Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards V Piano Successor anytime soon?

a) I've played the Avant Grand and the PHIII action on the V-piano and RD700NX. I've not yet played the RD800 PHIV action yet. On the RD700NX, the limitations of the PHIII action stood out far more than when I played the PHIII on the V-piano (perhaps because of the modeling vs sampling, or just a subjective difference due to the sound). I'm not saying the PHIII is a poor quality action: it's robust enough but not competitive for a certain substantial section of the market.

I too felt that the PHIII was plenty agile enough for my needs.

b) The Avant Grand action felt like playing a good grand piano, yes, substantial even. Of course, comparative to the V-piano, it's allot less fun to play! However, if I was giving regular concerts on a grand piano, maybe I would prefer to practice on a similar action to the concert instrument.

My point was that Michael (the music store owner I know) found his serious pianist customers were more inclined towards the Avant Grand for precisely this reason. Michael said that those customers were more numerous than actual V-piano customers, therefore, if I were Roland, I'd build a comparative action for the V-piano II.. I'd keep it a stage piano design (I think it looks fine), but include a custom made separate speaker system. They could even produce a number of speaker systems for different purposes: gigging, home use (surround sound included) or studio use.

The other issues Roland needs to deal with on the V-Piano are already mentioned: Roland V-piano - critiques and downside.



You're right, I meant key travel not key length i.e., in regards to comparison with the MP11. I agree that lever length is the principal factor. Do you feel key travel is a minor factor? The V-piano was completely encapsulating, but it didn't feel like playing a grand piano in relation to the feel of the action.



Both. I must get a go at the MP11 and the RD800 for myself.

I also read they use a sampling for pedal noise (and only for that).

The tutorial is just a tutorial about sound structure. They do no generate sound like that.

Pianoteq modelizes hammer mvt from velocity, and initialize strike/impulsion to chord vibration, vibration are modelized by differential equations of wave propgation in the chord, with various physical parameters of the tensed chord. In real time.

Then pianoteq transfers this wave in realtime to sound board at a particular point (as in real piano).

I think they modelize the sympaethic resonnace like real piano, by transmetting sound board vribration to other chord by hte physical attacment of hte chord to the vibrating chord. So in a way, there are 2 vribrating impulsions, one by hammer stricke, one by sound board attchement.

Then, I think all attchament vibrate to the sound board, that is modeled by finite elments differential equation in a 2D mesh. I guess equation are guided waves in 2 directions, longitudinal and perpendicular, aligned with wood spruce strucutre of the sound board.

Then all the 2D points of the mesh vibrate, and then emit sound wave in the air around the piano. They then modelize the "capture" of the sound with "directional" and "filtered" mircophone, to simulate real recording position, you can decide the number of mics, their position, their modeling.

They add reverb modeling (I don't know if they modelize the full thing or just delay the sound as a post processing stage).

I am not working at modart, but i am pretty sure they do real physics modelling. I guess all this after having read some material either from academics (from their samaries or not) or pianoteq web site, I also look at some SW contribution they 've done.

As a SW engineer not in that particular field, all seems feasible, don't know how CPU itensive it is, or how "good" it sounds at the end, but definitely technically speaking, I think I could do this kind of thing.

Large part of modartt job, is to "tune" model, to sound like the "target" piano. If you look at the acedemic work of the founder of the company, you will see how they capture "fitness" with Fourrier's transforms. And this "musical ear tuning" of the mathematical model is a strenght of Modartt, due to the experience of the founder, who was tuner/technician for classical concert piano (Orchestre du capitol de Toulouse, france), before becoming a mathematician. For this part they also rely oon their forum, to find beta tuner of their model !

On the contrary SN of roland is not a modeling of physics of the piano, but a "capture" of harmonics of a sample of a note at one time (end of sample), then a parametric equations to "continue" the harmonics 's decay (in stereophonic pan). IE : how every harmonics moves in stereo pan, how they are damped (attenatuted) relatively depending of the frequency and the velocity, over time.

We can see that in DPBSD topic from dewster.

Interesting description and contrasting of how Pianoteq and V-piano work, zack! Thanks for that.

