Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards A good high end digital piano or an actual upright piano

Hey guys, probably know this isn't really the best place to ask seeing that its the Digital piano forum :P

But I really like your most honest and unbiased opinion that if you have the budget, would you go for high end digital pianos like the RD 800 or an actual upright acoustic piano?

I already got a digital piano (Casio PX-850 with Pianoteq 5) so after years of playing it, would like to transition to an actual piano with real wooden keys, but. That sweet sweet Roland sound is again tempting me.

So your opinions please! Thank you

If I have a place where I can play without disturbing the neighbors, I'd get an acoustic.

DPs have their advantages: silent practice, portable, more sounds, convenient for recording etc.
But for just piano playing (or practicing), I'd prefer a decent acoustic.

More context, please. Do you have room for both, i.e. keep the digital you have and get an acoustic in addition?

Can you regularly play an acoustic without disturbing?

Did you consider buying a acoustic with silent system?

Have you played any acoustic yet, so do you know what you like? Would you consider buying used or must it be new?

I was in a similar situation a while ago and personally, I went with an upright piano. I'm very happy that I chose it because an acoustic piano gives me much more physical feedback such as the vibration of hammer action against strings through to my fingers, the weight of the damper pedal, and the way sound is triggered and spreads across the air.

At the end of the day, any digital piano will rely on loudspeakers for sound reproduction and all you hear will and always be the sound of sampled (recorded) or modelled pianos which are based on acoustic pianos, through loudspeakers or headphones which is just miles apart from the way sound is triggered with an acoustic piano.

I think digital pianos are always acoustically inferior but somewhat convenient substitute/imitation of an acoustic piano. Even though I love the convenience of digital pianos and sample libraries, I would never recommend digital over acoustic unless one has an acoustically limiting environment.

The best is probably to play some uprights at your local piano shop and see how you feel about it.

@Siros and Hendrik42

Thanks for the input! Yeah that's one of my concern as well when considering an acoustic, I live alone in an apartment but I do plan to keep both my digital if I purchase an acoustic so I could practice at night while not disturbing the neighbours.

My digital is hooked up to a pair of Pioneer 100 W HiFi speakers that I inherited from my parents, and most of the time they are probably as loud as acoustic goes, so far no complaints yet :P Plus I practice mostly in the morning where most of them are out working.

@Hendrik42

Well, I did have a look at the silent system Yamahas, but sadly they cost a bomb, and I can only manage to get used/recond pianos that are around 3000 usd. By far I have Yamaha U3 and Kawai BL-61 in mind (131 cm upright grands)

@Yohei

Totally agreed with you! However, acoustic piano needs regular maintenance and servicing as well, and if you in my shoes, finding used pianos that are in good shape is another headache.

I feel well qualified to offer an opinion here since I own a Casio Privia DP, a Roland RD800 DP and a Yamaha AP, and having said that in my opinion, since you've already got a fairly decent DP, since you're already playing around with both sampled and modeled pianos the degree of change with purchase of an RD800 is small compared to the change you'd experience with an AP. Go with the AP since it offers a huge difference in many ways, more than just sound. When playing an AP you don't just hear the music, you feel it as the vibrations and resonance of the instrument surround and envelop you. YMMV.

If in doubt between a decent acoustic and a good digital piano: Always go for the acoustic. You will be rewarded in so many ways.

There are legitimate reasons for choosing a digital piano. But these reasons usually leave no doubt about the above decision. (And, as was pointed out already, you wouldn't need to leave the digital world completely.)

It's true that an acoustics piano needs occasional tuning and maintenance, but that's what it is. Going digital to avoid such maintenance may mean missing out on the beauty of an acoustic instrument that physically interacts with so many factors to bring out the sound. I feel that an acoustic instrument in general has more life than digital instruments which is of course a downside in a way, but invaluable in another way.

And yes, finding a used piano in good condition could be a headache. Could end up being fun if you find one that touches your ears like nothing else could.

Everyone's situation and needs are different, but I will share my experience having had both an acoustic and digital.

- the situation I live in is such that I would disturb my neighbours if I played the acoustic very early or late. Therefore, I tended to use the digital 90% of the time - practicing early morning.

- our climate is such that I really needed to tune the acoustic four times a year at about $120 CA a time - so that adds costs.

- I never did like the pedal positioning on my upright acoustic - whereas, I could push the pedals back on my digital for greater comfort. But on a digital you never do get the same sustain control as on an acoustic.

