Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Your opinion on Kawai CA 93

I have 2 questions :

(1) Soundboard - How does the soundboard play a part in producing the sound ? The sound is either projected via the soundboard OR the speakers, I would have thought.

(2) Double escapement - I read the brochure and it says CA 93 has double escapement features. Has anyone had any hands on experience on this particular feature of CA 93 ?

(1) You can read all details about how the soundboard works together with the 6-speaker system by downloading the patent in PDF format here:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=BqzNAAAAEBAJ&dq=US7678988

(2) Didn't read the brochure you're referring to, but I can say that escapement implementation of the/my CA93 is quite subtle (not too heavy) and can be helpful during pianissimo playing. And there's more going: action is great, as you don't need to depress (or release) keys fully to get a sound, hitting harder but shallow (impact) also works...

I'm lost in the maze. There are just too many patents, and I don't know what is the appropriate description for CA93 patent. I missed KawaiJames...:)

As for the double escapement, are you able to do the fast repetition like a grand ?

I would really like to know the sequence of sound production.

Does the soundboard resonate before the speaker or vice versa ?

And without strings and hammers, what would have caused the soundboard to resonate ?

Cashley, the soundboard and speakers work together in unison.

Low frequency sounds are fed to an actuator attached to the soundboard, which causes it to vibrate, creating sound.

The image below shows the actuator utilised by the GP AnyTimeX system in order to transmit digital audio back onto the piano's acoustic soundboard.



The CA93 soundboard speaker system is based largely on the same principal.

Kind regards,
James
x

The appropriate description is Musical Tone Apparatus, Kawai Musical Instruments Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Hamamatsu-shi, JP), Publication date 16 March 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7678988.
And alternatively you can simply find the PDF-file here (in case the other link doesn't work):
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7678988.html



As I'm not Vladimir Horowitz (for several reasons and because my face is not my passport), my repetition rate is probably not as fast as my CA93's, so I have no limits
You'd better test for yourself; arguably this is the best DP action available (at a fair price).

Thanks, James.

Does that mean the soundboard is only relevant to the low bass ?

Figure 6. in sheet 6 of 8 of the abovementioned patent indicates that the soundboard is also relevant for the mid-high bass range: a cross-over frequency of 180Hz is given in case there is an opening/port towards the front of the cabinet (below the keyboard), which is the case with the CA93, as far as I can tell (haven't removed the black cover material).

Actual soundboard and 6-speaker implementation in the new CA93 may vary though, due to evolutionary developments since it's first introduction in the CA91 and then CA111. I'm not sure whether James (who's probably sleeping in Japan as we speak) would be allowed to go into detail here...

For a comparison of the CA93 to other similar cabinet style pianos, see this thread:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1415632/1.html

I'll also quickly add some additional thoughts on the CA93s sound board. Thought I do play with headphones some of the time, I greatly perfer playing with the CA93s full speaker system. Everything sounds better. Through headpones - good senn HD595s too - everything still sounds very thin and unnatural. During the day when I can turn up the CA93, I find the speaker sound much more dense and weighty.

After two days with my CA93, the soundboard makes a very good effect but it is not something I really notice when playing. You must be able to play at almost full volume in order to appreciate it. It is however very welcome.

Regarding the letoff simulation, it is a simulation. IMHO it adds a very nice feeling to the keyboard, and it made me lean towards the CA93 in place of the CA63. I'm used to keyboards with letoff and I did really feel the difference.

But that mechanism doesn't seem to influence repetition rate as it is a simulation. For instance, repetition rate in Roland's PHAIII is better than the Kawai. Of course note that PHAIII has some shortcomings to RM3, I prefer RM3 despite PHAIII being superior in repetition rate. (If you wonder, the main reason was wooden keys and that PHAIII was quite "clicky")

My guess is that you still need to finetune the optimal placement of your CA93; moving it around over let's say a few inches acts like operating a kind of surround sound equalizer: this way you can for instance maximise (or minimise) the effect of the soundboard.

Is this something you noticed already when you were shopping and auditioning instruments or did this become clear only after you had bought the piano and had it at home?

This is one reason why I would still be leaning towards a Kawai K3 ATX hybrid piano. When playing without headphones there is no doubt that the soundboard is being used to project the sound of every single string and the sound is 100% that of an acoustic piano with the characteristic Kawai sound and fast, responsive Millenium III action.


The relative quietness of the RM3 is a definite plus point.
When you say it is just a simulation, what exactly is it simulating if it doesn't provide for double escapement / faster repetition?

Well, everybody can have its own opinion, but I have developed all those dual layer CA93/CA63 custom presets alternating between my CA93 live and my HD595 headphones, so this must be a relative observation (or defective headphones/cables/wrong high-low amp setting), as there has been a lot of positive feedback: of course I also prefer playing live with the fat sounding soundboard and live acoustics (up to a maximum of just over half volume, as this is already thunderous acoustic grand level), but the sound over these headphones is very good, as far as headphones listening can be 'natural' in case of a piano.

If you need a sound that's even slightly more high-end and you prefer Sennheiser, then go for e.g. the HD650; it has been reported many times that the CA93/CA63 can also handle these kinds of high-impedance headphones very well.

Could someone please explain this to me. I read in some other thread that the bounce-back of the keys in the RM3 was better than in the PHAIII, if that's the case, shouldn't the RM3 be better for fast repetition of the same key?

For better bounce I mean the sensation of playing tremolos (like in Beethoven pathetique) is better, as I feel that the action on the RM3 "accompanies" more the swingy movement of the wrist. That may be a particularity of my technique.

On the other hand, PHAIII allows you to repeat a note with the key being lower, so this improves repetition rate. I didn't actually measure the return time.

