Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Returning CLP-685

Hi everyone, first post here :-) This is my own opinion (I get that others will have theirs too).

I upgraded my CLP-585 for the 685. It arrived broken, however; that's only part of the story. I was not impressed at all with the upgrade. I'll keep it short, Its basically a 585 with slightly heavier keys and piano room (which make zero difference IMO). The speaker system upgrade is not noticeable at normal playing levels. The piano samples and sound almost exactly the same as my 585, I actually can't tell them apart unless I try REALLY hard, there maybe a subtle difference in the Bosendorfer sounding a bit brighter. I have made a video of both my 585 and 685, however; I now realise that my 585 is almost identical, minus some fake ebony on the black keys and the feel being a tad heavier with an extra counter weight. I'm really disappointed as I've waited for a while on this being released. I've now also had two broken Yamaha clavinova's so, time to try another brand. I'll maybe check out Kawai. The bosendorfer sounds just as rubbish too, apparently, it had twice the CPU but I really couldn't notice. There was no 'wow' moment for me, I played the keys and immediately though 'oh, this feels kinda the same' and then my face went sad .... :-( .. like that.

My opinion to anyone wanting to upgrade from 585, I think you'll be disappointed. Reminds me of the iPhone, slight increment but nothing major. In hindsight, I'm thankful that I received a faulty model (loose key and fixing) as it means I get my 585 back. I really wanted to love this piano too. The binaural sampling is not bad, but there aren't enough big differences to justify.

I already have my video of me playing Fantasie impromptu on my 585 on YouTube to give you an idea of how good the 585 already is. Search John Burns Fantasie Impromptu. I can upload my review of the 685 too before it gets returned.

I have also just heard that Kawai are releasing a new hybrid piano: the Novus. I'll be sure to check that out come October.

Cheers

JB33, welcome to the forum.

May I ask if you play-tested the CLP-685 before deciding to purchase the instrument?

Kind regards,
James
x

Hi Kawai James,

I did, yes. I tried it several times and over a few days as I wasn't 100% sure. The salesman sold me on the new features but really, when I got it home and spent proper time with it, I was disappointed.

For me I had the same feeling, that the action and the sound of the CLP685 was (mainly) the same as the CLP585. I could not find any real improvements that would justify a change from 585 to 685. Bying the 585 (instead the 685) now might even be interesting because of significantly lower price for basically the same (action and sound).

You'll have to do it soon; they won't last long!

Agreed: the 585 is such a great digital piano already. I thought the feel to the 685 still felt a little strange and not any closer to a grand, but different. I'll wait and see what the Kawai Novus is about; it looks very promising (albeit, expensive).

Yes, please upload your review of the 685 before you return it. I would be interested in seeing and hearing.

..I would be also interested, upload it please:)

Sorry to hear the 685 wasn't to your liking, it always sucks to have a lot of time/effort/money for naught. I think that, coming from a top of the line 585, there probably aren't too many DP upgrades out there that would be a material improvement.

This must not be "Home on the Range" because I just heard a discouraging word. Back in April, after playing the 585 as well as its competitors, I liked the 585 a whole lot and was ready to buy, but by chance saw some much hyped videos about the soon to be released 685. New improved action, Spruce cone speakers, 300 watts of amplification, binaural sampling in the headphones, Bluetooth, "Wowwy Zowwy"!

I've delayed my piano purchase all these months, checking online each day in eager anticipation for it's availability in the US. Kraft Music states it will arrive this week. My ideal scenario would be for Music Exchange, the Yamaha dealer here in Sacramento, to soon have the two pianos sitting side by side so that I could A-B them back and forth. This may very well come to be, but hearing not necessarily bad, but not necessarily good things about the 685 is a buzz kill for me. I remind myself the "Thou shall not covet" commandment is pretty darn good advice. I hope my ideal scenario comes to pass and that I'm suitably impressed by the upgrades or if not, have the chance to get the 585PE at the requisite discount. Peterws' comment "they won't last" Re:585 is another buzz kill. Thanks JB33 for this post. Your opinion as an owner of both models carries much weight. But of course I'll have my own opinion given the chance.