- having both an upright and digital took up more room than having one.

- the digital gives me more piano options, and I can record or connect to a computer.

I loved playing an acoustic, but for me it ended up being practical to have just one. I would also like to have a Yamaha silent series grand - but I'd need to win a lottery first.

We recently bought a Kawai digital piano and it's great, but an acoustic was just not an option for us in a practical sense.

If an acoustic was an option we would have got one, and probably a cheaper digital as well. The best digital pianos we tried still sounded like sound coming from speakers, which is what they are.

If you are able to get an acoustic and keep your digital for night time practice etc then that's what I would do.

I think all else being equal, going for a good acoustic upright is better. Since you already have the option for silent practice on a digital, there really is no benefit.

The only caveat I'd say is that most high-end digitals are meant to mimic acoustic grand piano actions, and not upright actions. Uprights are limited in dynamic and color ranges. But it's a trade-off with digitals where you don't quite get the sound that really goes everywhere because the sound comes from speakers on DPs. This is a huge difference in the enjoyment of playing an acoustic piano.

If you are looking to play advanced classical piano, then the recommendation would be hands down get an acoustic grand. But if not, or if you aren't really close to playing advanced music now, then go for the acoustic upright and that will last you many years.

Yamaha U3 and Kawai BL-61 are great. You may also consider Hailun pianos which I've heard great things about (but haven't gotten to test myself yet).

Thank you for all your inputs! Going to view a Kawai BL-61 this week soon, hope to snag it home Kinda unexpected from the response here, as I would have thought majority would prefer a good digital instead.

Cheers!

@Morodiene

Yeap, I heard that too about the different actions between a digital which mimics grand and upright - whereas upright actions are more stiffer. But I think in the long run, it would be better to train on an upright thus easier to transit to a grand. Correct me if I am wrong though

I prefer a good digital in as much as that's what we bought. It's easier to put it where we wanted it (upstairs) and it means we can play it at times which would probably annoy people without worrying about it. The lack of tuning is another plus point but that wasn't really a factor in our decision.

We're really happy with it and it does exactly what we want it to but having an acoustic is a different kettle of fish altogether. Ideally we would have both.

I hope your viewing of the Kawai goes well

Choosing an acoustic piano vs. a digital piano is like choosing a sedan vs. an SUV.
The choices share certain capabilities, and also differ in some.
Make a choice based upon which set of capabilities most closely fits your needs.

For me ...
On sound and touch, the acoustic wins handily.
For cost (both purchase and maintenance), the digital wins.
For quiet time playing, the digital wins.
For portability (not a consideration for me), the digital wins.

In short, a digital offers convenience. But an acoustic is better as a piano.

It's totally your personal preference. I see pros and cons for both. If I had no need of a DP for portability and/or silent practice and couldn't get an acoustic grand, I'd go with an acoustic upright.

You might train on a 3 sensor digital and as a result of that miss notes on a real upright piano.

If you can go for the real thing, always go for the real thing.

If I had enough room in a large home, as well as enough funds, I'd get a grand, for sure.

Unfortunately I live in a small apartment and have no big money and that means digital.

I live in a modest home. I could get an acoustic upright or fit a small baby grand in the house. The problem
with that idea is the volume with a baby grand would be to much and I'd be limited when I could play it.

When my kids are grown up, my wife and I have already talked about downsizing. So I hope digital pianos keep getting
better and better. I haven't had a chance to play the new Roland units, but I will. The Kawai CA67 had a better action then
the Yamaha baby grand I play at church sometines.
YMMV

So where do you get off with your recent posts in the piano forum?

I think you meant a 2-tensor digital. Triple sensor is good.

However, playing on a 2-sensor makes for some pretty difficult trills and repeated notes, but it forces you to play with more clarity/lift to get the note to repeat the way you want it, so then going to an acoustic is a dream and much easier.

Didn't know that the piano forum was a restricted forum.

I think JoeT meant it how he wrote it: A 3-sensor digital mimics a grand action, with double escapement. This allows you to replay the same note without fully letting the key back up to its rest position. This is not possible with an upright, because an upright doesn't have a grand's double escapement. So if you get used to this feature on a 3-sensor digital (or acoustic grand), you may miss a few notes when switching to an upright (because you're not letting the keys get back up "enough"). Personally, I think it wouldn't take long to re-adjust. You always have to adjust somewhat when playing a different piano anyway, because all actions are somewhat different.