Thanks.
Well, I just want to emphasis this is just my _guess_ as a SW engineer (with some signal processing / automatism education) but not working in the field of DP, and that was just curious after reading this board, and googled from place to place to roughly understand how DP works.
I am not 100% sure of what I say, and never look at details or tried to do develop the idea on my own.
So take my posts with a grain of salt.
But perhaps others with better education/experience can validate or correct if i was xrong.

As I do not want to mistake anyone with my pianoteq speculations, I googled again and found that from wikipedia article :
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B71B0EE469EDF00
This is an fimed intreview of Philippe Guillaume (the founder of modartt), in french, but with english subtitles.

NB : It is a bit outdated (2009), but I think this a really good introduction to pianoteq, as a small company (modartt is only few people, 4-5 I think today, but was 2 people at that time) with founder carrier path, and also as a great technolgy preview / tutorial. Where Philippe demoes how to tune the unisons and temperament, then how to voice the colour/timbral of intrument (overtones ratio and mallet stiffness), and finally change the physical design of the piano (string lenght, and sound board properties), this alter inharmonicity and decay / energy dissipation of instrument.

I was just comparing pianoteq with SuperNatural (SAS : Structured Adaptative Synthesis technolgy in previous post), not V-Piano "full" modelling technology.

So anecdotally from one shop owner, that is fair and constructive feedback for that specific market. Absolutely.





Depth of cabinet, as mentioned above, has very little impact on the key length. The pivot point is most important.

We can't please everybody, not do we try to. We try to make the best action we can, that has the best connection to the best sound engine we can make.



To some customers maybe this would be exactly what they don't want. To others who enjoy the PHA-4 action maybe it would be. Again though, as stated above, matching or copying the other manufacturers actions isn't a goal that I would like to see our engineers achieve. I would rather see them make the best possible feeling and most reliable digital piano action; in whatever form that takes.

We accept that not everyone will like every action we make. You can't please everybody. Especially when it comes to something as subjective as piano sound and action.





And the PHA-4 has greatly improved on that connection with the newer SuperNatural Piano sound engine through the application of new design and new materials used in it's construction. Adding a similar keybed scanning processor like the V-Piano has, makes a huge difference in ever PHA-4 equipped instrument.

You really should try the RD-800 or one of the new PHA-4 equipped pianos for yourself. You may be as pleasantly surprised as many other customers I have spoken with. The most consistent feedback I've gotten from experienced players, is that they feel the connection between action and sound engine have never been better than on our current pianos. (V-Piano aside)

Jay

Lots of great information on this post..

After lurking for some time now, I'd like to revive this topic (if I may), instead of making a new one.

So, the action is superb, so is the sound of the V-piano. I was impressed. Still, I'm still waiting, because, well, it's almost six years since it was released, and the question arises, if there is a new flagship on the horizon, or a new version of this flagship.

It's not a new action that I miss, and also I am not keen to have all the "new" things, but in a way for the studio use I'd really love some additional control options. Well, you always can use "another" controller for midi... but this kind of instrument is meant to sit "in front" of you.

So... are there any rumors regarding a V2? NAMM 2015?

Four-five years ago I wouldn't have thought too much about that, but now... well, it's a little bit tricky.

Any comments on that would be very helpful,

Nim

Jay Roland,

I would be more than happy if you could send my opinion on v-piano to the hq

So, Roland put a lot of effort and money, into producing the V-piano module. Unfortunqtely, this available only in two pianos v piano, and v grand. The first one is completely useless for home use, the second is beyond money they can put for piano.
Now go and listem to th v-piano demo sounds. You can easily think that this is Real grand.

Now, the bad point is, why the heck put 2 miliona of dolara into technology,, which, later on, is put only in two products, of which non is home suitable for people,whomwant to a DP.

Also, i am really shocked, that you can't even buy it as software or hardware instrument!

I am even much more shocked, why, when releasng the new series of pianos, Roland is still putting the SN, while, still, the V- sound is still better (if correctly made).

I would truly like to have a v-sound at my some, in nice cabinet like hp series.
The bad point is. That technology exists, but is almost non available for the people. Who really need this, that is home and advanced pianist, focused on piano solo playing.

