Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards CLP-340 , does it sound a little too "bright"?

Hi
I just moved from an acoustic piano to Yamaha CLP-340.

My acoustic is a mellow upright piano, and my teacher has a Yamaha grand.

As it is my first days with the digital, i am not quite used to the sound or touch. Although I picked the mellow option it still sounds a little too bright for me.

Is there anything in the setting that you would recommend? Am I not supposed to turn the master volume way up?

When the sound is all the way up the bass sounds ok, but the treble is a little too sharp... or am I simply suffering from acoustic to digital move...

Any comments welcome.

No what you are experiencing is not unusual. The general concensus here is that clavinovas are bright. There are some settings that let you modify the brightness/mellowness further.

I selected the mellow, but it is still bright

There should be several levels of mellow to choose from. Another trick to try is adjusting the touch sensitivity to hard.

When you refer to the sound of a piano as being "bright", what do you mean exactly? Sorry, I am new to all of this stuff.

-JT

I also tried out the CLP 340 and found the sound to be far too bright, even when set to the most mellow settings. The "Grand Piano 2" option seemed slightly better, but what I noticed is that once the volume goes beyond 75% of MAX, the sounds started to become noticeably too bright.

That's the reason why I'm now looking at the Rolands instead.

Cheers

Bobo wrote, "The general concensus here is that clavinovas are bright."
I am in and out of the digital-synths & keyboards forum on a daily basis and have never seen this commented on once that I can remember. To state there is a concensus is unsuportable.

Without knowing what kind of piano the OP was used to playing, and what condition it was in, it is impossible to gauge a comparison.

Over the last 25 years I have shown the Clavinvos to hundreds and hundreds of players and never heard this comment.

You've never heard the comment that Yamaha DPs are bright? I've only been researching this for a couple of months, and my impression was that most people think the Yamaha sound is bright. In acoustics, this is often criticized. In DPs, this is often seen as an advantage because it allows the piano to stand out more in groups. In the end, it's personal preference.

That said, it is relative, and knowing the acoustic piano would give us a better idea of what the OP means by bright. Could also be the adjustment from acoustic to digital. Any decent acoustic will sound richer and more realistic, with deeper bass, etc.

Pilgrimjoel wrote, "...my impression was that most people think the Yamaha sound is bright." You state, "I've only been researching this for a couple of months." Can you tell us how you came to this impression about how most people feel abou the CLP340? It is these generalized statements about product lines and models that kill me. Certainly fine to state that in your personal opinion the CLP340 is bright. It is when folks begin to over generalize and mount up the "bandwagon" that I take issue. This forum is a good source, not the end all be all, but a good source of information. I don't ever remember reading one post stating that the CLP340 or Clavinovas in general were "bright."

Marty,
I've OFTEN heard people say that Clavinovas are too bright.
I've also often heard people say that they're NOT.
Every listener has his/her own ear, so to each his own.

To the OP ...
I've found that the Piano 1 setting is bright, but suitable for some music.

For most music, though, I use Piano 1 in the "second variation" mode. (Is that the right term?) Then I use the separate "brilliance" control to fine-trim it to taste.

Marty,

I was talking about Yamaha sound in general. Most people say its bright. I don't think you can deny that general opinion. You can dispute it, say its unhelpful, etc., but I seriously doubt you've never heard it said. Even Larry Fine mentions it -- that Yamaha pianos can be quite bright (although not as bright as they once were).

I own a C3. It's bright. I've auditioned U-series uprights and Clavinovas. Also bright (including the 340, btw). At least three people claim the 340 is bright in this thread alone. So now you've heard it. I've heard that Yamahas are not always bright, that some can be voiced down, etc., but I've yet to encounter one that did not tend bright. Of course, you have much more experience than me, but my experience does fit the general perception that Yamahas are bright.

Of course, acoustic pianos can be voiced down (to varying success), and the brightness of the 340 can be adjusted, but I'm not at all surprised that the OP finds the sound bright. It is after all sampled from a Yamaha grand -- is it not? -- and many people find the Yamaha sound bright. Some like this sound, and some don't. Some find the brightness an advantage -- especially in the DPs.

My response was not a criticism of the 340 or Yamaha -- just a response to your dismissal of anyone who would say they are bright as (I presume) either ignorant or promoting an agenda.

Reading this and other forums for quite a while now, my impression has also been that most people here consider the Ammi sound bright. Some like it, some not. And I agree: I clearly find the sound of Yamaha DPs bright.

The original poster, Pocoloco, is just getting used to digital pianos in general and his new CLP340 in particular. He observed that, to his ear, the CLP340 sounded "a little too bright."

The discussion question was not Yamaha acoustics. It was not Clavinovas in general. It was about the CLP340 specifically.

Several generalizations were made about CLP340s and Clavinovas. I felt these generalizations were not supported by my fairly wide experience with the product and its consumers, and by the lack of any comments to the effect found on this extensive forum. If it is such a wide spread understanding, why is there nothing here to support that notion?

