Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Promised to write a review of my new instrument:N1

@EssBrace: that confuses me a bit . When I talked about the product it was in the mathematical sense requesting two part to be multiplied. What you mean is, the hammer speed only is re-produced by the transducer? Then it is different to DP and may be more similar to what is used on the silent systems. Of course the thing with the recording at the hammer contact to the simulated string for the alpha (what is my interpretation) requires something different then what is used on a DP. But never it is the energy measured. I hope it is right what I interpret and thanks for explaining me about the type of measurement that happens on the alpha. I confirm, it is not ground breaking, but a further variant of creating some mechanic-electrical system to find out the characteristics of key motion. All that are very interesting constructions for high end DPs. Experience will decide only what is better, but never better then an acoustic piano at the same price, as long trials are done to simulate the (d)efficiency of an acoustic piano.

I've read the FAQs and here is what they briefly say:

"The hammers do not strike the usual two or three strings, but rather pressure sensors that were specially designed for the ALPHA Piano. They represent an entirely novel form of measuring the hammer's strike energy.

These sensors involve plates that are equipped with pressure/force transducers. What is decisive for the playing feeling is the fact that these sensors behave like piano strings. Using them, the impact force and the resistance at the point of impact are determined. It works like a traditional grand piano, in which the force of the hammer head's impact determines the volume."

I hope it explains.

Yes I get all that but while their methodology is different what they are really measuring is the speed of the hammers. Or perhaps I should say the result would be the same anyway. A faster hammer strikes the string(s) harder. And that means a louder tone. Or am I missing something?

The result would be the same or at least very similar. That is also what I think but I know so little about the physics. My guess is that measuring and calculating the weight is a lot easier and more accurate. And the action has real hammer heads which means the ultimate feel of a concert grand action.

What can Dewster explain about this technology?

I believe "strike energy" would be a function of both the speed and the mass of the hammer as it strikes the sensor, to start with. And also (possibly) the density of the hammer, come to think of it.

The VSL Bosendorfer sample set is very large. The Alpha FAQ describes it as "1200 samples at 100 different dynamic levels for each of the 97 keys."

Alpha also claim to be maintaining 3000 levels of dynamic resolution internally, so they appear to be up to something more complicated than just mapping hammer speed to the usual velocity-layer sample set. (I realize there's a discussion to be had as to the limits in human perception of differences in velocity.)

I'm curious to hear some demo material.

B.

I don't see any advantage in computing strike energy vs. using velocity. For any given action construction, the two are directly related. Measure velocity and you know the energy. It's easy to measure the velocity, so that's what's done in most pianos.

So, essbrace ... no, you're not missing anything at all.

As for this:Quoting sales literature is like quoting political candidates. Either way, expect little more than bull crap.

In this case, the underlying statements (about transducers) may be true, but in the end it matters little. I prefer to judge a piano by playing, not by reading marketing spewage.

May I ask who you'll be voting for Mac?

James
x

Holding hammer mass and density constant, strike energy should be a simple function of velocity. But these guys claim to be using an actual grand piano action (felt hammers, etc.), so neither of those two other factors can be assumed to be constant (as is implicitly assumed in most DPs). For that reason there may be some advantage in sensing strike energy vs. velocity.


Agreed.

B.

It is evident that pressure transducers are used. So in fact - after all this discussion - I expect the measured signal is force versus time [Ns], while the kinetic energy of the hammer is Nm or kgm²/s². If there is a stiffness of the string simulated, which is then a static model of the string - inertia and string vibrations neglected - the force can be related to some displacement. So in principle energy could be calculated, but I rather guess this is all some marketing blabla with 50% physical content.

So I agree too, lets play. Who is gonna be the first to buy ? Not me!

Indeed they can change the tone as the hammers harden. Just like an acoustic. Bet they don't though?

Admittedly, we're just speculating about how this thing works. But the idea of using an actual piano action coupled to pressure sensors raises some weird questions. Will it be possible to voice an Alpha Piano the way you do an acoustic instrument (with needles, sanding, etc.)? Would such a connection between the action and the sensors create a unique sound for each individual instrument? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Fundamentally, the output of the sensors is still used to select from among a finite (although large) set of sampled sounds, right? So is there anything to be gained creatively from creating a less deterministic connection between the physical action and the samples?

