Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards The "Official" Top of Line Digital Piano Playoff Thread

We are still waiting to see the Kawai units appear to be able to compare.

I'm very disappointed with the sound in the new Kawai CA series. As you already have stated, the keyboard is good but I can't understand why you say that the piano sound is good as well. In my opinion this is very bad compared with todays' technology, listen to the midrange, you have no expressiveness in this part.

Take a look on this thread https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...ns%20of%20the%20Kawai%20CA63.html#UNREAD

@Andree, to whom are you referring?

The sound is in fact a matter of taste. I personally find it very convincing and realistic, also in the midrange, but definitely different than Yamaha and Roland.

But the technical flaws are indeed not acceptable.

@kawaian, I know that this is a highly personal matter and therefore I began to say "I'm very disappointed", in my statement. When we are talking about the midrange, the feeling I got was that I played on a guitar, not a piano. I think this explains the issue in a fairly proper way...

I just purchased a new Casio Celvaniano AP-620 that just came out in January. Shouldn't this be one of the digital pianos to be considered in the comparison?

Perhaps. Can you tell us more about your shopping experience?
Did you compare it and audition directly against the other mentioned makes and models?
How did it stack up and what made you decide on the Casio?

Hi Journey,
No comparisons were made. I am the owner of two Yamaha keyboards. As an internediate pinaist, I wanted to upgrade to something better. I wanted something with weighted keys and good sound. Casio Celviano AP-620 is the latest model. My new AP-620 should be shipped to me at the end of the month. It just came out in January and is now hitting the retail stores. At a cost of $1,400 and listening to the sound quality that vastly surpassed my existing Yamaha YPG 535, I thought perhaps it should have been included in the comparison. Keep in mind that I am new to DPs and perhaps the AP-620 may not be in the same league as the others quoted.

I am not personally familiar with the Casios as they are not sold much here. I definitely live in Yamaha territory with some Roland thrown in. Even Kawai is very difficult to find. Your link sounds promising and the price is certainly right. Please keep us posted with your experiences. If they are as positive as almost all the other reviews of Casio we tend to read here you may have found the model that will give everyone else a run for their money. Enjoy your playing!

Thanks Journey,
I've only started taking piano lessons now for the past 19 months. Now that I am retired, I can practice 2-3 hours per day. I am new to the group and wasn't sure if I would be criticized for suggesting a Casio in your comparisons. I anxiously await the arrival of my Casio AP620 DP and will certainly keep the group informed about it's features and quality. Thanks again.

For me this is a critical point that would be helpful to get our arms around.

For me at least, and I believe for a number of others as well, the digital piano is used as a silent practice instrument and for the earlier, pre-polish phases of learning and studying clasical literature. The idea is to perform on an acoustic but to have the most flexible, realistic and productive study environment on the digital. The playing experience on the digital should be more " realistic " or " authentic " rather than " pretty ".

My impression of some digital pianos is that they make you sound like a better player than you really are by smoothing things out instead of letting your uneven playing sound the way it will sound on an acoustic: uneven.

Can anyone comment on which of the remotely affordable contenders (CA93, HP307, CLP380) they find most authentic and not too unrealistically kind for studying classical music?

I am new to this forum, but today I tried the Kawai CA63 and Roland HP-307. Some time ago, I also tried the Yamaha CLP-380, but had no time today to try it. At that time I already found out I liked the Roland better than the Kawai, so I did not try it again today. Unfortunately, I did not find a store yet (close enough to me) that had the CA93, but since the only real difference between the CA63 and CA93 is the speaker system and let-off simulation, I think my comparison of the CA63 and HP-307 is relevant for this topic. I looked especially at the action, and a bit at the sound, mostly with headphones (that is why I think it is acceptable that I compare the CA63 instead of the CA93). Here I put some of my findings/thoughts/opinions, hopefully useful to somebody.

Action:

• Dynamic range: by this I do not mean the dynamic range of the output sound, because I suppose that can be controlled by a parameter in the software, but I am talking about the range of the physical velocity of the hammers that can be detected by the sensors. Velocities that are in reality higher, are all reported as the maximum velocity. One of the bigger problems of a DP in my opinion is that the maximum velocity is reached pretty easy by most DPs. For an acoustic piano, there is no such limit (until something breaks of course). I would like to measure this (I am a physicist), but was only able to compare qualitatively. My impression is that the Roland is the best one in this aspect: on the Roland, you need most physical force to reach the maximum velocity. I think this is good because it leaves more room for expressiveness.
• Velocity control: I do not know how to call this, but I mention this, because I was a bit disappointed in the Kawai on this aspect. I found it harder to control the velocity with the Kawai. Some notes sounded louder than I intended, others too soft. Especially, the middle range in velocities was hard to control in my opinion. I tried all standard touch levels from light to heavy and also tried to use a custom curve, but I was not satisfied. Maybe after some more trials with custom curves this could be improved. I do not know if this is a hardware or software problem with the Kawai, or maybe it is a problem with me... or I should get used to it better. However, I do not have this problem with most acoustic piano's I think.
• Touch: the new Kawai has the heaviest touch, also clearly heavier then the previous series of Kawai. I like this, but maybe this is because I am used to an acoustic with heavy touch. The Roland and Kawai do not differ much, I think the Roland is a bit heavier.
• Key weight: I feel that something is not realistic about the key weight of the Roland and Yamaha's, but is realistic in the Kawai. I think it is the actual weight of the keys themselves (not the hammers). I noticed it most clearly by lightly 'tapping' the keys, with loose fingers. When a loose finger hits the key, the energy is transferred to the hammer, and the finger is almost stopped because of the collision with the key. At the moment the hammer is set in (fast) motion and the finger falls more slowly on the key, it is very noticeable in my opinion that the key itself is very light (Roland and Yamaha). It feels a bit bouncy and plasticy in this situation. The Kawai is superior in this aspect: I think the keys themselves are much heavier, which feels much more realistic. However, in normal play (except maybe for staccato) I did not notice this problem much when playing the Roland and Yamaha. I think because of the proper weight of the hammers, the keys appear to have a proper weight.