I can second the posts above that the action on the 685 is quite unnatural after trying it several times, comparing it side-by-side with an N3 and an NU1. The 685 is like typing on a keyboard, it resists your press with a lot of force initially (my latest attempt which demonstrated this phenomenon well was trying to depress two keys as lightly as possible at the same time which are side by side using two fingers). But once you activate the movement, it does not go down smoothly, but just immediately hits the bottom of the key, which I can only describe it is an on or off action. I can't imagine any acoustic grand (or even an acoustic upright) to have this sort of action, unless it is very unregulated. Someone on the forum once explained that because the key action on the 685 do not have much substance (mass), and in order to recreate the heavier feel of inertia, they artificially made it very resistant, but the result is what I just described and what the other forum member described, that on or off feel, which makes it quite tricky to play pp or p passages lightly AND evenly at the same time (IMHO and not trying to bash the Yamahas)

It's good to see other opinions on it too. I'll be positing my video review tonight at around 19:00 as a reply to this thread. It will show you sound examples from both, side by side so you can hear any differences. I'll also go through my views on the 685 and thoughts.

Thanks for the post JB.

My only question is, is this really surprising? I mean, the 585 only came out like 3 years ago. Do we really expect a huge advancement in an instrument in 3 years? I know computer power can increase quickly, but these are not NASA supercomputers anyway. As for action, speakers, or sampling technology, what should change in 3 years, if the 585 was indeed the best Yamaha could make at the time?

I think most people buy an expensive instrument like the 585 with a 10+ year use case, minimum. Yamaha (and all the other makes) upgrade their lines every 3 years not because they really make such huge improvements, but because most people don't want to buy a 4-5 year old digital instrument.

The iPhone comparison is a good one. Doesn't really make sense to upgrade to the next model, unless you are a geek or phone snob, skip 2-3 generations and you will get a proper upgrade. Just IMHO.

Having played both side by side on two occasions in the Yamaha shop in London, I wouldn't agree that there was no difference.

There was a considerable difference in 'feel' for me. I actually sort of preferred the 585 for feel. It felt quite a bit softer and more flowing. The 685 felt harder. Not so as I didn't like it. I did. But the 585 felt better to me.

Sound wise, I thought the binaural sample on the 685 was a considerable improvement on the 585 (through headphones anyway - didn't really listen to it 'out loud' much as most of the time I'll be playing with headphones), Enough of a difference that if I had to pick I would go for the 685.

Though my honest preference would be the keys and feel of the 585, with the sound through headphones of the 685

Like you though, I wasn't 'blown away' by the difference between the two models. Three years is actually a long time in terms of digital technology, and I would have expected a bit better. The iphones get upgraded every year, so this should be like three versions on in reality...

Like you I will be inclined to see what the NU10 in October is like/costs in reality, before pulling the trigger (possibly) on an upgrade. (Though I have a YDP 163 currently, so the weighted keys and better headphone on the 685 would be a biggish upgrade anyway.)

Be interested to hear your video review JB and samples (Did you also try the 675? I was surprised at how different it sounded to the 685 through headphones, when on paper, supposedly there is no difference in that area between the two?)

alphonsus : I disagree with most elements of this. I think that 3 years is a large leap, especially in the technology field, I know first hand how much change can happen in that time. I didn't buy my 585 with a 10+ year view in mind, no where near. I like to ensure I always play on the best (where possible) because, as a pianist to express colourings and dynamics, advancements are important to me and I want the latest tech to ensure I can achieve that with greater accuracy. The best Yamaha can make? The 585/685 action isn't, but the action from the N series is fantastic and it's years old.

The tech is already there, they just haven't put it together yet. Take the N1 action, put it into a new cabinet and then use the 685/585 sample and sound engine, sorted :-).

Isn't that like saying "take a Ferrari engine and put it into a Toyota".
A. It won't fit in the car
B. It won't fit in the market
Likewise for putting the N1 action into a CLP-6xx piano.

