Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Possible Yamaha CP4 in the future?

What was before the CP1 for Yamaha's high end stage piano? I'm not sure myself but I've seen past performances where the keyboard on stage was a Yamaha "CP", just CP and nothing else. Have to dig into history now.

Aluminum knob! Hello..... It makes all the difference in the world. If the knob were plastic, then I'd say 'twas over-priced; however, that shiny knob does it for me.

Yah if I recall correctly, the CP1 has 3-pedal support, an extra S6 preset (but same base piano sample), and perhaps it has an extra piano parameter for user adjustment, and a larger screen. I think it's a high-priced halo product. Certainly there's nothing wrong with the CP5 (ie, not glaringly gimped trying to push shoppers up the ladder.)

Thank you Athan.

My apologies for nit-picking, but I believe the CLP-470/480 and CVP509 use the NW action, not GH3.

On a separate point I notice that you mention the CVP509, and not the current generation CVP609. Is this because the CVP609 features 'real-wood white keys'?

Cheers,
James
x

This is direct from the CVP509 website. The NW incorporates the GH3 design and combines it with wooden keys.

"Yamaha's innovative GH3 keyboard has three sensors: in addition to two sensors to detect keystroke strength, it includes Yamaha’s original Damper Sensor. This enables you to use advanced techniques such as playing the same note repeatedly with perfect articulation, previously only possible on a grand piano, which blends sounds without the use of the damper pedal. You also enjoy the keyboard touch of a grand piano, including keys with weight gradations – heavy in the lower end and lighter in the higher end. The NW (Natural Wood) keyboard, with the same structure as the GH3 keyboard, and synthetic ivory keytops also provide the feel of a grand piano, even the fingertip sensations."

Hope that clears it up.

Hi Alan,

I was just reading the CVP-609 webpage / features, and I came across this passage, which I find curious:



While I agree that an all wood keyboard certainly is more expensive and provides a more pleasing tactile experience...I do question the statement that a solid wood key would be superior, in terms of stability (resistance to warping and/or deforming) than a wood key that is made of several laminations.

It is my experience with guitars, that a 5-piece laminated neck is significantly stronger and more stable than a single piece neck made out of the same wood. This doesn't just apply to musical instruments. A laminated wood beam is much stronger, and can bear more load, than an equivalent beam made out of a single, homogeneous piece of wood.

Just curious as to Yamaha's thinking and reasoning, here.

P.S. -- I am not questioning the incorporation of real wooden keys. That's wonderful. I am, however, questioning the statement that a solid wooden key is superior in "resistance to warping and deforming" as compared to a multi-piece laminated wood key.

P.P.S -- In fact, I am pretty certain Yamaha uses a laminated pinblock in their grand pianos, specifically due to the increased strength and stability. Also, I believe that even some high end piano manufacturers will employ laminated spruce soundboards, especially when they are being shipped to regions which have large temperature fluctuations and/or high humidity.

That's great, thanks.

So do the CVP509 and CVP609 share the same keyboard action?

James
x

I think I'm hearing a lot of excited people getting their expectations up here. This is a Yamaha piano the SCM does not apply to the AP's except in post processing (S6,CFIIIs,CFX) they are still sampled and suffer from the technical issues that many people here seem to focus on. (ie: looping, stretching etc) These are the same sample sets used in nearly all Yamaha products in different versions. If you like the Yamaha sound (and I really do) then its the same in the CP4. There is no improvement in these AP's. The EP's are based on those in the CP5 and very similar and sound just as good. Next are the Motif based additional sounds which of course are also of high quality although most are quite old. What I'm saying is (with the exception of the EP's which IMHO are very close to best in class) don't expect much to be different sound wise. What the CP4 does have is the CFX. A Yamaha piano that really doesn't sound like any others. My favorite Grand Piano and the sample set here is a far more recent addition that has been sampled in a more competitive fashion then recent Yamaha offerings. I'm not saying its a 88key sampled, unlooped CFX sample your going to hear but what I will say that even though technically under analysis Yamaha's piano sounds might not be able to compete with Roland's Supernatural technology to the ear the CFX sounds absolutely wonderful and very musical in a way that transcends the pixel peepers and makes you just want to play. So judge the CP4 by your ears not your eyes and you won't be disappointed.

