Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Artifacts for the sake of realism

I think the hammer assembly is 'disconnected' from the key action, on an acoustic at the point of hitting the strings, so why bother have it hitting anything? Except perhaps 'hammer noise' which some DP's have as an adjustable parameter anyway. There - hammer noise - back on topic, do we have to have that?

I agree with gv, a weighted lever that isn't connected to the key 100% of the time is a hammer, and all DPs with hammer actions that I'm aware of have this. The hammer must hit something to dissipate the energy imparted to it, and that something must sufficiently damp the hammer otherwise it will rebound.

Done by the back check or hammer rail, on the actions under discussion.

Back OT again, in a other thread someone has discovered their DP's top octave and a bit has string resonance with the damper unpressed.

The top octave (or so) of acoustic pianos has no dampers, by design, to help them 'sing' (although only a few acoustic pianos can truly 'sing'). Considering that no-dampers-in-top-octave is a deliberate design decision, I would not consider it an artifact.

On the other hand, emulating this effect on DPs is pathetic IMHO, at least on all DPs that I have tried out, because of the short sustains. Exaggerating a little to get the point across, I would say that you can't sing if you are coughing all the time

I am under the impression that no dampers on the high notes is simply because the decay is so fast, they are not needed. Not adding the dampers would have saved time and materials when originally making pianos. In other words, it is an engineering and manufacturing decision, not musical.

As for the topic at hand, I am happy that Yamaha didn't add a fake escapement to their Clavinovas. I don't enjoy the feeling on the Rolands I have tried.

I prefer realism, to trick my brain as much as possible I am playing a real acoustic piano. No matter what, I think that is what digital piano manufacturers are trying to do, and anything that get both (acoustic and digital) closer is an improvement.

But the idea is simulate top of the line pianos, obviously. We don't need artifacts that are only in cheap, bad acoustic pianos.

I kind of agree to this but the problem with emulating only top of the line pianos with even actions would make a transition (in the real world) to the majority of acoustics you will likely have to play difficult.

Maybe someday DPs will be perceived as instrumets in their own right - but now they are seen as the less interesting cousins of acoustic pianos, and therefore try to emulate them as closely as possible, even their shortcomings that AP builders would gladly do away with but can't due to physical constraints.

As far as hammers are concerned - all hammer action DPs have hammers or physical equivalents of some sort. IMO it would make more sense to have sensors monitoring the HAMMER part of the assembly, not the KEY, as hammers and their action is what produces sound in a real AP. Are there any DPs that would have a sensor for speed and/or force of hammer impact rather than monitor key movement?

Also, the difference of key weight with or without sustain pedal (in AP) would not be so difficult to emulate in a DP. Im fairly surprised that no manufacturer has done it so far, in the race for realism. Or have they?

Anyway, I'd prefer the DP keys weighted on the ligher side, being a habitual pedaller.

Most modern DP hammer actions have the position sensors actuated by the hammer, not the key.


No one does this, not even Yamaha with the Avant Grand, because it would require complex and expensive physical additions. Whereas hammer weight grading and fake let-off are free or almost free.


I don't play much but I agree. Weight up to a point gives greater control, but past that point gives greater difficulty playing and greater risk of injury. I'm kind of surprised at the overly heavy feel of most DP actions. And grading, even though it tends to be minimal in DPs, exacerbates this.

Well, if you look at the internals, all the common digital pianos we discuss here measure the movement of the hammer, not the key. However,

1) It seems to me that the hammers are not disconnected from the keys as much in digitals. It is possible but not easy to trigger a note on a DP without fully depressing the key. However, my impression is that this is much easier on acoustics. .

2) The sensors measure hammer position, not impact force. The two should give the same value except that the impact force is almost an instantaneous measurement. The way current sensors work is they measure the time it takes for the hammer to pass between the two sensors, which gives velocity. Knowing this and the mass you can get the force. The possible problem is that there must be some distance between the two sensors so any acceleration or deceleration that happens between the two sensors would be averaged out.

Does anybody know is someone did a "blind playing test" with different actions?
Perhaps using a virtual piano, so the sound doesn't influence, that would answer our questions in some extent.
I think companies do this kind of test internally to develop new products, but it would be interesting that someone did it with different brands and actions within the same brand, perhaps we would be surprised with results.

Anyone can do such a 'blind playing test' - I did so when looking to buy my DP three years ago, and occasionally since then, when testing a new DP.

All you have to do is to play the DP with it switched off. Or pull out the plug....

I mean without knowing the model, like pepsi challenge

Then you'd actually have to be blindfolded, but I don't see how that is relevant - unless you've been conditioned to expect a certain type of action based on the brand and the model etc.

Or unless you're a DP 'virgin' - like I was three years ago - and have absolutely no preconceptions of what actions specific DP models have. In fact, what I found, as a DP virgin, was that my preconceptions (such as they were) were thrown out of the window: I'd expected Clavinovas to feel and sound closest to the real thing (as Yamaha is the biggest respected brand in acoustic pianos), whereas they were well behind Roland and Kawai DPs in both aspects.

That was what I was referring to, when we test a keyboard we already know the brand reputation, if it is a entry level action, if it has ivory touch, let off, etc, so much information perhaps influences what we feel.

I have noticed that some DPs are much more amenable to a shallow thumbnail gliss than others. The Roland Ivory Feel-G (as I played in the FP-4F) is poor for gliss, so is the Fatar TP40 (as I played in the Nord Stage 2 HA). OTOH, I thought the "PHA III Ivory Feel-S Keyboard with Escapement" (Roland FP-7F) and assorted Casios were fine.