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

Effectively your correct




While there certainly has been 88 key sampled versions of 4 Yamaha pianos that have been recorded all are yet to appear in a actual board. The CFX may or may not change that as I can't detect stretched notes in Yamaha's pianos without software help.



correct

Does the CP1/5/50 handle velocity layers differently to the CP300/33?..yes.

Are there underlying Multi-velocity samples ?.. yes

Does the Tyros/Motif/CVP "articulations" technology and VCM modeling Yamaha use operate in a similar way? ...yes

SCM is Marketing speak for something Yamaha has been doing on many boards for quite some time.

Regardless I still prefer the Yamaha sound over most others (Excepting the Studio Grand of course).
I just don't think the technical limitations of the Yamaha systems translates into poor DP's. They sound very good indeed.

This is a bit off topic, so let me apologize now.

It has been fun following this thread. But I am not interested in a stage piano. What I really would like to see is a successor to the P-155 with the CFX piano. But for the price, maybe the CP4 is the logical successor (of course without speakers).

I am looking forward to all of your reviews of the CP4. And thank you for the informative discussion.

I agree with you on the P-155 Scorpio. i've been watching for an updated P-155, but i now wonder if it is meant to be. seems that the CP40 derivative at a lower price point (below $1500?..), and the P-105 on the low end doesn't leave a lot of room for another board priced around $1000. But that still might be Yamaha's strategy- to cover price points about 400-500 bucks apart. they seem to have a Toyota-like strategy of swamping the market with a lot of models.

EDIT: actually i re-read this blog and the CP40 has MAP of $1699 per the Yamaha rep. so there certainly is room for a board between the p-105 price point and the cp-40. The spread between the cp4 and the cp40 seems pretty tight, as in the cp40 being overpriced. i would imagine they would keep the CFX sample out of the p-155 as it helps justify the move to the higher price points for the person purely interested in the AP/EP samples.

Spectral Component Modeling

Frankly we can understand how people are confused by the Spectral Component Modeling system because it is not one individual technology, but a system.

It's easiest to understand by breaking down the words.

Full Spectral Component Modeling (all three words) is used ONLY on the tine and reed models. Full Spectral Modeling means that those EP sounds DO NOT have velocity layers and we challenge anyone to to find them because they simply don't exist. There are continuous spectral changes across the entire range of velocities which are not based on sample switching , but windowed spectral data.

Component Modeling is used through out the CP 4 and 40 Stage series and as the words imply means that certain components of the sound are modeled. For example another part of the component modeling of the EPs is the ability to adjust the tine position. This technology is similar to the FDSP technology found in the EX5 years ago. So this is Component Modeling of the tine pickup position.

The acoustic pianos and other sounds feature component modeling where aspects of the sound are modeled. Some of these component aspects (for example Note Off or Sound Board Resonance), Roland sometimes refers to as Behavior Modeling and are availble in other Yamaha product that feature Advanced Articulation. Others are more DSP oriented and unique to SCM systems, for example there are mic preamp models so you can change the character of the piano by changing which mic preamp model is applied and what the actual EQ settings for the Mic Preamp are. Again this is modeling a component of the sound, but not necessarily modeling the whole sound itself.

At this time we are not using full Spectral Component Modeling on the acoustic pianos or other sounds for technical reasons.

Finally the Virtual Circuit Modeling is pure modeling in that it is mathematical models of resistors and capacitors that are then put together in virtual circuits that emulate vintage stomp box effects. These were developed by Toshi Kunimoto ( Dr. K) who developed the world' s first true physically modeled instrument the VL1 and the Tine position algorithms in FSDP.

It's the combination of all these components that come together and make up the Spectral Component Modeling system.

"Does the CP1/5/50 handle velocity layers differently to the CP300/33?..yes."

Yes, the acoustic pianos have many, many more layers and the EPs use Spectral Component Modeling so there are no velocity splits at all, but continuously changing Spectral windows.

"Are there underlying Multi-velocity samples ?.. yes "

On the acoustic pianos , yes on the EPs no.

"Does the Tyros/Motif/CVP "articulations" technology and VCM modeling Yamaha use operate in a similar way? ...yes"

Those " behavior modeling" technologies are included in the CP4, but Spectral Component Modeling is NOT included in anything, but the CP series at this point.

