Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Digital is the way forward?

To me, saying "Digital is the way forward", is as obvious in the 21st century as saying "Steel is the way forward" in the 19th century.


I still believe digitals will one day be able to model everything about an acoustic. As computers get more and more powerful, it is somewhat conceivable that recorded samples would be ditched entirely for actual physical modeling. Though this time may not come until the distant future.

Just wait until we have Holodecks.

There's one thing a digital will never be able to replicate, and that is the feel of having the actual, authentic article, in all its original glory. I certainly would not mind having an intricately decorated baroque harpsichord laying around. Even if the sounds I'd get out of the thing would make Bach cry.

We may find that a real acoustic piano is always the cheapest way to get the acoustic sound, though, even after we're able to model exactly how the acoustic sounds. The computer hardware won't be too expensive probably but the speaker necessary to replicate a real soundboard's sound would literally have to be in the shape of a soundboard - it is impossible to accurately "model" the exact sound produced by a piano without using something that produces sound along that same physical area. It might turn out that a real acoustic piano is the easiest way to do that.

This is a very interesting point. I've always owned digital pianos (about 15 years now), and while the sample reproducion and key touch has improved phenominally I still feel like there's something missing. I absolutely agree that the mathematical result of two sounds played together digitally will yield a different result from two sounds played together but seperated in space - and hence time. How much of this is noticable to the listener is open to debate.


I think the next step for digital piano developers is to replicate a soundboard, which will probably mean increasing the number of speakers many times or maybe developing one large speaker that can reproduce sounds from different points on its diaphram (science fiction?). Unfortunately this would be an expensive developement for piano manufacturers that are used to utilising current technology rather than pushing the envelope themselves.

Personally I can't wait to buy a house so I can buy a decent acoustic upright

There seems to be a general asumption that digital users are seeking to replicate the sound of an acoustic piano. Hence this talk of speakers replicating soundboards.

However, I am not sure that this assumption is correct.

I suggest that many people mainly listen to music, including acoustic piano, on CD (or digital download) and the sound they are aiming for is often that produced by their hi-fi system or computer.

This is a recorded sound, digitised, usually compressed etc. It may not greatly resemble the original acoustic sound as experienced by the audience or player.

The point may be, does the digital instrument produce an acceptable sound?

Adrian

AJB, I think you have to assume both. Manufacturers like Yamaha reached CD quality sound years ago, but they're still persuing a better more piano like sound, hence things like the AFC feature which is *very* subtle, yet costs money. If digital users only wanted an 'acceptable' sound these extra features wouldn't be necessary.
But yes by the same token some digital users do just want an acceptable sound for headphone practice, transportablility etc. It cuts both ways.

Like I said I've owned digital pianos for over 15 years but I'm still going to buy an acoustic at the first chance. If there was a digital option that was genuinely as good I would go for that hands down because I have no sentimentality for a cumbersome fire hazard

I prefer the real thing. Have fun with your blowup dolls.

I have played a number of acoustics and have to admit I like them better, though less than one of ten were in tune.

I have moved a number of acoustics and hated every second of it!

99% of the good piano music I listen to is digital, just like all of you. It's called CD.

A digital piano could be used for programmed instruction that would make piano practice 1000 times more efficient. Nobody has done that yet, but in theory it could work.

Will digital overtake acoustic? Well, I think it is likely that digital is increasing, but i'd really like to see statistics on piano playing in general. It wouldn't surprise me if the trend isn't sharply down, making the question moot.

It may turn out that the best way to truly accurately model the sound of an acoustic piano is with headphones. Many may scoff at this, but headphones really are the best way to achieve accurate sound reproduction, especially if the sound is designed for headphone use.

Basically, everything we hear is reduced to two waveforms, one for the left ear and one for the right. Whether the sound is a telephone conversation, or a symphony orchestra, by the time it gets to you, it's simply stereo sound. Given that headphones gaurentee the position of the sound source, properly designed audio can simulate surround sound to an incredible degree. With headphones you don't need 7.1 speakers for a proper surround effect, just two.

So it's possible that digital pianos could design the sound produced to make it feel like the sound is coming from more positions than just a couple of speakers, while wearing headphones.

Of course this would not account for the subtle differences in sound as you change your position about the piano, and it would not address performance to an audience at all.

How would you model the effect of soundwaves that cause the cranium to vibrate and subsequently the inner ear? It might actually be impossible to get soundwaves down the ear pipes (the what?) that can truely represent this sound.

Also, I've always been curious but never got a satisfactory answer - how do ears differentiate between sounds in front and sounds behind the head? Left and right is well known but I can't fathom the front and back.

I'll give it a shot, but don't hold me to it.

