained. It can play single lines or multiple simultaneous lines (bass line, melody, and harmony in between - for those with the care and patience to learn that skill - I still argue that these two things will trump "talent" at least enough to have fun with it). It is perfect for apartment or condo living or traveling around a lot, all of which I have done in my life. It is definitely cheaper than a decent piano, digital or otherwise. You can spend serious money on a guitar, but a "world class" instrument that a pro would play in a concert can run you several thousand dollars, rather than > $100k for a Steinway concert grand.

Besides all that, the guitar's fretboard is a puzzle better than Rubik's cube, and when you solve it, it yields a lot of music for its simple design.

Tony

Your Mercedes example is perfect. There are aspects of what we do that could never be said here.

Let them chase. Let them nip. I'm busy selling keys to happy customers.

And yes, I do invite the criticism sometimes. I often give inches, and sometimes miles get taken.

Thick skin is the secret. And the knowledge that I know that we are doing it right. Our customers often tell us this.

Jay

The ratio of inches given to miles taken seems a bit disproportionate.
I call for a referendum on the matter: an inch for an inch and no more than that!

Nah, we have not even started! Where is the "if you do not get the plans of the device, you don't really own it because you can't fix it" crowd? ;-)

Well, whatever you guys did to create the V-Grand, I am really a happy customer.

Tony

Thank you TonyB. Glad you love it!

All this reading of the PH4 being miles ahead of the ivoryG is really depressing for a ivoryG owner

well roland you make great pianos still! wouldnt buy any other in the same price range.

IMO, as a consumer, i would expect that all the pianos with a PH4 would be mechanically the same, meaning they should feel the same weight, return etc. the standard, premium and concert should depict other like the finishing surface etc.

But i am actually quite surprised to find that the PHA4 standard on the FP30 its key texuture is different from the F140R PH4 standard. it feels so much nicer on the F140R with the nice wood grain texture on the key surface, make for better grip between the fingers and the keys.

Well the PHA-4 Standard keyboards on the FP-30 and the F-140R are in fact exactly the same. There is zero difference between the PHA-4 Standard on the FP-30 and F-140R. We don't make two different PHA-4 Standard actions.

Jay

Sometimes after usage keys get more "flat", less "grainy" in texture. That might be it. One of the keyboards just got more used.