To me this idea of using pressure sensors again raises the philosophical question about how far DP manufacturers ought to go in trying to replicate each and every idiosyncrasy of the acoustic piano.

B.

Voicing of hammers is already possible/available on DP's (Roland comes to mind, maybe others?).

Perhaps some day they will even include a 'Prepared Piano' preset with different objects to choose for XX-Century repertoire, like they already have a de-tuned piano?

On a more serious note, it would be interesting if not so far into the future DP developers start experimenting and possibly create a new instrument in its own right, kind of a Wurlitzer of the digital era. And yes, I'm aware there is such a thing called a synthesizer, but I'm talking about something more specific.

The idea behind these digital piano will always be an oxymoron, anyways. And as far as I know, all major players have these kind of thing built into their machines (damper, voicing of hammers, etc.)

Sort of. With respect to Roland's so-called Piano Designer functionality, you can adjust what they call "hammer noise" globally but not for individual notes, I believe. I don't know about other DPs.

I suppose the output of the sensors (simple hammer velocity, or whatever else) could be used to decide what kinds of signal processing to apply to individual samples, but that would imply a DSP signal path for every note up to maximum polyphony.

I'm assuming current instruments don't do that, correct?

B.

I requested the test from other AG owners but maybe this is not an interesting subject.

Anyway I did the test again to my N1 and it surprisingly passed it. The reason that it didn't pass earlier is that I expected exactly the same response like I do on the C1. The N1 simulates the double escapement but it's more difficult to achieve than on the C1. On the N1, I have to realease the key very carefully and higher than I do on the C1. That's why N1 requires a little more practise for the repetitions (which is actually very good for practising reasons)By the way, about 5 days ago, I tried a Celviano ap220, it has the double escapement effect but it's way too easy to achieve than on a grand piano. So you maybe tricked when you practice and may not achive the same response on a grand. So not a very beneficial practise tool for the repetitions.

My appologies for any inconvenience about the wrong results of my first test.

Yesterday and the day before I played the Gershwin Rhapsodie In Blue on a beautiful Steinway D. After practising on the N1, the fast repetition section of the piece was easier to achive on the Steinway D.

Ozgur: Good news!

I don't know whether you looked closely at the test procedure (in that other post I referred to), but I said to release the key to a point just before the note is damped. If you do that carefully, you will be able to reliably determine whether it has double-escapement or not. Of course, once you determine that it does have double-escapement, it's then a matter of determining how much key travel's worth of double-escapement you have.

It'd be interesting to know how much difference you perceive between different acoustic pianos - for example, do real pianos differ by the same amount that you are experiencing between digital and acoustic?

Greg.

Hello Greg,

Do not kill me. I may have just made a world record of the "longest time to reply someone" But actually I was just going to write something new about N1

This is to break the record: Acoustic grand pianos do not differ much, their feel of double escapement is almost identical. But some digital pianos have much easier escapements to achieve and they may decieve a pianist, not good...

I have just discovered a very odd thing on my N1 (after two years). I was just trying to find the first escapement on "the second octave C" although I was sure that the first escapment does not exist on the N1. For no reason I just wanted to try again. On a grand piano, the first escapement is not very easy to notice, you need press very slowly until you feel a resistance. Well, I was trying the same thing but could not find the first escapement and I reached the second escapement. After waiting there a couple of seconds, I pressed the key until the end...AND... well there you go, I heard the key sound just like on a regular grand!!! To be exact: N1 played off the jack first time! This is so odd guys...Because to achieve it, I have to press the key so slowly that I may fall asleep and when I reach the second escapement, I play until the end, I hear the effect...More surprisingly I could not achieve it in all keys. Some of them do, some of them don't.

And lastly, I bought mine about $6630, now a brand new N1 costs $10.000! Do you have any facts or ideas about this huge jump on the price? I suspect that they upgraded the instrument with the same name. What do you think?

One expects the price to start dropping after 4 years in the market. Does this mean that there is no NX1 in the works?