Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Yamaha CP50 vs. Privia PX3

It will most probably be the same shitty keybed from FATAR on the SP4 as on all the other Kurzweil machines. Although I had several Kurzweil(s) for a long time , I think an upgrade in sound and hardware (read keybed) is long overdue. Would't put my money in such completely recycled (20 years ?!) technology - especially not when there's most probably real new stuff coming from Kurzweil in 2011 , unless they go bankrupt again before that happens. I hope not - really liked their approach in the past and think they want to make a great re-entry when they get the chance.

Well, I really disliked the action on the PC2, but that goes back a ways. That's the only semi-weighted Kurz action I remember playing. I think their unweighted PC361 is fine (for what it is, not for piano). At any rate, I think the SP4 would have to different from some of the other semi-weighted actions if for no other reason that it doesn't have aftertouch, so it has to be a different keybed.

Thanks again for all the input. To address a couple of comments.

I would love to have 2 keyboards especially for organ sounds. (BTW I restore Hammond organs and Leslies and have several in my studio) But for my application as a solo performer doing one night stands I long for a simple solution that does not require a lot of schleping and setup. That is a big plus for the Privia.

EssBrace, you are absolutely right. I should have qualified that statement to only the keyboards I was comparing. My comparison was limited to what GC had in their keyboard room. I would love to compare the Roland, Kawai, Korg, etc but I don't think it's fair to make a comparison unless they are side by side.

Another note on the CP5/50 interface; I was on the phone with Yamaha today asking questions. One of my first comments to the tech support guy was that I had a hard time understanding the layout of the interface. I voiced concern to him that one of the first things that a potential keyboard buyer wants to do is try out the sounds. On the CP5/50 I could not even figure out how to scroll through the sounds.
The tech told me he had the same issues when first introduced to the instrument! So if you don't get it you're not alone.
From my further reading and research I now understand how it works but it's by no means intuitive.
The idea is that all sounds exist within a preset. You call up a preset first and then assign the sounds you want to the "parts". Each part has a pot assigned to it's parameters on the front panel. On the CP5 you have 6 parts, one of which is the mic input record. On the CP50 you have only 3. I grilled the Yamaha tech on many performance details that he was at a loss to answer. On the upside he did send me the Performance List which shows all sounds on how they are assigned on presets. And I finally got the owners manual which was disappointing because it did not go into enough detail. I wish these companies would hire someone who knows how to put together a manual!
I would like to try the Roland V Piano as well as other pianos but the Yamaha seems to fit my needs more with the extra sounds onboard, splits, layers and ability to playback audio and MIDI. If I do decide to purchase the Yamaha, I leaning towards the CP5 at this point. Here are the major differences:

More pianos on the CP5 including the CFIII S and S6B, (CP50 has only CFIIF), Five Rhodes sound vs. one on the the CP50. Unfortunately neither the CP5 or CP50 have any of the DX7 engine sounds. The AWM2 modeling includes DX sounds but it's not quite the real thing.
Wooden keys on the CP5. Although the action on the CP50 felt very accurate to a real piano.
Mic input on the CP5
17 pianos 305 other sound on the CP5 vs. 12 /215 on CP50
6 "Parts" (including mic input) on the CP5 vs. 3 "Parts" on the CP50- meaning more ability to layer, split and have audio or MIDI playing simultaneously.
No Power amp or Compressor Block on CP50-This is part of the sound shaping and is important to me.
Master EQ 5 band on CP5 vs. 3 band on CP50
XLR Balanced outs and input on CP5 vs. 1/4" outs on CP50
2 foot controller inputs vs. 1 on CP50
CP 5 is larger and heavier 55.4 lbs vs 46lbs.
AC Power plug on CP 5 vs adapter on CP50

Surprisingly the CP1 does not include any of the AWM2 sounds and only 2 "Parts". It's design is focused squarely on the purist. (with a lot of money)

I have not purchased a keyboard over 2K in quite a while. (TX 816, JP8, ARP 2600) I know the only way to find out if it's going to fit my needs is to get it home and try it on the gig. I would have to really fall in love with this thing to keep it and it's been a long time since I fell in love.

Brooks, given that you restore Hammond instruments, and one would assume that you're quite a tasty organ player, how do you feel about playing organ riffs on weighted keys, intended for piano?

