Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards THE RD-700NX Thread!

.

I couldn't care less, as MIDI playback does not influence the live piano playing experience (including string resonance) at all and it has been demonstrated many times already that the Kawai CA93/CA63 can quite uniquely be tweaked to the next level, way beyond its basic factory settings. Although the sound signature itself is arguably excellent (personal taste), Kawai should have spent more efforts developing their factory presets to the max i.m.h.o.



Ancient static layering without dynamic voicing is no good for making acoustic piano voices sound alive and therefore is not comparable at all (+sonic artifacts alert).



Let's reformulate: Roland SN is unable to perform dynamic layering with timbre matching and therefore its tweakability is unexpectedly limited compared to the Kawai CA93/CA63.



(Not really) sorry to disappoint you that I found a way for the Kawai CA93/CA63 to make any small remaining noticability of looping in the decay phase disappear and make its versatile piano timbres sound extremely dynamic.

For some of us MIDI playback is quite critical. So I take it that this hasn't been fixed in the various Kawai DPs?


I really don't think the fairly complete Roland SN piano designer is "unexpectedly limited".

Roland SN vs Kawai Ultra PHI (88 note sampling) vs Yamaha pure CFIIIS.

Techinical superiority?
Most Pleasing sound? (Debatable issue)
Long sustainance of notes?
The resonance and reverberations of the notes?


Brian

Hi Brian, here's a reference to some extensive discussions:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1407600/1.html

To come back to the PHAIII / PHAIII-S topic; I think it's typical of these times for manufacturers to be fuzzy in the communication of technical specifications. No matter if it's about TV's , cars, digital instruments or even software - they're excellent in creating their own unique- , non-existing terminology for many features of the products which makes it hard to compare specs with the competition, simultaneously creates a reality distortion field for the customers and furthermore they are champions in leaving out a lot of (critical) information.

IMHO if something is not mentioned in the specs and/or only described in vague terminology or in ways that are not sufficiently explained (PHAIII vs PHAIII-S anyone ?) than you have to be suspicious. As always assumption is...

For the rest I agree with an earlier post that even if the specs are the same (e.g. PHA-II on LX10, DP-PE or HP-PE series and on RD700GX) , than I'm sure they still cheat, because they really do NOT feel exactly the same. Perhaps they have different batches for different products that have to meet higher or lower standards in quality control, or they have a slightly different design or use of materials. Since the specs don't have to be evaluated by any authority , they can label it anything they want whenever they like. I'm sure keybeds sharing the same name will have a similar basic design, but their exact implementation may still vary between different instruments and price ranges.

Try before you buy was never more true...

If you read the specs carefully, you'll realize they don't have the same action: FP7 is "PHA II", while HP-207 and RD-700GX are "PHA II Ivory Feel with Escapement" (there is also a "PHA II with Escapement" iirc).


In the new generation even the FP-7F has escapement, so really the only question is "PHA III Ivory Feel with Escapement" versus "PHA III Ivory Feel-S with Escapement". And in their description, Roland is strongly implying that the difference is only in the key surface; I think it's safe to assume the actions are the same.


Amen to that!


I'm not sure about that: the manufacturers also want to keep the number of spare parts down, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to covertly use a dozen different implementations.

From brochure:

"Unfortunately the subtleties of piano can easily get lost in loud band mixes, but with Sound Focus you can inject stunning presence into the instrument, even in band settings, without sacrifi cing dynamics and sound quality."

If they're talking about presence, maybe it's also about EQ'ing sound to make it fit better in the mix? But honestly I'm almost sure that this is kind of low level compressor, but it doesn't compress output sound, only signals you send from the keyboard to the sound module, if they are too quiet; so you have louder quiet notes, but it doesn't compress loud notes.


