Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Physis Piano

It may be years before it is as good as it can possibly be. The question would be, i think, whether it is currently something a reasonable percentage of potential customers may prefer to the V-Piano. Once it crosses that threshold, that's when I'd say it sounds good enough to ship. The big question is whether or not it has crossed that threshold!

That is indeed the big question!

As a user of Physis, I would like to clarify (my opinion) that the piano was already great "sound wise" with version 1.0 and that these regular software upgrades are to be considered clearly as a bonus. The new version is not about fixing bugs but optimizing sounds preset or improving the user interface. The company have probably focused more on the basic Accustic Piano sound preset in the first version, making available a large library of different sound family (from organ, violin, brass, clavinet, vibraphone....) that I think can be optimized or at the moment need to be edited for slight changes and saved in Physis memory. I have contacted Viscount "after sales" team and provided some personal suggestions or desiderata on ways to make the instrument more user friendly (particularly for live playing, based on my long experience with Stage piano). From the first feedbacks I received, I am getting the perception that this small company is very reactive and collaborative and I just wanted to highlight in this forum, for who is interested, or just curious about the technology or may be considering purchasing this new instrument, that the technology seems flexible enough to allow regular update through easy software download. I understand that Viscount will release regular update with new or modified sound preset. This is I think a great value added for Physical modelling based technology compared to what typical sampling based piano brand is offering today. Hopefully this should further extend the life and the value of this outstanding keyboard.

You say that like it would be a bad thing.


Bugs are perhaps somewhat less embarrassing in conventional SW where the install/uninstall process is fairly painless, but firmware bugs are often there forever - few people have the expertise to update firmware, and many of those who do are fearful of bricking.

The reason we have so many bugs is sloppy programmers, sloppy QA, and management with their false deadlines and time-to-market nonsense. Funny how there's never any time to do it right the first time, but plenty of time to fix bugs post release, after the whole world has incrementally lost confidence in the company and their entire product line. First to market is no panacea, someone can always come along later and eat your lunch by doing it better (/faster/cheaper with slave labor).

Point taken! And I guess almost everyone would be using Macs. ;-)


Again, since most complex software is never completely bug free, and also because companies need to be able to sell something, it's a matter of reaching a threshold of "useful enough to ship" as opposed to "perfect." Also, a lot of bugs aren't even known when things are shipped. And a lot of bugs are never fixed. (Hello, Studiologic!) So it's not simply a matter of "no time before, and plenty of time after."

Most? Make that all and you're there. Seriously though, beyond certain complexity level, any software will contain bugs regardless of how much time you spend testing it. If it's not the program you wrote, it may be the libraries and other chunks of code somebody else may have written... I know -- I have been doing that for a living for years. So, from now on, every time you hear someone say their software is completely bug-free, you may put on a big wide smile because you know better. After all -- the disclaimer saying the given company is "not responsible for any loss of profit or damage as a result of using the software" is there for a reason.

And just for the record -- I am quite certain that software running on the Physis computing signals and waveforms on the fly and taking on input many variables does qualify as "complex enough."

Well, getting back to the topic.... PHYSIS!
Here is a new offer from Thomann. The Physis Piano PLUS. All I can tell is that the pedals are included. Or do you see a difference?
Whatever... it's a piece of art, no matter what is ranted here. If only it weren't so expensive I'd go for it.

You say that like it would be a good thing.

I guess I'm struggling on multiple fronts with what to do now that XP is shuffling out the door. If any software should emphatically not be proprietary it's operating systems. Some day we'll all be on Linux, and the sooner the better.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? You won't buy it at the price it is.

How many people are prepared to move heaven and earth, if necessary, to raise the 3,500+ euros to purchase it? It would surely have to be so good in reality that people would overlook its provenance, its lack of track record, its somewhat deficient early demos, etc. However, if it were priced to compete with existing stage pianos, I believe there would be more risk-takers.

New technology / early adapters = always premium price and uncertainty.

When you're in front of the line of buyers with some completely new developed product , you always subsidies the R&D and swallow all the potential bugs and design mistakes to pave the way for the more cautious buyers who wait for version 2 or 3 and a lowering of the price when the initial R&D costs have been earned back.

Thats always how it works. Only very big and wealthy corporations can introduce new products for a bargain price by subsidizing and taking a loss as long as they can penetrate the market and extend their market share. Hello Microsoft, Sony and alike...

At least by providing regular improvements and fixes through updates they seem serious in making this thing work for the first buyers. That's also the big advantage of a software (algorithm ) based instruments. It's far easier to continue developing the concept - as opposed to fixed samples in ROM. That's how all software companies work. In fact the Physis is more like a software instrument than a hardware synth. Korg Kronos is something similar (Linux kernel).

Last note: with all the Kurzweils I had, I performed so many OS updates I lost count. It never hung, or bricked the machine(s) as suggested here. Just provided me with more nice features , sounds and/or bug fixes (most often even handn't noticed the bug in the first place). I regard that as service to the customer, not a basically flawed business model.

Following on from my previous post, I think Casio offers a classic example of how to approach the market. Until the turn of the century, Casio had a reputation of being an efficient calculator and toy instrument maker (oversimplification, but you get the point). Then they introduced the Privia range at ultra-reasonable prices, and started to improve their standing in the domestic/educational market, as well as gaining a toehold in the stage arena. At this stage, people were still skeptical (look back at posts and reviews from the early 2000s), but those who were prepared to brave the sidelong glances, giggles and taunts knew that they were getting one heck of a deal.

Fast-forward a few years, and the latest Casios are being compared favorably with pianos that cost twice as much, and many pro players are placing orders for the PX-5S. At $999, it's a bargain, along with the PX-350 at $800 - but consider that my PX-310 cost less than $400 in 2006, and, despite a major recession, Casio has doubled the price of their equivalent product in seven years. That's the product of realism and a firm commitment to raising their own bar.

