Yamaha CLP 930

Can someone tell me if it is worth paying $600 for a CLP 930? It is in excellent condition.

Not sure how old the CLP-930 is. Does anyone know? Ten years, maybe?

The specs put it below the CLP-320, which is today's bottom-of-the-line Clavinova.

The CLP-320 model has 3-level sampling.
Even the YDP-160 has 3-level sampling (around $1300).
The CLP-930 has only 1-level.

So the 930 is not such a swift piano.

It's about 9 or 10 years old (circa 1999-2000). With the rapid advance in technology, a brand new Casio PX-130 or Korg SP-250 would have much better specs at about the same price. If it's in excellent shape and you're still tempted, I wouldn't pay more than $300 or so. Even at that, the seller would be doing ok. How much would you pay for a 10 year-old PC?

Thank you for replying. Unfortunately, we were obligated to buy it from them and ended up paying $600. It's a long story and we lost the money.

Well, don't listen to Geoff, he's aboslutely spec-obsessed.

There is a sizable number of people who insist that the Yamaha action and tone of ten years ago was in may ways better than what is available now, so don't despair. Casios and Korgs may have better specs but they have a looong way to go until they sound as good as a Clavinova!

I wouldn't say I'm "spec-obsessed". People want to objectively compare instruments, and, to the extent that's possible at all, specs are a good place to start. And specs do make a difference. Better speakers or a better action really are objectively better. And age is important too. A 10 year old car costs less than a 2 year old one (or a new one)--for good reasons.

Anyway, your point is well-taken. Even though this wasn't a great bargain, it may be a perfectly fine instrument that sounds good and plays well.

Comparing the amplifier/speakers etc. based on specs alone is easier and more objective, tone and touch are more subjective, so it's a bit misleading to argue just on the base of which acronym a given action is using. I think I've read somewhere in a Yamaha product review that the new GHE action (e.g. on the P-155) is not as good as GH from years ago. I don't know if that's true, in principle they should be more or less the same. Then again, it could be that Yamaha is using lower-cost plastics in their latest DPs, less metal to make them lighter etc. Workmanship and build quality do not necessarily increase over time, so it's certainly possible that older models might feel more solid to the touch.

Therefore, I wouldn't automatically assume that the latest product line of a company always completely trumps everything that came before, especially when comparing a high-cost-but-older Clavinova to the entry-level DPs of today I think it might be a tie.

I compared a Yamaha ydp 223, which was introduced seven years ago, with some new digital pianos, including Yamaha 140, Casio Privias, etc... and I agree that the YDP 223 sounds better and has a better action.

Yes, I've also tried the 223 at GC recently and liked it. The keys had a very solid feel to them without seeming heavy.

But basically I've liked all the Yamaha actions I've tried so far, so I think sometimes a bit too much fuss is made over the supposedly huge differences between GHS/GH(E)/GH3/NW. To me they feel all quite similar (i.e., similarly enjoyable), despite their design differences. And in contrast somebody who prefers the heavier touch of a Casio would probably dislike them all more or less equally.

I compared NW and GH3, which should have very little differences between one another, but to me one felt like a piano and the other one didn't. I think its all up to the person playing.

double post

Yes, but I think that "feels (exactly) like a real piano" is a slightly different criterion from "feels nice and playable", which is more important to me. For weight reasons alone I think it's clear that e.g. a stage piano will always fall a little short in terms of the first criterion, but can still be wonderful in terms of the second.

And of course acoustics aren't all alike. So that comparison is always a little difficult, because it depends so much on what people are used to. There are those that claim a Casio action feels "exactly" like their acoustic, and there are those that make the same statement for Yamaha actions. And to me the differences between Casio and Yamaha are far grater than between the different Yamaha actions, although like I said I agree that e.g. the 223 is pretty great. Perhaps NW is even better still. But I don't find it difficult to adjust to any of the Yamaha actions, even a good Roland doesn't feel all that different to me except for its shallowness (are they trying to emulate a fortepiano?). Casio is another matter...

Besides, what exactly is the action on the 223? Is it a separate development? I can't seem to find details on that. It just says "premium GHE", but where is this supposed to fit in the spectrum of GHE/GH3/NW?