I didn't actually say put the N1 action in the 685/585, I said new cabinet... I thought would accommodate the action and then just put the 6xx sound sample on it... ? Call it the CLP_N series :-P

You get my thinking, why haven't they build something like this? The best of both? Basically they could just re-do the N series with improved samples.

Right, but the action is not digital technology.

What part of the 685's technology wasn't available 3 years ago? Even the processor which is in these DPs, where there is fast progress, isn't anywhere near the cutting edge of today's technology.

I am not saying that Yamaha cannot make a better piano, I am saying that (IMHO) it's foolish to expect a huge improvement of a single generation upgrade, after 3 years, of the same product line. For the most important elements (action, speakers, sampling technology), nothing has changed in technology in the past 5 years. So what did you expect? You knew it's not an N1 with better samples.

The one area where I would expect significant upgrades is physical modelling since it is relatively new and not yet widespread, for example Roland's current engine is much better than the previous, and I expect the next one will be significantly better still. But what should they change in sampling?

First, its about playing the piano, not chasing new technology. If you want to be in proper line for having the best without disappointing, then use your piano (it has excellent action now and also in 10 years) as a midi controler and go for quality studio monitors, VST virtual pianos (they are always improve and there is always something new) and so on, so you can keep your piano for a long time. Hardly to except that any cabinet piano will sound better then virtual piano plus quality studio monitors. This is the reason why many people who have Avant grand use some virtual piano insted of internal sounds. For me that way of using Avant grand is overkill but they want the best anytime.

Now I'm a fool? gee, thanks. I didn't come here to argue with you (although you strike me as one of those types you can never win with, just saying). I came here to share my experience with the 685. I didn't expect a 'huge' improvement, what I'm saying is that there isn't enough difference; read what I had written.

You're clearly fixated on your view so, there is no point in spending time typing any further replies to you. Thanks for your view, but no thanks. :-)

JB: So I guess it's about expectations left unmet? If so, welcome to the club!
Expectation: Technology-based products ought to improve dramatically year over year.
Piano reality: Not much changes annually. Expect changes by the decade, not by the year.

As for the actions ... they really haven't changed much in a LOOOOONG time.
The Avant Grands have a modified version of a grand action ... little different from what you'd find in a piano 150 years ago.

The rest ... the not-going-to-imitate-a-grand actions ... are mostly in the same two categories:
1. Tuck a rod and hammer under the key and make it stroke
2. Put the moving parts where they "belong" -- behind the fallboard -- but still just use a rod and hammer

They then throw in a bunch of marketable "variations":
1. Put in lead weights (or not, in the cheaper pianos)
2. Put in a clicker and call it escapement (or not, in the cheaper pianos)
3. Throw in two or three tiers of trade-names for the actions, with grander-sounding names and claims for the more expensive pianos.
They just repeat that forever.

Want more? Better? Don't get your hopes up!

Why are you so sensitive? I don't think you are a fool at all, nor did I call you that. I merely asked the question, what "technological advancement" did you expect in the action (or anything else really)? If I hurt your feelings then I am sorry. I am not "fixated" on my view, I simply expressed it.

Ya, and honestly, Yamaha is not known for being on the cutting edge of things. They make something that works and stick with that for years. Any changes have always been pretty incremental. I think Kawai and Roland are more experimental with trying for newer and better.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing what Kawai's Novus looks like, although most likely I'll be sticking with my MP11 for the mobility. We'll see

On the one hand technology is developing at a rate to make a significant difference in under three years. On the other, the best action Yamaha can come up with is years old (about 20 years if it uses the same mechanical system as it's predecessor, the Grantouch series). So why not get an N1? Because the high price of these Instruments is mostly due to the piano action, so it's improbable you'll find something of that quality much cheaper.

Then, as someone else above suggested, use vst and external monitors (or headphones) for the highest possible pianistic expression without actually playing a full size acoustic grand. And you can keep in line with the latest that technology can offer without needing to change the whole piano every few years.

Hi Toddy: I could buy the N1, but I didn't but like the sound or sample. if the N1 had the sound from the 685 I would be very interested. Alphonsus - apologies too, I read that back and it did sound a little snappy.