Cheers,
James
x

It's a real challenge. It's also rough on the hands if you play glissandos, swishes, slides etc. in true Hammond style. I had the ultimate keyboard rig in the 70's. Rhodes, Clavinet, Minimoog and a Hammond B3. I've been searching for a good acoustic piano sound ever since. Really you just can't play a organ properly on a piano action. Again I believe that you have to have the whole package-sound, feel, touch, expression, etc. to get to the organic (sorry) nature of playing any instrument. Using modules is great and I've had racks of them. But playing guitar, brass, etc. on keys is more of a challenge and exercise than digging into the real thing. Somehow somewhere in the 80's keyboard players were all of sudden expected to come up with every instrument sound in the world! I'm love technology but I don't want to be a technician on keyboards. I don't need a an arsenal of Ocarina, Shamisen, bagpipes, or Guitar God sounds. (OK maybe I need the bagpipe)

Interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'm inclined to agree. It's obviously handy to have a good selection of organ sounds on a stage piano. However if the focus of the instrument is on realistic acoustic (or even electric) piano touch, I would argue that such sounds are unnecessary.

+1 on the bagpipes though, I'd never be prepared to give up that patch.

Cheers,
James
x

Now that you've stretched your budget up to CP5 territory, and in light of the comments about your organ background and what a pain (figuratively and literally) it is to play organ on a weighted keyboard, I think you should not be quick to dismiss a 2-keyboard solution that could still be simple without a lot of shlepping.

Privia PX-3 + Nord Electro 3, combined weight, 39 pounds. Far less shlepp than the CP5's 55+ pounds. Add a K&M 18880 stand with an add-on tier for a stand that weighs under 7 lb and is super-easy to collapse for transport, no need to disassemble/reassemble anything, it moves in one piece.

Then you've got a good piano action and a good organ action, full drawbar-style organ capability with much better organ sounds, a choice of excellent piano sounds you can download into the Nord which you can drive from the Privia's weighted 88 keys (splitting and layering it with the Privia's own sounds), plus better EP sounds, and a bunch of other high quality sampled sounds (plus the ability to load your own sampled sounds). The one caveat is that the Electro is monotimbral, so when you're using it for its piano sound, for example, it's not available for anything else. So the idea would be to use the Nord for your "main" sound at any given time (piano, organ, EP, etc.) while using the Privia's internal sounds for the "supporting" sounds that would be layered or split (or simply played on its own keyboard).

Does the PX3 give you any control over the amp ADSR envelope?
Does it have a control for resonance or note-off samples?

anotherscott, that's a good suggestion. So essentially the Electro 3 is doing most of the work, while the PX-3 is just used as a weighted-key controller to drive the Nord's piano/e.piano sounds?

That'd work.

Cheers,
James
x

Bagpipes--- who has bagpipes? I'm green with envy. Love bagpipes, must be the Scots in me.

To answer my own question (I just found the manual on-line: http://support.casio.com/pdf/008/PX3_E_1A_web.pdf



According to page E-31, you can control the Attack and Release time, and there is a control for acoustic resonance, brilliance, ratio of velocity to timbre change, an lp filter freq cutoff, and all of these can be set differently in four separate keyboard zones. There's also a master (see page E-21) 4 band eq that lets you specify the freq and the gain for each band. So there's some room for experimentation.

EDIT: And if I'm reading the appendix correctly, you can also apply a separate eq, 2 compressors, and an enhancer to each of the four zones separately. See page E-60. Hm...

Of course, I'd still like to have note by note tuning, 2 decay stages, and...

Yes, you can alter attack and release on any of its sounds.



Resonance, yes. I don't know if it has note-off samples, but there's no control for it.

Yup. Though the PX-3 would serve an additional function of providing other sounds for split/layer purposes, since the E3 can only be used for one sound at a time.

Good suggestions but I'm intent on making this a one keyboard gig. As a soloist I think most of what I do will be piano with strings or pad layered and bass in the left hand maybe. If I was playing in a band I would definitely be looking at a synth action for organ and other parts. Better still I'd bring a Hammond and a couple of Leslies and put the piano on top.

Jake-I don't know about the ADSR envelopes or any sound editing features on the PX3 so I can't comment.

I did spend another hour at local GC playing both the CP50 and CP 5 side by side. I can tell you the wood keyboard on the CP5 is completely different from the CP50 keyboard. The CP5 wood keyboard is lighter to the touch and more responsive. The CP50 action feels like you have to work harder but for some reason I feel I have more power with the CP50 action. After I played the CP50 for a while, the CP5 seemed loose and not as accurate in comparison. The CP50 action is very tight and I think I prefer the feel. In all fairness they both have their strong points and either one would be a good choice. I was hoping the CP5 wooden keyboard would really win me over and convince me to buy a CP 5 but either keyboard would be fine. Here are the differences between the CP5 and CP50.