Of course you should play them and find out what action do you like better, both are great!

Regarding question 1) if the soundboard makes a difference...

I have some experience from shopping for a DP:

Comparing CA93 vs. CA63 Some say they can not hear a difference between both [1]. I can _not_ understand how one can not hear that dramatic difference (which it is for me and my wife). The CA93 is much more alive to my ears, with more authority, wile the CA63 sounds in omparsion pretty thin, even somewhat 'tinny' without any considerable bass or fullness like a real piano has

If one looks at the area of the woofers of the CA63 and of the woofers _and_ soundboard of CA93 I can imagine that no real ("loud enough") bass can come from the CA63. A subwoofer would most likely be a big plus. But hearing _tells_ the big difference in real world.

In addition to playing the piano we also tested playing a well known recording (with music and speech) on both the CA63 and CA93 and it took about some seconds only for my wife to say that the comparison is "enough", because the difference turned out to be so dramatic. Before our tests in the shop she opted to think about the CA63 because of the price, but it was a no-brainer when hearing the difference in sound.

IMO most DP have a much to weak speaker system which is heard after playing a few notes. The CA93 is still not a real replacement for a piano IMO, but is _much_ closer then most other DPs we tested. Alone the Avant Grand N-2 we heard a short moment also sounded really full and good, but the price is quite too high for a DP in our opinion. Because of the price we did not take more then a minute to hear the Avant N-2.

TADutchman posted a link to the patent for the soundboard where a plot shows the frequency response drops pretty fast below 50Hz, but at least 50 Hz are fully covered by the soundboard, while the lowest note on a piano is around 27 Hz, so (if this patent also refers to the CA93) the lowest octave can not be accurately reproduced even by the CA93 (except when the digital EQing would push the lowest freuqency at the expense of maximum loudness). I guess that the CA63 drops off below 100 Hz or even higher... When we get the CA93 (we ordered now) I'll measure the frequence response of the piano with a calibrated mic. Very curious to see the results. DP manufacturers should publish a frequence range the pianos offer. This would allow to get a first idea about the capabilities regarding the speaker system.

In conclusion I think a soundboard added speaker system is an idea which can be very interesting for a DP. I have thought about options of a speaker array and a subwoofer to mimic a piano sound -- if I would have to build a DP on my own -- and a speaker array giving the frequency repsonse and spatial direction mimicing a piano / grand is not trivial I'm pretty sure. So as a real piano or grand also uses a soundboard it seems like a natural idea to me to adapt this concept, especially for the low frequency range. I'm interested to see how the technology will evolve in this apsect.


[1] I surely understand when one does not want / can pay the higher price for the CA93, maybe because the DP will be played mostly through headphones. But I wonder how one can play an instrument and not notice the _really_ big difference in sound between CA63 and CA93

BTW, we made a little experiment and found that even through a low quality youtube video (prepared by a dealer from Leeds) you'll notice the difference between the CA63, CA93, a real grand or a real piano when recorded under similar conditions. Can I post a link here to the videos? To hear this for yourself is quite interesting IMO

Well, there is a big difference (not only because of the soundboard, but also because of the 6 speaker arrangement), but in case people keep the volume very low, the perceived difference is probably small in a noisy music store environment, as the sound signature of the samples is the same.

I got a chance to play the 93, 63 and the new CS3 for the first time the other day. These things are pretty cool.

I traded in a '97 Yamaha Gran Touch GT-2 in December to this music store; I still have a credit from that burning a hole in my pocket. I was going to apply the store credit to the Korg Kronos but I'm having second thought as my wife wants to fill the hole in our living room from the departed Yamaha with a plant or something.
She said she does miss having "a piano" of some sort in the house ; even if it means listeneing to me hacking through Chopin Etudes for the millionth time ...

If it were up to me, I'd get a CP1 and some monitors, at least it could pull occasional double duty for gigs, but she's definitely not into the "stage piano on a stand hooked up to studio monitors" look. She saw pics of all three of the Kawais and would be fine with any of them, she liked the CS3 the best.

It was a little hard to tell the difference in sound between the 93 & 63 as they were in different rooms. The 63 I think sounded a little fuller then the CS3 which was right next to it. The wood keys felt better then the faux wood materiel on the CS3 too.

In any case, I think any of these models would sound much better in our living room then the store. They all were on low nap industrial carpeting and up against a brick wall.
The 93 was in a small office with a short 3' stucco wall at the base and the rest of the wall to the ceiling was glass; so less then ideal acoustics for sound.

We have a raised foundation and hardwood floors with a fairly high ceiling and old plaster walls. I used to have my Yamaha S6 in there and it sounded like the voice of God !
The GT-2 sounded very good in there too, even with its somewhat funky, outdated speakers.

I did prefer the sound on all three with my 240s to their speakers systems but again at my house it might be a different story. I did notice on the "Mellow Grand" sound on the 63 up on the high E & Eb, a sharp, harshness in the attack that wasn't there on the 93. Maybe the improved speaker system smoothed things out.

I'll be making another trip on Saturday with my wife to play again and let her see the choices up close. I'd might wait till he gets in the CS6; he said it might be a few weeks.

Overall I'm still on the fence with these things; not sure I wanna spend the money when they're not totally knocking me out--at least the first time.

On one hand, they're a steal compared to what any of the Avant Grands are going for. Also the action and sound are nice enough where you could certainly get to some semi- serious practicing and recording. Maybe I'm not used to the sound but it just didn't have the same immediate response and clarity as my CP5. I they're guess more mellow and maybe better suited for Classical playing. After a month I might prefer them to the Yamaha, who knows...