JB, yes, I see your point. Indeed, the sampling on the N1 is way behind the capabilities of the newer sample sets. But that is my argument really: the best action need not be the newest and once bought, can last a lifetime. But digital sampling and modelling technology is still in the making, with a long way to go.

So even though it's a more complicated way of going about it, using VST software is probably the best way to keep up with the best that's on offer, while the hardware (and the costliest and most cumbersome part) is sorted and need not be changed or moved.

Technology can feel paradoxical. You may find it hard to live with a 10-year-old smartphone (think prior to the iPhone's release, when smartphones still used styluses or physical keyboards) or laptop. But year to year it's usually hard to justify upgrading to the newest version of the same model. A 10% increase in CPU or bus speed isn't going to be too noticeable, but after several years of compounding (plus software catching up to tax the latest hardware) those changes become more noticeable.

I'm kind of getting on board with the "find your ideal software piano, and buy your keyboard for the action" camp. At least then you're not tying yourself to the upgrade schedule of the entire package (e.g., an N1/N2 with a premium action saddled with a ~7yo tone generator).

As promised, here is my video review. Apologies for the portrait view.

https://youtu.be/0rsS8UJi5Ac

Hi PianoWorld!

first post. I thought I d share my first impressions looking at 585 / 675 (685 soon to come).

Very interesting thread, as I am currently thinking about buying a Clavinova. The 685 sounded like a great new product and I went to a dealer to try one today.

I have played piano for 35 years and play daily at home. However, I just sold my P116 Silent because I moved to another city and wasnt all that happy with it. Especially the silent system to me was uneven and sometimes unresponsive. trills didnt register properly. I have never played a Clavinova, but after digesting all their marketing my hopes were high!

The dealer today had 675 and 585 on display. My initial impression on 585 was extremely disappointing at how far away the action felt from a real piano. I did not expect this at all.
So I tried 675 and was even more amused - it makes a clicking sound when striking a key that has nothing to do with a piano, and the feel is 100% plastic. So I immediately returned to 585 and after about 10minutes at least had the feeling that I could befriend it enough to consider it.

However, I am confused at how far the haptics are from the real thing. The 585 keys have to be pressed way further/deeper than a piano to produce a sound at all. How can this be?? And the keys still have a very different weight and substance to them than any piano does = less substantial / lighter / faker..

Sound-wise it s all great, the samples sound very nice, especially Bösendorfer was nice for classical. even though all the effort about internal speakers is quite pointless I believe - lower registered were totally muffled. There are just so many factors to consider to produce proper sound in different environments. I m pretty sure well placed near field monitors would give a much better experience.

I m going to another dealer on the weekend to try a 685, but after today and reading this thread, my hopes arent very high.

Cheers from Berlin,
Sebastian

Hi Phynesse,

The 585 I think isn't too bad, yes, the action isn't close to a real piano but I now prefer it over the 685. Curious to hear your thoughts and feedback though once you try for yourself.

I've just posted a video review of it in the above post.

On a digital piano the keys don't strike strings. Most of them have hammers, yes, but those only give weight to the motion. The striking of a note comes when a key nears the bottom of its stroke. Hammer position is not relevant.So, yes, the keys have to pressed farther than on an acoustic piano.

I'm not sure what you mean by less substantial / lighter.If you mean that a hollow plastic key is not as meaty as a solid wooden key stick ... yes, that's true of most digitals save for the minority that have wooden keys.

If you mean the dynamic motion of the key is lighter than an acoustic ... that depends. Some digitals are quite heavy, Yamaha Clavinovas among them. Some are lighter.

Summary: Welcome to the world of digital pianos! The marketing slurry would have you believe they're just like acoustic pianos. Well ... they're not.

Thank you so much for taking the time, John. Great review and very thorough! I got a lot out of it. Did you record the two pianos directly or from the external speakers?

Thank you for sharing your video review John. It was very interesting to hear your thoughts about the CLP-685 compared with the previous generation model. Lovely clean, controlled playing too - congrats!

