Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Weak fingers & digital piano

Time to read some books on overtones, my friend. If you do not know anything about the complexity of how overtones respond when a pedal is down, you ought to read up. Not surprisingly, it's when a lot of pedal is involved that you hear the biggest limitations of digitals. The notes interact on a real piano. The way that this is simuilated on a digital is simply a very poor replacement. On a decent real piano, you can frequently hear a discernible swell to the sound that is produced (when pedalling). Within a fracion of a second, the sound blossoms in a way that it doesn't without pedal. The simulation is vastly limited. Compare this swell in a Horowitz performance, with the dead neutral tones in that Katsaris one. It's instantly identifiable as a fake, through that stone dead, emotionless tone.


You're talking about the difference between a recreation of a whole and a failed attempt to create that whole from individual components. Sorry, but it's simply not a justified comparison. It's scarcely more relevant than comparing a recording of a symphony to a MIDI recreation- and saying that both are digital so why should there be any difference? Whether we're talking pianos or orchestras, there is an extremely good reason for the differences- differences that are easily perceived.

If you dislike the realism of the upper register and bass and prefer clean, neutral sounds, I'd recommend looking for an old Casio from the early 90s. You might have the 'piano' of your dreams...

I learned on a massive clunker of a German upright which had one key broken. I now practice on digital for practical reasons and alternate with hiring a grand piano practice room. Instead of producing too quiet a tone on the acoustic I notice the opposite. The tone is very loud and needs a lot more control. After working with this for half an hour I find I can adapt. However, it is essential to develop a good technique in order to manipulate tone.

Therefore I think it's not exactly a case of playing a digital means weaker fingers rather than the sensitivity of technique may need addressing. But this is really not a fundamental problem but rather an adaptive skill which will come later. The ease of playing weighted digital keyboards can lead to enhanced finger agility and speed as mentioned above. This is a good thing in early piano learning. And if one's child is happy playing then why worry? It's not about finger strength at all anyway. This is saying that you only play with the fingers which is unbelievably simplistic given three-hundred years of physiognymical studies as well as simple observation of pianists playing. When producing tone you actually do it from various parts of the body including arms and upper torso. Fingers are just for putting in the right places.

Historically, digitals have suffered from some technical limitations such as sample over-compression, limited sample length, obvious looping, lack of damper/string resonance, limited polyphony and other problems. But, frankly, most of these are only of historical interest now. The sound from a recent, high-end digital, is virtually a perfect reproduction of a miked acoustic. Most of the remaining limitations of current models are simply a result of the cheap and basic speaker systems that they have. Running a current digital though a expensive sound system will make it sound even more like an amplified acoustic than they already do.

Claims that digitals "don't sound like real pianos" or "Lack proper harmonics" are just blind prejudice. There's no technical or practical basis for that kind of assertion. And up to $5000 or so (a *very* high-end digital), a student would almost always be better off with a digital than an acoustic of the same price. Likewise, unless a family is prepared to *seriously* maintain their acoustic, a student will be playing a sub-optimal instrument most of the time with an acoustic--out of tune, missing notes, buzzing, sticking, etc. Whereas the digital will always sound and play fine.

We are truly blessed to live in a time where a trouble-free, arguably superior alternative to a traditional instrument is not only available, but costs a fraction of the price. But, instead, some people would prefer to be snobbish about it, and bask their extraordinarily discriminating ears in the superior technology of 1901. More power to you, but you're losing the war. I'm sure that Yamaha already sells way more Clavinolas than acoustics these days. And the technology is only going to keep getting better.

Well, I know what you're saying. For example, you play a middle C note and hold down the pedal. Obviously, other C notes up and down the keyboard will play in harmony. But other strings will also vibrate slightly, as the harmonics from the C note sound their fundamental tone. And still more strings will vibrate from the base and harmonic notes of these harmonic strings. In short, playing this single note with pedal will result in a large fraction of the notes on the piano vibrating to some extent (assuming it's in perfect tune).