Ah, I didn't realize this was the case with an upright action! Well, now I know.

I agree that the adjustment wouldn't be that great. A good pianist can make even poorly maintained instruments sound good...they're just not pleasant to play on. But the same goes for adjusting to a well-maintained AP. You'll have to figure out the capabilities of the instrument and work within those limits to achieve a sound you want.

What about getting both? There are many upright pianos for free on Craigslist, though I would imagine many of them might be in rough shape.

My intention has always been to up-grade my FP7 to an acoustic. However purchasing an acoustic is still not practical. Though I've been very happy with the FP7, after so many years of using it I really wanted to upgrade. So I've invested in the LX17. Roland are delivering it to me this week. I think the 8 speakers will resolve the sound isssue. I'm not remotely technical. I looked at it, tried it, loved it, bought it. Hoping I can get to grips with the Bluetooth aspect. I did look at a few others (Roland, Casio and Yamaha). I love the idea that the DP creates it's own sounds and doesn't use recordings for the piano notes and that this, with the other factors it offers, will give me a more realistic 'acoustic' experience.

That looks really sweet. I have a Roland RD-800 and love the way it sounds and the action.

Congratulations on your purchase, I know that you will absolutely love it! I look forward to seeing your posts that update us on your impressions of this instrument as you use it and learn about all it has to offer.

Thank you:)

2 days to wait!

Hi all, thanks for all your input. Great to see this thread still alive. I went ahead and purchase a 1975 era's Kawai BL-61 that is in very good condition albeit the age (probably restoration works). I did consider a Yamaha U3 that is around that price range and age but ultimately decided on the BL-61 although I do like the touch feeling of the Yamaha better as the Yamaha sounded too sharp.

With a pleasant surprise, I also just realize the BL-61 also comes with a silent pedal which allows me to practice even at night rendering the use of my digital moot. Will still keep the digital though as I am quite sentimental towards it :,)

Gonna need some time transiting to the acoustic, trills are so much harder on it compared to the digital.

Hmm just realise Roland uses the term "modelling" for their SuperNatural now

Is it the full scale physical modelling ala the V-Piano? Or just merely marketing gimmick? and nothing still unchanged since the 1st gen SuperNatural debuted? AFAIK its a mixture of modelling to fill in whatever their base sampling is lacking.

Yes to the first, no to the second. (For the new HP 603/605 and LX 7/17 models.)

Jay's signature says: "Yes....the new Roland HP and LX Pianos are STILL in fact modelled." But I suppose it is a different one from that used in V-Piano.

I see. That's cool. But won't that eat into the sales of their own V-Piano Grand? Which has an even more inferior specs. It's been awhile since I followed the digital piano technology, but good to hear that. Hopefully one day the technology will trickle down to their budget models



I saw that too in his signature. Must have something different with the V-piano as well as the HP/LX supernatural modelling allows unlimited polyphony whereas the V-piano only allows 128.

The signature is because he received that very same question that was asked in this topic earlier at least 2 dozen times. Despite it being stated and restated very early on in the dedicated topic and also on Roland's spec-sheet.
So at one point, as a joke, he changed that signature to ".. are in fact modelled", and after continuing to receive that question repeatedly, the "STILL" found its place in the signature as well. Hope that explains it.

As for the polyphony, just to make a parallel - the V-Piano was launched in 2009, the same year as an iPhone 3GS and a year earlier than the Galaxy S. Now, 7 years later, absolutely any entry level smart-phone has better hardware than those, for a fraction of the price, and the top of the range models (iPhone 6s, Galaxy S7) are many orders of magnitude more powerful, at the same price point as their ancestors. The same for my PC. The one I built in 2009, while considerably more expensive than the one I got last year, is at least 4 times slower by most benchmarks. Why would you assume that the infinite polyphony of the new pianos means that the older one was somehow better and the new ones are weaker? It's possible to get vastly superior hardware now for prices that are significantly smaller then what you were able to get 6 years ago for the same money.
The model and resonances are very good, and the better polyphony is certainly due to the significantly faster hardware. Even though the adjustability isn't as elaborate as that in the V (for relatively justified reasons in my opinion - different purpose and target market, different price point), that doesn't mean that the actual model is inferior.
At least this seems logical to me.

I suppose that the natural way to implement infinite polyphony needs infinite calculus power (calculating each notes separatly). It is not possible.