Now I'm not suggesting that Viscount should offer the Physis for a few hundred. But I am saying that a company with little in the way of a track record needs to consider the market, start with a realistic view of pricing based on their current standing, and then, as their stock appreciates, take advantage of the goodwill they've generated.

This, of course, is a personal view based on nothing more than observing the keyboard industry over time. I am no expert at anything to do with sales or marketing, and Viscount could well prove me totally wrong - and good luck to them in that case.

I agree, but I'm sure they just don't have deep enough pockets to sell it cheap and take a loss for a while. It's the chicken and egg story. They choose the chicken and went for the price that will pocket some money back now on each purchase and take the gamble there will be enough units sold to cover some of the cost.

No bank is eager at this moment to lend them the money to aggressively penetrate the market by selling at a loss to get units moved to the customer. Sorry banking crisis / 10 years ago ...maybe ...

That's true. But most people are only willing to do that if it truly gives them something new that they can't achieve any other way. Ask yourself how much a Studiologic controller (with the same action as the Physis) plus a laptop with Pianoteq would cost versus the Physis.


Again, true. But how many small companies can afford to price themselves out of the market?


The commitment to updates is certainly welcome and reassuring. But again, if you want a software-based piano with lots of extra goodies, try the Korg Krome at $1,599. (Edit: of course the Krome is still a sample-based instrument, so not a great analogy.)

I guess I'm a glass half empty guy when it comes to embedded firmware churn. Honestly, fixing bugs is the very least they can do. I'd also like a sincere apology for my aggravation and some money for my wasted time. We've all become too complacent when it comes to lax software development.

A bit more on-topic: the inclination with a new product line is to go for the jugular with a sky's-the-limit kitchen sink flagship and blow everyone away. But my god you have to really over deliver when taking that approach. At this point I wouldn't recommend it for something based on pure AP modeling - even if you 100% nail it (unlikely) there will be a substantial group of "it sounds fake" detractors, if only due to listener bias. I wish the Physis project the best.

I consider myself as a new user in this forum and I must say that I am really surprised how a new musical instrument introduction could generate such a broad discussion. I am still a little frustrated that this forum doesn't look (yet) at the quality of ihe instrument from a musician stand point, Does the Physis piano better suit pianist requirements from a pure musical standpoint? More expression, enhanced sensitivity, easy playing, good feeling on the key bed, enjoyable sound, mechanically suitable with typical pianistic technic????? I am looking forward to eventually hear musicians feedback? I guess this forum is not only about software and value for money but also about music! From my point of view the Physis is definitely the best fake musical piano instrument I had a chance to play with so far !

I hear what you're saying, Steinway 170, but unfortunately many of us (particularly on this side of the world) have not had a chance to try the Physis yet. If it is indeed the most remarkable and authentic DP yet produced, then once that becomes common experience, its reputation will grow. But where people might take a chance on an instrument that costs $1k or even $2k, few will be willing or able to purchase a $5k instrument without serious investigation and testing.

Understood Voxpop. I forgot we are talking about a product that is barely diffused yet and not many musicians had a chance to test in proper conditions. I will be patient and will remain open to any questions or curiosity from any of you regarding the instrument. I just wanted to highligh the point that most of the accoustic musiciens before purchasing a new instrument (brass, sax, trumpet, violin, piano ...)would spend a lot of time testing it for very small shading, nuance, sound tint, touch differentiation; looking for the best possible feeling to optimize playing and expression. Someone is willing to pay twice the price for an instrument versus the other for subjective and personal parameters. In some way, I think that; at the level of qualitity reached by the technology today, a Digital piano could in some way deserve similar treatment.

If you look around you'll find musicians here who comment on the way keys feel, how connected the action seems to the sound source, what the piano voice qualitatively sounds like, etc. The thing is, key actions get used in many models, as do sound generators and sample sets, so it's often just a rehash of the same old stuff in a new-ish box.

DPs can be more than the sum of their parts, but those parts are generally well defined things like processors, memory, sample sets, keys, speakers, amps, etc. each of which can have very specific limitations. There's also a lot of paid for happy talk and many professional "reviews" out there that need countering with hard reality. People pay a lot for DPs, they should know what they are getting.


Except for modeled sound engines like those in Physis, Pianoteq, V-Piano, and I suppose Roland SN (decay phase), I don't think DPs are generally at the point where musicians should approach them like acoustic instruments. For one thing they are assembly line products with very little if any variation between identically labeled items. For another they tend to be designed from fairly stagnant technology.

I hope that people will post more audio samples of the Physis piano, even if they are created with using midi files (there are good midi files created from live performances) or simply recordings of individual sustained notes, or chords. I worry that we are discussing the limitations of various technologies and concerns based on the GeneralMusic\GEM story largely because we do not have what we actually need before we can have much of a discussion at all--more recordings.

Except for modeled sound engines like those in Physis, Pianoteq, V-Piano, and I suppose Roland SN (decay phase), I don't think DPs are generally at the point where musicians should approach them like acoustic instruments. For one thing they are assembly line products with very little if any variation between identically labeled items. For another they tend to be designed from fairly stagnant technology. [/quote]

Agree with one addition: each musician have more or less sensitivity. I personally feel differences between keyboards even DPs from same brand . A same model built few months later could show slightly different key bed mechanical adjustment. A small difference in the height of the key could make your playing more or less fluid and easy. I have many example of instruments I really enjoyed playing that rational analysis cannot explain The new generation modelled sound can be quite sensitive to the force you exercise on each note and I am sure that if you have 3 pianos in front of you, there will be enough difference to make a musician prefer one versus the other. I guess, a lot has to do with the style of music you play and the technicality.