Where you lose the argument is when you say that digitals can't properly replicate this. This feature (called damper resonance) is on most high-end digitals. And it works extremely well--probably better than the real effect works on most real world, slightly out-of-tune acoustic pianos. It's more effective on some digitals than others (e.g. I think Roland does a better job than Yamaha). But claiming that this is something that digitals can't do is just acoustic prejudice. String resonance (a similar effect on any open string without pedal) is also on high-end digitals.

But please keep trying. I'm sure you'll find something that digitals can't "really" do. For a start, I haven't figured out a way to make a cracked soundboard buzz or a misadjusted key stick on a digital.

There's no snobbery. I personally paid over a thousand pounds for a keyboard. It's very useful. It has countless positives. However I can HEAR the difference and very easily. What more needs to be said? If there are people who sincerely believe that neither I nor countless professional and amateur musicians do not have the ability to perceive major flaws (via their ears alone), they are simply deluding themselves.

As for the idea that there's no 'technical' basis- how about the fact that even high-end pianos only sample 5 differnt strike weights? Do you think that the piano can only produce 5 different sounds per key- and that everything else is merely equivalent to turning a volume switch up and down? That's without even coming on to the level of complexity that exists in how overtones interact in reality...

Stating untruths as if they were incontrovertible fact does not help the case for digitals.

Sorry, but I'm at least 95% sure you are mistaken about 'damper resonance'. I believe it's to do with the noise the dampers make when hitting the strings. It's very minor, but it seems to make a little sound that can be heard when you play a rapid stacatto.

Of course, digital pianos have begun to include overtones. However, it's not even close to that which occurs on any urpight. Nevermind the absurdity of claiming that it emulates a grand...

If you prefer your digital piano that's fine. However, you'd be better off accepting the fact that it DOES pose a number of limitations, than making rather tenuous attempts to argue that it can achieve that which it simply cannot.

Yes that's true. Most digitals use three to five samples per key, split between 128 levels of volume. Frankly, based on carefully listening to digitals and acoustics, I think that you can reasonably simulate the range of expression available on an acoustic with this type of arrangement. Yes, there are theoretically an infinite number of tones that a single key can produce. But most of them will sound pretty similar except for volume level, so quantizing the tonal range to four or five with a wider range of volume loses very little in actual expression. And yes, I'm aware of overtone interaction. As I point out above this is very well simulated now.

If you think that you can hear a difference, than maybe you can. Or maybe, you hear what you expect to hear, and you are actually the deluded one. And, please, don't suggest to me that there is no snobbery involved. I'm sure that 50 years from now, when even lab instruments won't be able to tell acoustics from digitals, acoustic players will still be using the same arguments as today.

No that's damper sampling. The sound of the damper mechanism is actually sampled and played back, in case anyone misses the slight mechanical noise that it makes. The fact that even an incredibly trivial feature like this is faithfully replicated tells you how serious digital makers are.

Damper resonance is exactly what I said it is. It's not even a very high end feature now. Most of the Yamaha Clavinovas have it, as well as most Rolands and Kawais.

You can argue all you want that these features and digitals in general have mysterious "limitations". Certainly, I wouldn't claim that my digital sounds as good as a big Steinway or Bechstein grand. But it sounds better than a lot of uprights and baby grands that I've played. And it *plays* better than they do as well.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you cannot tell the difference, what position are you in to judge whether anyone else might be able to?

If I'd been played those recordings blind, at the very least I would have deeply been puzzled by the dead sounds in the Traumerei. It's all about how the sounds interact. When you listen in a certain way, you can tell when that does not happen.

In performances of jazz, I'll happily admit that there are cases where I might not easily spot the different between a miked up piano through speakers and digital. Put some drums over the top and primarily play without pedal, and I may not realise. However, if you do not believe that people cannot pick out the limitations of having only 5 different tone qualities and notes that do not accurately interact under the pedal (when something like a Chopin nocturne is being played) you are wasting your time to trying to persuade those who can hear the difference.

I would happily take a blind listening test- provided that the pianist plays to a high standard and not robotically (although even there, I would be surprised if you could catch me out). The irony of Yamaha paying Katsaris to advertise their piano is that having an artist with his range of touch exposes the flaws more than it demonstrates the positives.

http://www.rosemorris.com/content/HP101.html

This page refers to it as the noise of the dampers being moved. It says nothing about the actual simulation of overtones. Obviously, having a sustain pedal does that to some extent anyway. However, I've never heard a DP where it sounds remotely sophisticated as a reproduction. There's never enough interaction between the sounds.