Other thing: new 700NX doesn't have an arpeggiator, but I doubt anyone noticed it. Mainly because pros doesn't use it, but also they change the way specs look on purpose, so you have dig in a little to notice very small difference between GXF and NX.

yes there are little discrepancies between the GX/F and the NX. I also noticed this

NX:
Multi-Effects: 2 x 4 systems, 84 types
Reverb: 6 types
Chorus: 3 types
3-band Compressor
4-band Digital Equalizer

GX/F:
Multi-Effects: 2 x 4 systems, 124 types,
Reverb: 6 types,
Chorus: 3 types,
Sound Control: 3-band Compressor
4-band Digital Equalizer

Nearly identical exact for the fact that the GX/F has 40 more effect types! It seems to me that Roland has decided to rehash "older" products and streamline them. Hence the exclusion of any expansion capability, streamlined effects, and the same 242 rompler-age sounds included. The RD series has just experienced this "deja vu" type marketing and remember the VR-760? The VR-700 (V-Combo) is supposed to be the "newer" board, but it actually has less features! I believe that if you have a GX/F stick with it and if you don't.... get an NX, because Roland has clearly stated that this is it for awhile. So in a way that's cool because I particularly like the SN pianos and the SN EPs (with my extensive tweaking) has grown on me somewhat. I have been throwing around the idea of considering an NX, but I just have a problem with using an improved action and larger screen to justify tossing my GX/F and getting an NX.

Overall what they excluded from the NX, they replaced it with a better action and "that not mentioned at all in the product description", audio recorder I definitely would call it a solid buy (not for me, of course ) and a very heavy contender in the stage piano department.

Where has Roland "clearly stated" this? Thanks.

Obviously Roland didn't state that, but I'll just clarify what I mean. When Roland introduced the SuperNatural technology in 2008 they were slowly releasing it to the public in various products with the "original" RD700GX being one of them. It seems they were testing the market to see how the SN tech would be taken by the public. Then when Yamaha updated their CP lines with a "special" technique for creating AP's and EP's, Roland figured that if they wanted to stay in the race they better "upgrade" the GX withe SN expansion board or RD700GXF to show they too have a "special" technique for AP's......because they already displayed it for the EP's with the built in ARX-02 board. When Roland introduced the GX in 2008 they could have done this already, but there was no real pressure from other manufacturers because they were still using the same old sample and velocity level technique. So there it was the, the RD700GXF with SN AP's and SN EP's, however it was already 2 years since their last MAJOR stage piano upgrade (RD700SX to the RD700GX). Therefore, they released the NX with a couple of physical upgrade and EXCLUSIONS (not in sound technology, though) and now we have the current Roland stage piano for probably another 2 years.

Thats what I mean by "clearly stated". The NX is using the same shell and same technology because it is ultimately an original GX plus the SN AP board built in. I'm just getting down to the nitty gritty. Roland is saying that for their flagship digital stage pianos, this is it for awhile.

I understand your interpretation of Roland's activities but I'm not sure I agree. Your assumption that they have sat on SN for acoustic piano sounds until a competitor found another technology is just that; an assumption. I personally disagree. Information has been posted on here about the evolution of the SN technology, which has been in the pipeline essentially since 1986.

I am also of the opinion that the Yamaha SCM system is much more about marketing jargon than new technology...the results achievable with SCM - so far seen in the new CP series - are no better than with a decent conventional sample playback hardware DP. SN on the other hand moves the game along very considerably.

I don't see any reason to suppose that the RD700 NX will be "it" for a while for Roland; the physical form is ageing and the RD700 tag will soon be ripe for replacement.

Just my opinion.

Steve

The Roland briefing to dealers in the Benelux indicated that both the NX and FP7F will be around in their current incarnation for at least two years.

That sounds reasonable to me. They worked on both sufficiently to hold them a couple of years.

I wonder if they got rid of the other non-SN AP voices? If so, perhaps they were then able to move the AP-centric in-line effects over to the SN piano designer?

100% wishful thinking.

Is anyone else more interested in a V-Piano light than the NX? In form factor, weight, and price? I think I am...or perhaps some more economical hybrid of the GXF and the V-Piano.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Thank's for backing me up on my hunch!

No, I don't think it worked that way. SN technology has been around for more than 10 years. Roland first applied it to drums and then I think brass instruments and then later to electric pianos and most recently to acoustic pianos. So this has been in the works for a long time. I think they applied it where the payoff would be best first.

A lot of this is also driven by the price of small computers. This is why everyone has about the same advances at about the same time. Most companies could make MUCH better digital pianos or much better software pianos if faster computers were available at the consumer price point.

Apart from the Keyboard and screen the NX actually offers LESS then the RD700GXF (it sound the same to my ears ... the keyboard and screen is nicer though).

No Arpeggios
Less SN voices
Less effects

Roland must think less = more ?

They're not the only ones.

James
x