Summarizing: the Kawai feels more realistic and has a heavier touch (which I liked). The Roland has a better dynamic range and the velocities are easier to control.

Sound:
I think the Roland is clearly superior here. In my opinion the sound is more realistic and sounds more alive, although I cannot tell exactly why. One thing I noticed is that in the Roland sound you hear more realistic beats when multiple notes are hold for a longer time.

Difference HP-307 and HP-305: slightly offtopic, but something I took a few minutes for and might interest some people: in my opinion the action of the PHAIII is only slightly better than the PHAII. I expected the difference to be bigger. The quality of the speaker system however was bigger than I expected. The speaker system of the HP-305 produced uneven results (some ranges too loud or sounding different), probably because of unwanted resonant frequencies.

This morning I was pretty sure I would not be able to make a decision (again) and would lean towards the Kawai. But, to my surprise, I was able to make a clear decision for myself: I take the HP-307! The reason is that I liked the sound much better, and the keyboard gave me a feeling of better control (easier to control the velocities). Also, but less important to me, it has more options to fine tune the sound and better and more sounds. The only downside of the Roland in comparison to the Kawai is the slightly less realistic action, but the action of the Roland is satisfactory for me. However, if you are only interested in the most realistic action, then my advice is to go for the Kawai, and maybe use a software piano to be able to adjust the touch curve better and have better sounds.

Edit: about the Yamaha: I think it is not a fair competition, because it is from one generation earlier. I am curious about what their next generation will bring...

jbx, welcome to PW and congratulations on your HP-307! Please don’t forget to update the “Prices Paid” thread

Thanks for such a detail analysis. It helps DP shoppers like me tremendously. I am also leaning toward the HP-307 but I have to try it again side by side with the CLP-380 to make that final decision, hopefully in the next few weeks.

I'm more of a beginner. I think I agree with the above. That is the first thing I noticed about the Roland, the dynamic range of the key action. You have said a few things I had not been able to describe.

Here is a question for a physicist: Do you think a keyboard action could be described by a small set of parameters?

An example of what I'm thinking of is what Thiele/Small did for loudspeakers. No, I don't mean that any of their work would apply. But only that prior to their work people described loudspeakers with long paragraphs and ad-hoc measurements then T/S showed that only a few numbers were required to describe the speakers. Perhaps only a few numbers describing inertia and friction would be enough. If I'm right, it would revolutionize keyboard and piano reviews

Thanks very much for your review, jbx. The HP-307 really shines in the DPBSD test, and I'm very anxious to try one.

I want that sound in a $2k stage piano or $1k 1/3 rackmount form - which of course doesn't exist yet. A boy can dream though.

Hello jbx, many thanks for your thoughtful review - you have made some excellent points.

Welcome to the forum, and of course, congratulations on the purchase of your new DP!

Cheers,
James
x

I sometimes consider this question and I basically agree with ChrisA. However in loudspeakers, the parts move together(e.g. a coil and a diaphragm) while in piano actions, the parts move differently(e.g. a key and a hammer).

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

This complex combination of parts makes things difficult for describing piano actions. A precise model of a piano action requires not only each part's weight and moment of inertia, but also interaction between parts(e.g. when the jack is released from pressing the hammer).

However when I get a loudspeaker, I don't usually check the detailed parameters. I just check f0 and wattage. I think it is useful to give just a few parameters which roughly describe the piano actions. I would like to propose two parameters to manufactures, static pressure and dynamic pressure. (to (might) be continued to a new thread)

Now things are starting to get interesting.

Cheers,
James
x

I agree with mezzo-poor.
I think indeed static and dynamic pressure are the two most important parameters. But indeed, the real action is much more complicated. I think that the force is also a (probably non-linear) function of the distance a key is pressed down and maybe also of the force that is applied.
But, as said, just static and dynamic pressure is a very good way to describe the basic behavior of the action.

When I was buying my piano, I tried both HP-305 and HP-307 too to find if the price difference is worth it. Putting aside HP-305's ridiculously small display (for gods sake small lcd's are cheap and the piano certainly isn't cheap) which is a joke in 2010 I have to tell that it didn't take a long time to say I liked HP-307 more. I heard they have the same sound generator and very similar keyboard but when playing I somehow felt and heard the difference. I can't describe exactly what differs PHAII from PHAIII. I would say that the experience was just like trying out 2 acoustic pianos of the same brand. You pick the one that feels better for you. It was the same - I just liked PHAIII more and that's it. It was more natural for me, I played more comfortably with it, it spoke to me "take me"
If someone else played 305 and 307 and wouldn't be able to tell difference between those actions I wouldn't be surprised tho. Then the price difference would certainly not be worth the extra speaker power and display imo.

PS. I was testing them with headphones so can't comment on the uneveness of 305's speaker system.

I started a similar debate on acoustic vs digital a few months ago, and I have to say that this has to be one of the better metaphors arguing for acoustical instruments that I've seen. Couldn't have done it better myself. Thank you.