I find this argument amusing because it is just exactly like the perennial "solid-state vs. tube" amp wars on electric guitar forums.

Sometimes I can hear a difference between acoustic and digital; often I can't. If it was a recording, than I probably couldn't tell, since the miking and digitizing for the recording would make the acoustic sound more "digital" anyway. And I don't think that "notes that do not accurately interact under the pedal" is a problem anymore with current digitals.

But your bat-ears apparently can hear a difference. I'd be interested in seeing a controlled blind test of that. You might be surprised.

From the manual for my Roland HP-207, here are the resonance features which are adjustable. Note that "Damper Noise" and "Damper Resonance" are separate features:

Damper Resonance Off, 1–10
This adjusts the damper resonance of the acoustic piano sound (the sympathetic vibration produced in strings other than those actually played when you press the damper pedal). Higher settings will make the sympathetic vibration louder.

Damper Noise Off, 1–10
This adjusts the damper noise of the acoustic piano sound (the sound of the damper releasing the strings when you press the damper pedal).

Duplex Scale Off, 1–10
This adjusts the sympathetic vibrations of an acoustic piano’s Duplex Scale (p. 29). Higher settings will make the sympathetic vibration louder.

String Resonance Off, 1–10
This adjusts the string resonance of the acoustic piano sound (the sympathetic vibrations of strings for previously played notes that occur when you play
another note). Higher settings will make the sympathetic vibration louder.

Key Off Resonance Off, 1–10
This adjusts sympathetic vibrations such as an acoustic piano’s key-off sound (the subtle sound that occurs when you release a note). Higher settings will make the sympathetic vibration louder.

If you can't spot the difference yourself, you probably won't be convinced. I don't regard myself as having a terribly good ear for sound, but having only ever been interested in pianists like Horowitz, Cortot, gilels and Nyiregyhazi etc. distinctive tone quality is what I listen for and what I strive for when I play myself. I am actually rather impressed by much of what digitals can do now. However, they don't enable the full range of feedback. If I only practise on the digital for a long period of time, I wouldn't be surprised if my tone suffered on returning to an acoustic. My Bluthner has a very hard tone quality if you seize at the keys. However, push them the right way and it has a beautiful tone indeed. You cannot learn this vital technique (which defines the sounds of real artists) on any digital. The idea that hammer speed alone is the issue on a real piano is actually doubtful (if you look into the real details of how a hammer moves). On a digital piano, you really do just get a key speed.

I am not a 'hater' of keyboards (when used to complement real pianos). However, I do take particularly annoyance at hearing them put forward in a manner that is simply innaccurate. My CLP 370 has an action that is supposedly that of a 'grand piano' but it's hugely limited, when you start playing with a true fortissimo (even when you ease in from direct contact with the key). However good they are, they are always a substitute for a piano- a subsitute that still comes with limitations. Many acoustics may be worse than a piano but there is still no digital that can reproduce what even a moderately priced upright ought to permit.

Choosing a digital over a real piano is like choosing some sort of futuristic (yet relatively primitive) sex android over a woman. It simply isn't the same thing yet.

I can't see any point in assuming that anyone's preference for an acoustic is a matter of snobbery—or for characterizing the marketplace for digital and acoustic instruments as a "war" between winning and losing sides (unless, of course, one's purpose is to make people defensive and get them riled ).

Plenty of people have a digital and an acoustic and recognize that each has its place. Preferring an acoustic doesn't mean categorically dismissing digitals out of hand. Advocating for digitals shouldn't require denial that a mechanical instrument made from organic materials is essentially different or that others have a right to favor it.

I'm not threatened by digital technology, but the presumption that it must inevitably prevail rather than coexist—not to mention the gleeful anticipation some seem to feel about that prediction—is off-putting.

