Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Obfuscation or preparation? Yamaha's new DPs unveiled

I've just picked up Yamaha's new glossy brochure on their DP range, and it is instructive to compare it with the previous one. The CVP and CGP range are unchanged, but the term 'Pure CF Sampling' has been replaced by 'Pure CF Sound Engine'. And the new CLP range (CLP-430/440/465/470/480 and CLP-S406/408) have RGE (Real Grand Expression) Sound Engine: to quote - 'The grand piano Voices of a Clavinova were obtained by recording the sounds of a Yamaha concert grand piano that led to the creation of the CFX, the piano selected for a performance by the 2010 winner of the famed International Frederick Chopin Piano Competition. A single piano best suited for recording was selected and then tuned to the finest possible condition by a veteran piano tuner. All the sounds were recorded resulting in a sound that displays not only the beauty of each note, but the harmonized sound of a single piano.'

Interesting choice of words there - the term 'sampling' is nowhere to be found, unlike in the previous brochure. It seems to have been banished from Yamaha's lexicon. (Is that due to Roland's influence ? ) And in the text for the 'CF Sound Engine', it doesn't mention the CF-IIIS at all, whereas in the old brochure it kept popping up. Is the new CLP range sampled from an actual CFX, or from a CF-IIIS that has been modified - or from an 'intermediate', unnamed piano?

I took the opportunity to play the CLP-470 and 480: the sound is certainly slightly different to that of the CVPs, but to my mind, it's still not quite the CFX sound I remembered from playing it a short while ago. Interestingly, the notice that was on top of the AvantGrand N1 (which I saw there about two weeks ago) which stated proudly that it's 'sampled from the Yamaha Concert Grand CF-IIIS' has been removed. Has the word gone around to all Yamaha dealers that the CF-IIIS (and 'sampled') is now persona non grata?

Maybe they sampled a V-Piano with the special 'Yamaha CFX' preset?

Seriously though, I think you're reading a little too much into a paragraph or two of brochure text.

... rich Corinthian leather

You have to give those poor guys in advertising some credit. They have to keep coming up with new, impressive sounding phrases to describe the same old sound. It's not an easy job.

... and on an even lighter note, I recently stumbled onto an advertising campaign that was new to me. There are many from which to choose, here's one ...

My job isn't in advertising or media or public stuff, but I know enough of how these things work - when a word (or a piano) gets banished from a company's literature, it's usually because something is in the pipeline that they're preparing their customers for. I think it's very likely that the next brochure will have the CFX mentioned liberally, because all their DPs will by then be based on it. And modelling might be in the cards too (like Roland's SN series).......

No



Yes and no... later CFIIIs slabs had a slightly different bridge design then earlier ones ..... but they were sold as the CFIIIs



Not really but a further extension of the new direction in bridge design was fully applied to the new CF range.

Yamaha offer the clearest statement when saying "the piano that led to the CFX" ...as clear as mud but technically correct.

CLP400's with RGE will sound different to CVP500's or CLP300's due to the deep layering and modeling aspects brought over from the C1 stage piano. In pieces with sudden and complex velocity changes the RGE board will outperform the older boards.

I doubt that Roland's modeling technology (only available on the highly flawed and expensive V-piano models) has made the slightest dent on Yamaha's range or development planning. Roland's Supernatural technology however (which is a combination of modeling behaviors and sample based sounds from a Steinway D) is a different story.... hence the RGE developments which is a similar technolongy.

As I read the statement, it says that the Clavinova voices were NOT taken from the CFX.
They were take from a piano that LED TO the creation of the CFX.

That's like glorifying a car by saying that it was once parked next to a Ferrari.Is that the best they can say about their product?

Do you know if the Steinway D that is purportedly in the Supernatural Roland Concert Grand is a Hamburg (that'd be my guess)? Where did you hear that the piano used by Roland was a Steinway D? I'd like to dig deeper into that information, but I've never seen anything official on this point. Finally, any idea what the Studio Grand acoustic source is? I don't think it's a Steinway. The bass section is very clearly a shorter grand -- maybe a 6.5 foot piano -- and it might pass for a Steinway. But the treble seems distinctly unlike a New York Steinway. It has a straightforward clean tone -- possibly like a Bosendorfer, though I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a chance to play a good Bosendorfer for any length of time.

Is Yamaha trying to tell the truth and yet make a mundane piano seem great?