OK, so now I'm confused:

- First it's confirmed that the AP's are (also) SCM piano's . Some of us doubted the words "based on SCM" , but when asked if the AP's we're also pure SCM, Athan replied with a 'yes'. Therefore looping artifacts should not be audible, right (?).
- Now again, it's apparently NOT pure SCM , implying only some post processing is taking place for e.g. damper pedal resonance, but not for smoothing out the sustain phase in a natural way comparable to Super Natural, or physical modeling based AP's.

I do agree that the piano's will probably sound fantastic , especially the CFX, but my personal reason for not being interested in Yamaha DP's so far, is the squeaky digital looping in the highest octaves which I can't stand. I hope with the new CFX and the new processing, SCM or not, that will be within an acceptable range now. Perhaps Yamaha can post some sound demo's demonstrating the full decaying sound in all different octaves , like StudioLogic did for their Numa Concert Piano. Those Numa examples are very useful in judging the piano's strengths and weaknesses for as long as you can't try out for yourself. I hope other brands post similar sound demo's in the future. (E.g. demo02 , demo03, demo04 at https://www.youtube.com/user/StudiologicMusic/videos).

Time will tell.

The problem is your thinking SCM is a modeled piano or a semi modeled piano like Roland's Supernatural... SCM has been around on Yamaha's CP1/5/50 for a few years. All it is is modeled post sample effects. It has a far more limited role in the composition of the whole sound then Roland's SN technology which models whole aspects of the base sound (such as the decay).
Yes the CP4 has full SCM ...
SCM is just a Yamaha brand name for their piano post processing engine.
Yes it sounds fantastic but it isn't in any real sense of the word a "modeled" piano.
And underneath are those looping decay's you speak of .... but IMHO they do not effect the sound unless your sitting there specifically listening for them (which people do) or running software to analyze the sound and peeping at the little graphs.

I was under the impression that SCM was very similar to SN. If indeed this SCM is simply a post processing of previously recorded material, YAMAHA should not use the word modeling in their description; for, even though there is a minor component of modeling, it is not a pure hybrid approach; which is what many are lead to believe. This clearly points to the fact that YAMAHA has no real interest in developing a physical model of a piano.

Well Roland's SN uses prerecorded samples that get processed by the Supernatural modeling software but Roland's approach is more intrinsic to the actual sound by modeling some of the main sound componants such as the famous SN non looping decay. SCM by comparison is best described as modeling effects applied as post processing to the sound. None of the actual AP sounds are modeled. In EP's for example Yamaha use SCM to model several different types of amps and phasers etc. They use it on other boards, mixers, processors etc (Motif etc) and call it VCM effects (ie: Virtual Component Modeling). Its very effective and sounds great but you are correct in saying that while you could get away with describing a Roland SN as a Sample/Modeled Hybrid piano it would very difficult to call Yamaha's SCM pianos hybrid pianos by any stretch of the imagination. They are sampled pure and simple and that CFIIIS sample is essentially the same base in a $5000 CVP-609 as it is in a P105, CP4, CP1 or a MotifXF, Mox, S90XS ...etc etc etc. They all sound different (to a point) but are all certainly related having been derived from the same recording session of the same CFIIIs.
What's new here is the CFX.

i gotta admit i don't get that. how hard is it to set up a sampling session in a studio and do a new sample set. the software guys do it all the time and they sell their programs for $150-300. You'd think the hardware folks would want the next generation slab to have - new samples... and... a lot more dedicated RAM. we don't need a better flute sample or endless combis.

but i'm sure as a performance board the CP4 will be a really nice choice and easier to move around. people at a wedding reception don't jump up and yell "Sh*t!! i just heard a looped sample!!!". now for recording work, i'd still take the Ivory or Galaxy pianos and a midi controller to get more realism if i didnt want to get hung up mic'ing up an acoustic.