Steven

Sorry, if I struck a sour note there. But most acoustic players don't take the "separate but equal" view. They view the acoustic as gold and the digital as brass--still yellow, but not nearly the same. Even if they own and play one, it's a necessary evil that they need to make excuses for.

That's silly. If I traded my digital in for an acoustic, I'd miss many features (MIDI, recording, silent play, perfect tuning, alternate tuning, alternate sounds, etc.) that I've learned to enjoy and use. It really does have significant advantages of it's own.

I admit that there's something "organic" about an acoustic. But it's really a very complex device when you get down to it, and it's not really any more natural for sound to come from a string than a speaker.

I love acoustics, and I don't begrudge anyone else the right to love the as well. But I still think that acoustic players who take pride in belittling digitals and suggesting that students shouldn't study on them are ultimately being snobbish about their choices.

The point is that they are not equal. Anyone who learns on a competent piano can transfer to a digital with no problems. Anyone who learns on a digital will bring the limitations of their learning to the piano. If they didn't learn the type of technique that produces a good sound on an acoustic, they will not produce a good sound on an acoustic. Seeing as a digital does not train that technique, it's rather unlikely to evolve to a high standard, if at all. For that reason, it's no surprise that those who have spent a lot of time on digitals often criticise the tone quality of real pianos and cannot hear such benefits as others can. In reality, it's likely to be their method of tone-production that is really at fault. You need to learn how to access such sounds, before you can expect to tell the difference.

If wanting kids to learn the ability to make a beautiful tone on any instrument (as opposed to cause a playback of one that was produced by someone else) is 'snobbery' then count me in.

To speak of them of equals is about as reasonable as referring to indoor golf simulations (where you hit a real ball into a screen) as being 'equal' to real golf. If you do not accept the limitations, it's reality that you are unwilling to accept.

I couldn't give a damn whether a sound 'comes from a speaker'. I'd sooner listen to a recording of Horowitz than most living pianists playing live. What matters is the qualities in that sound. When I'm the one producing sounds, I want to be capable of producing the sounds I intend to produce. Real pianos offers substantially more, in that respect. If someone only intends to express themself via 128 different volumes (with 5 different tone qualities) then they can feel free to limit themself as such. However, I'm certainly not going to nod and smile politely if anyone seriously tries to tell me that this is 'equal' to a real piano.

If they ever genuinely capture the full qualities of a good instrument in a digital, I'll be very happy. The problem is that they haven't yet done so...

I think you flatter yourself if you
think that you're producing celestial
tones on your acoustic piano. How
about hitting all the right notes in the
right time at tempo, for starters?
If you could do that with a half
dozen or more concertos--never mind
the "tone"--you could go on tour
right now.

Why were the old silent keyboards
so popular with concert pianists?
You can't get any tone out of them
since they make no sound, but they
were the best thing for a pianist.
Digitals take up from where the
old silent keyboards left off, with
the added benefit of sound.

You can be sarcastic if you want, but my Bluthner makes an ugly sound if I let my technique go sloppy. It makes a very appealing cantabile, if I concentrate on the movements. I'm sorry if other people might not know how to make any difference, but it's not exactly unusual for a pianist to strive for or achieve such an ability- whether to a low level or a high one. My digital makes the same tone, whatever I do.

Indeed, I use my keyboard for technical work on a daily basis, when it's too late to play my acoustic. So what's your point?

Do you think any of those pianists who used silent keyboards ever saw it as anything other than a useful alternative, when a piano was not available for use? I'm not sure if they were ever 'popular'. Apparently Rachmaninoff only ever used one to learn his 3rd concerto when he was on a long journey.

PS. The world has more than enough pianists who can hit the right notes, without any regard for tone.

If you can't produce "tone" on your
digital, then the fault is in your
playing, not the digital. I do
it every day on my $600 digital--and
in big-time pieces like the
Chopin op. 14. Of course, its not
exactly the same as on
an acoustic grand piano, but it's close
enough for all practical purposes,
and if I had to play an acoustic
piano, I could adjust to it with
little problem.

Again, this is why the old silent
keyboards were so popular and
why Arrau used one all his life.
They enable a pianist to develop
the strength and technique so
he can produce that great "tone,"
on any piano.