Basically, your brain compares the difference in volume and timing between the same sound heard in each ear, in a similar way to how your eyes compare two separate images to figure out depth. Also, when we hear stuff, we tend to adjust the position of our head to get a better listening point, this movement, and the subsequent changes in volume and timing also assists us in determining where the sound is coming from.


This might be enlightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

Hmm, the Binaural stuff in that link still doesn't explain difference between front and back, it just refers to azimuth as if 45 degrees would be different to 315 degrees. And if cocking your head comes into it how does surround sound work in headphones?

Anyway, I don't want to hog this thread with my inane questions. Thanks for the link - very interesting.

I'm off to buy a casio with big headphones.

tomasino

I think your analogy is flawed. Clavinos are to pianos what photography is to painting. Most homes still have paintings hung if they can possibly afford it.

In what universe?

Seriously, we're talking apples and oranges here. The next step in improving the clavino will be to put a real renner action in it. Then it will have "true" piano touch. Then they could manufacturer it with 176 speakers, one for each string. The the sound would be broader and fuller. Then they could build in an automatic detuning device, so your clavino would go out of tune after a few weeks. They could also put in cross feed-back loops so that each tone generator could sense what other tones are being played and change pitch in sympathy.

By the time you make all these technical advances, you could just go out an buy a piano - at half the price

John,

Sorry to disagree with you, but your analogy is also flawed.

Painting and photography are not at all related in a similar manner to digital and acoustic pianos. Owning a painting or photograph is totally different from creating music on a digital or acoustic piano. Very few households with paintings have someone in them who is capable of creating that painting, whereas many can create photographs or create music on either an acoustic or digital piano.

Owning a painting is more akin to owning a grand piano solely as a piece of furniture.

Rich

Rich, No analogy is perfect, but here's why I think it's pretty good:

Both piano and clavinova's create sounds - one through direct action of the player, the other using non-mechanical means (true, the player tells each instrument what sounds to play via a keyboard but that's where the similarity ends).

In a painting, the artist must conceive what he wants in his mind, then have the technical skills to put it on paper. In photography, the artist sees something interesting, beautiful, etc., then uses a mechanical device to capture it and place it on paper.

While art can be created in all four, people tend to prefer acoustical to electrical sounds and they tend to prefer oils and acrylics to silver halides and ink drops.

John

You play both digital and acoustic pianos through direct action of the player, well I do anyway. That may in your books be where the similarity ends, but that just about sums up playing the piano, oh I forgot theres the fantastical tone manipulation phenomenon you and other expert players know and can use at will that only exists on frigging acoustical pianos, even the worst poorly maintained out of tune uneven pile of junk is better than a digital piano.

You need technical shills to play a digital piano just like an acoustic. You still have to be artistic when playing a digital piano, theres alot you can do on a DP, especially now they have complex string resonance sampling and tonal/timbre changes, you know the ones you can control. Playing the piano for me is both a pleasant and uplifting experience on any type of keyboard instrument, obviously you cannot get past you own stubborness and elitism, you are infact perhaps the most anti-digital member on these forums, you sound as if you hate the things,

In the real world, the price of a digital today is an order of magnitude below that of an acoustic and this gap is just going to get worse with time. It doesn't take much research to see how far the digital's come in just the last 5 years (a mere eye blink when you think about it), the feature sets keeps growing and getting better and the price keeps falling (we're talking about half the price for a doubling or tripling in performance/features in just 5 years, compare this to the steady price inflation of acoustics for basically the same machine)...It's the economics that will ultimately kill off the acoustic, if it hasn't already.

I can still remember learning to type on IBM electric typewriters (anyone here remember those?), don't see them anymore although I'm sure many typists still prefer their crisper touch and feel. Unfortunately for the piano, it's one of the more 'mechanical' instruments and really lends itself to digitalization.

Acoustic guitars will probably be around forever, precisely for the reason you've mentioned (they are just so inexpensive to produce), but I just don't see this for the 800lb piano gorilla, the price/performance differences are just too vast. I'm not talking here about the piano as a luxury or status item, but just as a pure music making instrument.

Another thing to think about is the increasing connectivity between the digitals and computers (and how important digital connectivity/interaction and the internet's become, e.g., the ability to drive software synthesizers or the new software pianos such as Ivory...or this very discussion on 'piano' forum), to the point where it increasingly feels as though the digital piano is just another computer peripheral and just another means for communication. When viewed in this light, perhaps the better analogy would be that by the time you add in all the features you want to an acoustic piano (recording, midi, connectivity, voices etc.), you end up with a digital keyboard.

In the real world, the price of a digital today is an order of magnitude below that of an acoustic and this gap is just going to get worse with time. Hummm, the Clavinova CLP 280, which is one of the most piano like of the series, is $4,800. A Yamaha upright is $200 more. Sounds like an order of magnitude to me.