G

Perhaps I'm misreading your post, but I don't see Yamaha's RGE as technically similar Roland's SuperNATURAL.

I tested the Yamaha CLP-440 (which employs RGE) and it is audibly looped and stretched. I can hear a timbre change in the transition from attack sample to loop sample that is distracting. RGE might (?) have more layers than Yamaha's previous stuff, and there's that key release velocity thing which seems to be new and different, but I don't find any evidence of modeling going on, at least not on the level of SN.

IMO RGE is "Pure CF Sampling" (ala the CP1/5/50) with variable note release damping, maybe another layer, and that's about it. Same old heavy stretching (30 groups covering 88 notes) with attack & loop samples that are really just too short for the high end of their DP console line.

All the terms they use "CF-IIIS", CFX, Pure CF Sampling are all completely meaningless made-up words. Why don't that just name them "Mary, Joe, Bob and Alice". It would be just as descriptive and easier to remember. It seems that all of the digital piano makers go out of their way to say nothing

dewster, don't forget that you 'only' tested the lower specification CLP-440. It could be that the more advanced technology Dr P is referring to has been reserved for the higher-end CLP-470/CLP-480 models.

Cheers,
James
x

Marketing.
Doesn't it get you all excited! Mary, Joe, Bob, and Alice?
How about Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe?

Sure, but wouldn't that make the RGE moniker completely meaningless?

Here is a comparison of the 480, 470, & 440 from the US Yamaha site: LINK. Everything under the "Voices | Tone Generation" section is exactly the same for all three models.

Yes, the Roland V-Piano does model both the American Steinway "D" as well as the European Bosendorfer. Listen to Scott Tibbs, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ewq6NgYpxA

He plays a piece with the Bosendorfer preset.

I agree with you - the sound samples on all the RGE DPs are the same. I only tried the high end 470 & 480 (didn't see any point in playing the lower-end models) but noticed all the 'attributes' of pure sampling in them, nothing to indicate any modeling going on.

Incidentally, I don't understand why Yamaha still doesn't incorporate the 'let-off' or 'escapement feel' that Roland, Kawai and other brands have on their high-end DPs, when they've taken the trouble to have the keyweights graded. Unless somebody knows something different, the only way to get the let-off feel in a Yamaha DP is to buy one of the AvantGrands, yet that's the first difference (probably the only difference) a casual punter - especially a beginner pianist - would notice between the feel of a non-AG Yamaha DP compared to that of a real grand. The graded keyweights seems totally pointless when it's far less obvious when playing than the way the key goes down when pressed.

I feel the opposite. I think the grading is slightly important.

And I think the absence of let-off is a benefit, not a shortcoming.

Rather than have digital pianos emulate the let-off feel of an acoustic, I think an acoustic should eliminate the let-off feel entirely. That's probably not possible, so that much is moot.

But I don't think the let-off feel is a benefit.

In an ideal world, all acoustics will have light keyweights and totally smooth key strike, slightly shallower travel than that of modern pianos (to facilitate fast runs, repeated notes and glissandi, especially of the one-handed octave variety as in Brahms's Paganini Variations) and no grading of keyweights. In fact, a bit like early grand pianos c1820, before Liszt & co. got in on the act and demanded more, much more power because they were the XFactor stars....

Grading of keyweight is an artifact of the acoustic key-hammer mechanism (as is the let-off feel), and the prestige manufacturers strive to minimize the difference. Emulating one but not the other flaw inherent in an acoustic grand is like being half a vegetarian (is that called an ovo-lacto vegetarian? )

Thanks for that first-hand feedback!


Shallower travel is one I haven't heard but it makes sense. And perhaps add to this list somewhat narrower keys to help smaller hands (as the majority of piano players don't have huge male concert performance hands) stretch farther.

But none of the physical key feel emulations (hammer action, let-off, grading) mean terribly much if the overall product is obviously not up-to-snuff in some way. The AG and the high end Clavinovas are marketed as no compromise products, but the reality is far from that sound-wise. It's been said that a sucker is born every minute, but how long can Yamaha's DP division trade on the good name and reputation of their AP division before their overall cred is tarnished beyond repair?

For as long as the competition does likewise ...
. . . How long can Yamaha's DP division trade on the good name and reputation of their AP division before their overall cred is tarnished beyond repair?

They have no competition ..... they can do whatever they like ...