You don't need all the v-piano advantages while on stage. It will just disapper in mix with other instruments. So, the while point of vpiano for affordable, but, however, huge price, is, missed.
The result is, that you still have to pay for SN development, still pay for vpiano sound alot, because otherwise it will never payback in Roland.

I just can't understand in any way, why, when the technology exists, we, customers, people who really need this, are not getting the best what we can, instead, still playing on compromises.

Btw, the same is with Kawai and Yamaha, but, i love the roland v piano sound and still think nothing on the market is closer to a Real instrument today.

Roland is a hardware company and have allowed their technology leading 'best' product(v-piano grand) to appear in the RD800, didn't they?

As I understand it, they SAMPLED the V-Grand for the RD-800, though some of the editing capabilities are trickling into the newer products too.

Jay would be much better able to clarify this point.

Tony

I was more responding to the chorus of 'why don't they supply the v-grand in software' or 'make it available in a less expensive piece'. The one thing I noticed when listening to demos of the RD800 is how different that 1st piano patch sounds from the other AP SN demos.

I did own the Integra 7 myself and took it out a couple of times with my PX5S to compare, just never liked it's AP sound.

You didn't liked the casio or SN?

And, well, still, to my ears, the V piano by itself sounds better than SN. Of course, it has some bad sites as well, but i think they are to current inside the piano.

However, roland, or other people view, may vary on that topic.

I didn't like the Roland. The Casio had a little more character or focus to it's sound. Just talking the AP. I did use the Integra for it's vibraphone patch on a few occasions in a salsa group and liked it for that a-lot.

I beg to differ - the V-Piano is ideal for home use. That's what I bought it for. And (even if I do say so myself ) I'm a 'home and advanced pianist'. Roland, of course, designed it for professional studio use. (It's really too heavy to lug around for gigs, and in any case, it only has piano sounds, and nothing but). The only thing better than the V-Piano is its big brother, the Grand. Or a real acoustic grand. Everything else pales in comparison.

I admit, the slab appearance can be off-putting for someone steeped in acoustics - like myself. Or those who want a nice-looking piece of furniture that doesn't look like something from Back to the Future. But I'd gladly sacrifice the cabinet for the sake of saving some money. And I can understand why Roland only offers the Grand as an alternative, because speakers housed within an upright cabinet (like the HP series) won't do the four-channel sound justice. (The difference would likely be much more than that between the AvantGrand N1 and N3). So, you either use your own speaker system or go for the Grand.

And I don't see any point in having its thirty sounds available as software piano - there are already plenty of well-established modelled software pianos around, which make no bones about where their sounds are derived (sampled) from. Roland presumably haven't got the licence from Steinway, Bösendorfer et al to directly name the piano sounds it drew its, shall we say, 'inspiration' from to make its various sounds.

Interesting view Bennevis.
Seems like, what is a bug for me, is a feature for you.

You know, the cost of standard roland stand is far more than the plywood cabinet, which cost should be round about 2-3% of total instrument cost.

Also, you need separate pedals on some awful plastic thing, which you can't hook to the piano, but you always have that plastic below the pedals, so you can't get your feet there while playing (ok, that may be point not for everyone).

Also, I would like something with build in acoustic inside. It's not a problem nowadays to find good quality Asian speaker manufacturer and contract them for high quaility dp speakers. I am in the DIY hi-end audiophile community, and believe me, today you can buy awesome sounding speakers for the fraction of the price for the same quality few years ago.

And, what's the point of doing reference sounding piano for studio using only? There are lots of sampled pianos on the market, and, if someone really want to have a best piano possible is using acoustic, not digital.

The usage of this instrument is extremely limited.
Ok, one can tell the vpc1 even more. But kawai costs 1/5th of the v piano.

And, I had the possibility of buying vpiano for around 3500usd. I was almost ready to buy it, but:
- I would,have to buy speakers for it
- stand
- pedals problem
- I don't want my saloon looks like studio with lots of different stuff

I want nice furniture with reference sound.
While roland (but as well others ) could do this, they do not (in affordable price, let's say around the ca95 or clp585 price).
And I do prefer the dp cabinet, not the upright one to be honest.

I'd like to type a long and detailed reply, but I've been flying all day from Vancouver to Quebec City, and I am on the road for the next 10 days visiting some retailers. I'll try to remember to get back to this when I return.

Jay