People seem to be discussing SCM without having looked into what Yamaha says it does.

From the CP1/5 downloadable brochure:

The Spectral Component Modeling system starts with a fundamentally different tone generation system than Yamaha has ever used before. This system allows physical components of the instrument (hardness of the hammers, resonance of the sound board, striking position of the hammers) to be modeled. It also uses a complete different method of playback than normal sampling technology. Rather than multi-velocity layers of samples, SCM uses granular parametric data so every nuance of the player’s touch is translated into expressive tone.

So it sounds a bit closer to Roland's (non-V) SN than people are giving it credit for. Like SN, it appears to be using modeling rather than multiple layers of samples to address velocity.

Also of possible interest, in another one of Yamaha's downloadable brochures, they said this:

The CP1 is equipped with an SCM (Spectral Component Modeling) tone generator. The truth is, this name doesn’t just refer to one tone generation method. Daisuke Miura, who worked on the tone generator modeling, explained it like this: “Spectral component modeling” is used to symbolically refer to a group of characteristics of this system. With frequency characteristic analysis (spectral), the CP1 can create natural and real sounds based on the speed with which the performer presses the keys. The piano types, effects, and amp all use modeling technology (modeling), and you can combine these elements to create your own unique customizations (component).

Mr. Ide told us that “technically, other than the fact that they are all produced using a modeling tone generator, the technologies that are used for each of the piano types are different.”

In my understanding SCM seems to have more in common with Kawai's PHI than SN. It models the dynamic range into a fine grained , smooth range from pppp to ffff. In addition to that come string resonance, hammer hardness, damper resonance etc. Same parameters as in the virtual technician of Kawai. But the decay and sustain phase seems purely sample-playback in terms of length and content. Roland SN keeps on altering / alternating spectral components in the sustain phase, where PHI and SCM have a more static playback once the key is struck. At least that's what I understand from all the information up till now...

By the way does Yamaha use 88 key sampling as a starting base on the latest boards and/or for the new CFX set ?

Despite all the technical snick/snack , I am anxious to hear some proper sound demo's soon that demonstrate the potential of the new AP presets. In the end it's the ears that decide not the technical underpinning.

As I mentioned earlier, SCM provides adjustments for decay and release times on the acoustic pianos, so length is adjustable. As to whether it spectral alters the content in any way during the decay (or varies it depending on how you set the decay length), I don't know.

A spectral is defined as a "ghostly entity"; this definition fairly describes YAMAHA's approach. SCM is a ghostly, abstract pile of stretched samples.

The question for me would be if they are using softer samples. Does this description meet other people's understanding: Yamaha tends to use hard strikes as their base and then add still harder strikes for the higher velocities. A low pass filter then softens the sound for softer strikes. (Listen to a CP300 with the Brightness raised to hear the actual sample.) If they now turn to using softer strikes and then add sine waves to recreate harder strikes, SCM will mean more. But they may instead just continue with hard strikes as their basis and add sine waves to create the ff and fff strikes. That would mean that a LP filter is still creating the softest sounds.

Have to wait and hear, I suppose?

So does Kawai - it's very easy on the MP6, for example. You can stretch the relevant parts of the envelope. However, it does nothing to the underlying wave component, as far as I'm aware, so the decay loop is pretty static and "synthy."


My gripe with Yamaha's DP sound has long been that, although the samples themselves are clear and appealing, the decay is unrealistic, the samples are audibly stretched, and the result is early-onset "sample fatigue." I don't think the CP range has thus far addressed these issues - it'll be interesting to see if that changes with the CP4.

Yamaha's acoustic pianos are very bright. They have never been my favorite brand, and their DPs follow suit. However, some Yamaha DPs play very well indeed (if you can live with the sound).