In regard to Yamaha acoustics, of course I have heard the rap Yamahas get for being bright. A lot of that comes from folks selling other products. A lot more of that comes from folks whose only experience is with Yamahas from 15-30 years ago, when, IMHO, they were much brighter than they are today. It was my feeling that none of this had anything to do with the thread question about CLP340s.

I was not just responding to anyone who would say CLP340s were bright. I was responding to those who would generalize the "fact" that it was a common understanding that they were bright. I don't believe this is a fact.

I am not "ignorant" in the field of digital pianos. I have represented and sold nearly all the major brands for the past 25 years. The only agenda I might promote would be against over generalizations about models and/or product lines. A poster's opinion should stand on its own. It is when they profess to speak for groups of "others" that they get tangled up in their own underwear.

Fair enough. Your last sentence alone made this tussle worth it. Understand, though, that I wasn't calling you ignorant because you're obviously not.

Someone characterized Clavinovas as bright, and you objected that they are not and that you've never heard anyone say they are. I agree the poster over-generalized, but I also think your tone suggested that no one with real experience and intelligence would ever say they're bright.

Compared to you, I am ignorant. I'm an amateur and a consumer. However, I do have some experience with newer Yamahas (acoustic and DP). In my very subjective opinion, they tend to be bright. In truth, I like the 340 quite a bit and prefer it over the Kawais I've tried. (I have not tried Roland.) However, I can understand why some would call it a bright-sounding DP.

That said, I haven't played with it enough to know how adjustable the sound is, and it will be interesting to see whether the OP is able to adjust the sound to his liking. In the end, that's what counts -- not people telling him the piano is (or is not) bright. You insisting -- rather categorically -- that it is not bright is really not much better than the other poster insisting that it is.

I probably never should have stepped into this -- or gotten tangled in my underwear -- since I have nothing constructive to offer to the OP. I was just pointing out that it is not ridiculous (or unheard of) to think that Yamaha DPs are bright. And to insist otherwise does seem rather dismissive of the OP.

FYI, this from Geoffk on a concurrent thread:

"The CLP-340 is an excellent basic piano. It lacks some features that the HP-203 and HPi6 have (string resonance, 300+ tones, escapement), but it has a good basic piano sound. Some people prefer the bright Yamaha sound and light touch over the mellower Roland sound and heavier Roland touch. Personally, I prefer Rolands, however, you should try both."

Yes. To me Yamahas sound more like Yamaha acoustics (which they're sampled from) and have a bright clear sound. Rolands are sampled from Steinways (probably) and sound fuller and less bright out of the box. You can argue with this characterization, but they obviously sound different from each other, and I think it's pretty clear that the Yamaha is the brighter of the two.

As has been noted, many people prefer the sound of the Yamahas, and they work especially well in ensembles, where they cut through very well. On the other hand, several Jazz pianists have said here that the Roland sound works well for them in solo work.

I don't know why anybody would take offense at this. Nobody expects pianos (acoustic or digital) from different companies to all sound identical to one another.

I doubt that this statement would rankle Marty in the least.

I think it's pretty clear that the irritation expressed here is with the statement: "the general consensus is....". General consensus here as expressed in posts is a pretty thin base. Relatively few members get involved in these kinds of qualitative statements and qualitative tone comparisons in the first place. Those who do get involved regularly make their qualitative statements and comparisons again and again and tend to express the same thing again and again. It makes sense that if they express their opinion often, that opinion should remain consistent, but it probably implies to the reader a consistency among members' opinions that simply isn't there.

If you polled the membership on what digital they own, it would hardly be a surprise if the most owned brand is Yamaha. However, that would not imply a general consensus either.

Personally, I like the term I once read here in a post by FogVilleLad, that the typical Yamaha digital sound is dry compared to the Roland sound. I agree with that. It's plain and unadorned, doesn't have the rounded liquid glow of the tricked-up Roland sound, and has good individual note definition for self-critical practice. I'm sure that's the general consensus here.

To the OP

It's hardly a surprise that your digital punctuates your sonic environment in a completely different way from your acoustic. It would be a big surprise if it didn't.

My acoustic is a mellow upright piano, and my teacher has a Yamaha grand.

As it is my first days with the digital, i am not quite used to the sound or touch. Although I picked the mellow option it still sounds a little too bright for me.


Any comments welcome. [/quote]

Everybody knows Yamaha's are the brightest!

I am not sure if I should regret for my choice of Yamaha CLP 340.

It sounds too sharp, i have to play very quietly and that's not fun.. I havent had a chance to try with head phones yet, does it sound better with a decent quality headphones?

pocoloco, I am assuming that you play-tested a selection of different brands and models before making your decision, yes?

If so, may I ask why you did not notice the bright sound?

Kind regards,
James
x