As the new Roland are fully modelled, I suppose that each strings has a resonance status which is updated at each key stroke, then the calculus power needed is "just" limited by the number of strings (and the complexity of the model of the string).

Good point Frederic, but you answered it yourself in the second part. A piano only has so many sounds (and resonances) that it can produce in total, and that is a finite number. If the so called "polyphony" capacity of the hardware exceeds that number, than I find it reasonable to say it's infinite - i.e. it doesn't limit the sound (including resonances) at any point in time, it's more than an actual piano would be capable to produce at one point. I assume this is the case here.

One thing to consider about the higher end of the DP piano market is that you are getting either the best available at the point in time, or near the best. If you are happy with your purchase, that does not need to change just because something new comes along. At the lower end of the spectrum, people will end up swapping out their DPs as better models come along, and will end up spending just as much or more in the long run as they would by buying something really good the first time. I believe that those who purchase an LX-17 will be happy with it years from now. It would be foolhardy to not expect technology to continue to evolve, but if what you have is decent quality to begin with, it is equally foolhardy to want to dump it as soon as something newer comes along.

As for the V-Grand and "inferior specs", I will say what others here who have actually played one have said in the past. You really have to experience the V-Grand to understand what it brings to the experience of playing piano. It is still in a class by itself. As impressed as I was with the LX-17, the little time I spent playing one, I personally would still pick the V-Grand. I doubt that, for me, my opinion will change any time soon. As I improve at the piano, I am coming to appreciate more and more the little things that the designers of the V-Grand paid attention to. I am not suggesting anybody else here get a V-Grand, but I will suggest that spending the money now to get a really decent DP such as the LX-17 is money well spent for the long term.

We here in this sub-forum get all wrapped around the specs and sometimes forget to actually PLAY these DPs we are discussing and actually get the experience of the sum total of all the parts we look at in individual detail. If that side of it does it for you with a particular model, then it is that part that, despite whatever else comes along, will remain the same on into the future.

Tony

You misunderstood me Tony, what I meant was the specs of the V-Piano which is still? their flagship model is more inferior to the newer Roland models, thus it makes no sense from a business perspective. I am sure the V-Piano is definitely decent to play with But as others said, technology wise, it is old, thus it makes more sense if Roland pushes out an updated V-Piano with specs on par or even better than the HP/LX models.

Cheers.

Is it though? I've played both and I honestly don't think that's true. Maybe the keybed is a little better, but the tone is not vastly better. And the V-piano has more adjustability in it as far as I know. The V-grand has a more advanced speaker system than the LX17 - and a more "acoustic" feel to it due to it's form factor. The LX17 is an upright where the V-Grand is a grand piano. Although I did find the midrange to be a little odd on the V-piano I played - I actually enjoyed playing it more than I did the new Rolands. It just felt more musical to me - even if not perfect. The new Rolands did not resonate with me at all (no pun intended).

...rather than saying you have misunderstood what I am saying, I didn't communicate clearly. The V-Grand is an entirely different product altogether even though it is based on the V-Piano technology 2 years later and possibly a bit more refined. It is a playing experience that seems to be understood by those who have actually played one. In other words, numbers don't tell the whole story. I suspect that is where any miscommunication lies.

I am sure that I missed your point and am also sure that Roland has been in the market long enough to know what they are doing. We don't know if they are, and possibly have been, working on a replacement product to do exactly as you are saying here. It is quite possible they are, but we won't know until it is announced. If they are not doing that, I am sure they would also have their reasons for that.

Tony

This supports what I am saying, and maybe ando made the point more clearly. I have read many posts about the V-Piano and V-Grand here by people who have never played one or possibly even seen one outside pictures or Youtube videos. Ando's experience mirrors mine except that I do also like the new LX-17. However, I agree with ando that there is something about the V-Grad that is not captured in the LX-17. Considering their different price points, it makes sense to me.

The V-Grand is, in a sense, similar to what a "concept car" might be in an auto show - the manufacturer pulls out all stops and shows what can be done, given the time (more than 10 years in the case of the V-Grand) and money.

For some reason, when I say these things, I get the response that I misunderstood what the post I was responding to was saying. I hope that ando's post is clear enough, since we are quite in agreement. I think one reason for this is that he has actually played the V-Grand, which sets his experience quite apart from many who just give a distant opinion.

Tony