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

Doesn't matter what the acoustic piano costs, or what name brand it is...it goes out of tune, and those of us blessed (or cursed) with sensitive and accurate hearing don't need to put up with the drift in tuning, calling the tuner, waiting for the tuner, paying the tuner, and listening to the tuner chuckle as he leaves the house, knowing you are as dependant on him as a crack user is on his/her dealer.

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.

Finally, your attitude to piano tuners is terribly cynical.

Finally, your attitude to piano tuners is terribly cynical.

I find the relationship with my tuner(s) very rewarding in their helping me understand not just how my piano works, but the array of choices I can have in how we might voice the piano to suit my desires. In the digital world all you have is a manual.

Rubber dolls have unprecedented levels of realism, yet men still date, get married, pay for hookers and shell out for expensive drinks and dinner.

I, for one, particularly love Snazzy's metaphor of acoustic owners depending on tuners like crack addicts depending on their dealers. I'm sure Snazzy means no disrespect toward tuners here. They do honest work for honest pay. The cynical attitude is with the high maintenance aspects of the AP (tuning, voicing, humidity control). It's not with the tuners.


I'll take just a lousy manual for a DP any day over a relationship with a tuner. At least I don't have to pay my manual $300/year on maintenance, and still wondering how long that tuning is going to hold before I need another one. And I don't care to develop a relationship with anyone. Just give me a super low maintenance product that performs spot on, always in tune, reliably day-in day-out, in any kind of climate, and throw me a lousy manual, and you'll never hear from me again. Boy, I love that lousy manual and my low-maintenance DP.

The issue is to a large degree cultural as well.

It is a quintessentially North American tendency to prefer convenient, cheap, efficient, "close enough for me" copies requiring low commitment and low investment over the authenticity and genuineness of the real article, with all its quirks and total experience of purchase implications.

That explains why North Americans eat more than half their meals outside of the home, primarily in "restaurants" manufacturing "meals" at such efficient manufacturer outlets as McDonalds and Applebees rather than cooking the evening meal from scratch with healthy ingredients at home with the family.

That is why supermarkets are filled with brightly colored packages of "just add water" copies of real food dressed up with lots of chemicals, salt and high fructose corn syrup.

That explains the popularity of plastic laminate flooring instead of laying unsealed hardwood floors that must be waxed and buffed on a regular basis and which age gracefully and with character over the decades.

That is why people buy pre-manufactured homes or Vytek insulated cardboard/wood boxes with low maintenance plastic siding that barely last as long as their mortgages rather than building brick or stone homes meant to stand for centuries.

That is why people increasingly "don't want to build a relationship with anyone" and see themselves primarily as consumers and other people as objects whose only value is whether or not they can satisfy the lusts, wants or needs of the consumer, cocooning at home alone passively consuming 5 hours of television on average per day from their alimony-purchased plasma TV rather than having meaningful social contacts or being a member of their community.

That also explains the relative popularity in Europe of the acoustic uprights with factory installed silent systems: People want their children to learn to play the real thing but recognize that in this day and age of decreased tolerance between neighbors that it is necessary to be able to practice silently. However, the desire is to do so on the most authentic possible keybed with maximum transfer of skill to real acoustic piano playing. Someone with 15 years of classical training on an acoustic can make the transition to digital quite easily. Spending 15 years playing unweighted keyboards and then expecting to play well on an acoustic demonstrates quite clearly what the real differences are between the two instruments.

Oh ho ho! Wow! I'm speechless. How did a DP vs AP post turn into such prejudiced anti-American hatred like this??? And such holier-than-thou attitude, no less. Is it because you can't argue on-point to the topic at hand anymore, so you must bring in ugly baggage like this into the discussion?

I won't lower myself to argue any of your points that's non-piano related. As for your point about the popularity of silent acoustic upright in Europe, that's all good for those who chose to go with this option. But personally, I don't believe the action of acoustic upright is all that in the first place. And who says people who don't choose the silent acoustic upright only use unweighted DP action? Many modern DPs today offer very good weighted actions that are not necessarily inferior to the acoustic upright action at all. The acoustic upright action is not the standard a weighted DP should strive to emulate. Only the full acoustic grand action should be the standard to strive for. So someone with a nicely weighted action DP should have no more problem transitioning to a real grand action compared to someone with an acoustic upright action.

The popularity of upright in Europe are probably mostly due to space constraint and price constraint. Not because of their keyboard action are so hot. And who's to say that DPs don't sell as well as acoustic uprights in Europe? Do you have any data to back this up? If I have to make an educated guess, I'd venture to say that DPs sell more than acoustic uprights anywhere in the world, including Europe and Asia, bar none.

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

The comment about not valuing personal relationships was a direct quote from you.

Simply because you dispute the facts does not make a post "anti-American".

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.
  

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...

This thread is aimed at those people who are trying to make a choice for an (in some or many cases secondary) instrument, choosing from the top of the line cabinet offerings from Roland (HP-307), Yahama (CLP-380), Kawai (CA-93) and for comparison purposes for those with lots of money, the exciting new Yamaha AvandGrant(N2) with grand piano action.

Or are you continually thinking that the real breakthrough is just around the corner and you don't want to cast your lot too early?

I wonder if this can be modified by any setting on either instrument? Kawai James?

Or are you continually thinking that the real breakthrough is just around the corner and you don't want to cast your lot too early?

I reckon theJourney is just waiting to see if Williams announce any new models at Frankfurt next month.

Cheers,
James
x

...this one looks very nice indeed! ;-)

Two points please. Those of us blessed (or cursed) with sensitive and accurate hearing can't deal with a digital reproduction of acoustic sound no matter how "accurate" it is because focussing on accuracy misses part of what making music is about: human beings sitting at human made things that are based on natural things such as air, vibrations, etc.