"SCM is Marketing speak for something Yamaha has been doing on many boards for quite some time."

Actually, no it is unique to the CP1,5,50,4 and 40.

"Regardless I still prefer the Yamaha sound over most others (Excepting the Studio Grand of course).
I just don't think the technical limitations of the Yamaha systems translates into poor DP's. They sound very good indeed."

Thanks, we agree.

Our job is to try and explain some pretty complicated technologies so that people can make informed decisions, but we always agree with those people here who say that the most important thing is how a piano sounds and plays and the best judge is your own ears.

Athan, I..

I think I love you.

Seriously, thank you for this detailed explanation!

Keep up the great work!

James
x

Get a room, you two!

I kid, with love...seriously, nice to have reps here.

I agree.

As to Athan's post, I think it's not only useful to potential CP4 purchasers, but interesting in its own right. It endows the acronym with some background and substance, rather than just being a glib marketing term. The general trend toward candor that we're witnessing is very welcome (James???).

There's just one small point on which I'd like clarification. Athan's post talks of "many, many more" layers for the APs in the CP range compared to the CP300/33. Dewster's DPBSD project identified 3 for the CP50, 4 for the CP5 and 5 for the CP1. Unless his analysis is wrong, or the CP4 is set to break records, this sounds like a touch of hyperbole. Am I missing something here?

People are confused because Yamaha hasn't been clear regarding what SCM is or how it applies to the various voices. This has led to endless speculation that the AP voices are at least partially modeled (ala Roland SN) which has, perhaps inadvertently, worked in Yamaha's favor.


This is 100% as I suspected, SCM applies mainly to the EPs.


This also is 100% as I suspected, the APs are not modeled in the conventional sense of the word.

Thanks for finally clearing that up!

So when can we expect to see an unstretched, unlooped DP from Yamaha?

"....and the EPs use Spectral Component Modeling so there are no velocity splits at all, but continuously changing Spectral windows. "

In my understanding that's what PHI does as well on the Kawai's. And of course SN for the Rolands. But what this first part of the sentence means is unclear to me:

"Yes, the acoustic pianos have many, many more layers..."

And are these layers on the AP's also smoothed out over the layer transitions , like Kawai/ Casio / Studiologic or Roland , or not (like Korg) ?

I expect the layer transitions to be inaudible when you go up in the dynamic scale, but ask anyway , cause after the excellent and lengthy explanation that's the only part that's not totally clear to me. Just nitpicking ;-)

P.s. is the website up yet ?

1:00pm (PST) today, I believe.

My analysis reports visible / audible layer transitions, so it's only a minimum and there could possibly be input from other layers I'm not detecting.

I don't know all the ins and outs, but if there's room for "many, many more layers" in the ROM then why not use some of that room to instead eliminate the stretching (which is fairly significant over the high and low ends)?

I think your understanding goes beyond what is actually known. We don't know exactly what comprises PHI and I haven't seen Kawai or anyone else describe PHI that way. We don't even really know what SN is, although we have a better guess on that because Roland has discussed the technology in slightly greater detail.

-- Just kidding, gvfarns. I couldn't resist a "Game of Thrones" meme, here.

Lol.

Kraft has it up:

http://www.kraftmusic.com/digital-pianos-and-keyboards/digital-pianos/yamaha/cp-series/cp4/

Yikes!! $2,200 USD street price (direct).

Nothing against the quality of this new Yamaha product (I love Yamaha products)...

However, I don't think Kawai nor Roland will be sweating too much...and Casio is probably wringing their hands together with a sinister grin. In fact, I bet Casio is looking very hard at developing a new DP that puts it in the $1500-2000 price category.

Yes, and isn't that exactly the price that was predicted ? So where's the 'Yikes' surprise coming from ?

I think this will end up being generally a better board for less money than a Roland RD-700NX or a Nord Piano 2 (either version). It is a bit more than the Kawai MP10, but a lot more people would consider gigging with a 38.5 lb board than a 70 lb board.

But for the more budget conscious, Yamaha will also offer the the only slightly less capable CP40 for $1700.

http://www.kraftmusic.com/digital-pianos-and-keyboards/digital-pianos/yamaha/cp-series/cp40/

That will go pretty well against the Roland FP50, RD300NX, Kawai MP6.

All in all, I think this is a very competitive product announcement.