CP 5 has Wooden keys
CP 5 has Mic input
CP 5 has 17 pianos 305 other (12 /215 CP50)
CP 5 has more 6 "Parts", CP 50 has 3 "Parts"
No Power amp or Compressor Block on CP50
Master EQ 5 band on CP5 (3 band on CP50)
XLR Balanced outs and input on CP5
CP 5 larger and heavier 55.4 lbs vs 46lbs.
Power cord on CP5, Power adapter on CP50

I have made a copy of the Voice list on the CP5 and noted which voices are not included on the CP50.
It's significant because some of the voices they left off the CP50 are important to me. (Hammonds, strings, basses, etc) Why couldn't they have left off the Ocarina or the Shamisen? I'm not sure if I can include a JPEG or DOC on this site. If anyone would like to see the list please let me know what is the best way to make it available.

Brooks, you mention your desire/need to have LH bass and layer sounds in the right hand (piano/strings etc). I can tell you (from asking an existing owner on the Keyboard Magazine forum) that this is NOT possible with the CP50, as you only have three internal "parts", one of which is the USB playback, by the look of the front panel. Therefore you can layer or split, but not both.

I've not had the opportunity to try the 50 but I did demo a CP5 at the start of this week. Goes to show how objective keybeds are, but I really fell in love with the feel of the CP5 and other issues apart, it more or less extinguished my interest in the 50. I have a CP5 on order and my RD700GX will stay set up in the studio.

As Aidan alluded to, this simple and common need is not something all the DPs can do, as even the ones that layer and split can't necessarily do both at once. Though I seem to remember playing a keyboard that had a single patch that was piano+strings, so even though that instrument technically could not split and layer at the same time, you could split to get the bass at the bottom, and for the top, pick the piano+strings sound to get the effect you want. So although you could not layer any two sounds you wanted on the top half of a split, it did have a "special case" exception for that particular sound.

Anyway, if you do choose to expand your search to other manufacturers, I think Roland and Kurzweil have models that do what you want. Nord doesn't make anything that has that kind of layer/split functionality. I'm pretty sure Korg pianos can't do it either (their workstations can, but I don't think they have the same quality piano sounds as the pianos).

Brooks, you might want to go over to the Player Forum and look at Vax 77 first impressions, by a writer who needs both piano and organ. Here's the link:

http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2217574/Vax77_first_impressions#Post2217574

Thanks again for the comments and help.
Aidan,
I just found out about the limitations of 3 "Parts" on the CP50 tonight. I went back to GC to get more familiar with both the CP5 and CP50. I the process I realized that having 3 Parts means either one layer with 2 voices or Left and Right split. You are right, you cannot layer and split on the CP50. The third "Part" is only for drums, audio WAV files or MIDI.
I was at GC to audition the missing sounds on the CP50. I wanted to see if there were any missing sounds on the CP50 that I just couldn't do without. I'm not sure that I can't live with them but some of the sounds they left out that I was disappoint with were: 4 Rhodes sounds, 10 Hammond sounds, the Jazz Bass sound as well as a good number of strings and pad sounds. There were a good deal more but they did not concern me. If it we're for the 3 Part limitation I was convinced I would rather have the CP50 but without the ability to split and layer I am having to take another look at the CP5. I still prefer the keyboard on the CP50. To my fingers it's tighter and more precise. I feel that I can play more powerful on it and dig in harder. The CP5 wooden keyboard is more sensitive, expressive and faster but to me feels like it's loose. Again, I'm sure I could be very happy with either board. The real issue is I did not want to spend $2700!
And I did not want to have a bigger, heavier keyboard for gigging.

Another Scott, Great idea about using the layer patch and split but I need control over the layered part. Ideally I would like to have the layer sounds on a foot pedal that I could bring in and swell as the song builds. For instance louder strings on the chorus. But having the volume control on the front panel at my fingers will work OK.

If layers and splits are a big issue you really should take a close look at a Kawai MP5 (or read a pdf of the manual) before you commit to something different - it'll at least illustrate how flexible a DP can be! You get 4 keyboard zones with their own hardware faders and on/off switches. They can be combined in any split/layer combination at all, and can be allocated to internal voices, external midi or both (again in any combination). You don't even need to call up a menu to set the keyboard range of a zone - you hold down the zone's on/off key for a second or two and it cues you to press the bottom and top keys of the range.

There must be other DP/controllers which do this kind of thing, but those requirements you're asking for above I've been taking for granted on my MP4 - I appreciate the reminder of how much less flexible many other keyboards are!

Sorry I posted my response to another area by mistake.
Jake, I don't know anything about the internal sound editing of the PX3 so I can't help there.

Good idea to use the String +piano patch and split but really I need to control the amount of the layer with a foot pedal. I'm checking today with Yamaha to see if one of the zones could be on a separate MIDI channel and be assigned a foot controller for volume.

Also found out that the CP50 with only 3 PARTS cannot do Split and Layer at the same time since PART 1 is assigned to MIDI or WAV files.