It is indeed a shame that the CS11/CA97 are shipped as pre-assembled, single-piece instruments (due to the soundboard speaker). I know of a few individuals who wished to purchase these instruments, but were unable to lift/fit them up flights of stairs.

Kind regards,
James
x

I believe John stated that the audio from both instruments was captured using the built-in USB Recorder function, and then dubbed over the video.

James
x

Not to quibble over details here, but I don't think this describes the majority of hammer actions we see in today's high end digitals. There are some Fatar actions and Roland PHA variants (Ivory-Feel G is the one I know off the top of my head) that have velocity sensors triggered directly by the key, but most, including Yamaha GH and above, have the sensors actuated by the hammer (and not the keys). The only major caveat would be if the hammer was captured to the key, and I recall testing this on my MP11 (if I block the key lip such that it cannot sound a note when pressed softly, it will still sound if I tap the key quickly, causing the hammer to fly apart from the key and strike the sensors--hammer not captured). I think on the Yamaha GH and above the hammer is also free to a degree.



On the CLP-585 the white keys are "solid wood" (with plastic encasing each keystick to provide the attachment points for the pivot and hammer). I don't know about the 685, from the website the images look like wooden keys (but Yamaha curiously doesn't actually come out and claim it like they do with the prior generation). I'd love to see a teardown and detailed pics, but I guess we'll have to wait for someone who isn't returning theirs

Speaking of which, thanks very much for your detailed and honest review, JB33. I saw your Fantasie Impromptu performance on the 585 linked to your review as well and that was so nicely played as well!

It seems to me like digital piano progression is not so fast (especially when compared to some other tech) and your real world experience kind of backs that up. Maybe digital piano tech is reaching a plateau, similar to digital cameras and home computers to some degree. Then it all becomes about price i.e. lower price for the same performance. At least until some major fundamental breakthrough step in technology e.g. modelling which seems still in its infancy with plenty of potential to improve.

What I'm taking from this is not to consider upgrading incrementally until something night and day better arrives. If I can't hear or feel a significant improvement in the showroom within the first 10 seconds then I'm out! As it sounds like you weren't convinced after several demos, the salesman obviously did a good job on you there.

No problem John! I looked at your review, very nice playing! Nice whiskey selection too.

This is not true of most Yamahas ...In the GH, GH3, and probably the NW keyboards the key presses on plastic parts. This in turn presses on the rubber contact switch. The hammer just rises and strikes a felt-covered stop bar.

I believe that only the AvantGrand action reads both hammer and key velocity via non-contact optical sensors.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're creating a novel definition of "hammer" by excluding the shank and only considering the mallet/head, and saying that the head doesn't strike the sensor array the same way a piano hammer's head strikes the strings. I'm saying the full hammer mechanism, as distinct from the key mechanism, is still what strikes the sensor (even if it is on the opposite end of a grand)--it's still the impetus on the hammer (dependent on the momentum of the head) that registers the strike. IMHO the statement "Hammer position is not relevant" isn't correct in either sense--the key position is what is not relevant because the hammer mechanism isn't captured. If the key hits the bottom but the hammer doesn't have enough velocity, no note. If the key never hit the bottom but the hammer has enough velocity, it separates from the key and you get a note. Whether it behaves like a grand (the escapement creates a situation where at some velocities the key bottoms out before the note is struck, and at other velocities the note strikes before the key bottoms out) is completely irrelevant to "hammer (head) position" in a DP because it would not make a difference AFAIK.



Yeah, the AvantGrand really does some really over-the-top things compared to standard DPs, you can tell there was a kind of an idealistic accuracy-at-any-cost ethos in its development and execution, which I feel gets a bit lost in today's discussion. I'm hoping the Kawai Novus takes similar care here (one thing I noticed is that there isn't any mention of reproducing keybed vibrations, which the AG does with servos).

Thank you - much appreciated. Ah, yes, the golden nectar. Starting a little collection, the only problem is, I can't resist opening them. :-)

I wonder if the Novus would respond/behave as well, when paired to Pianoteq, as the new Rolands.
The new Rolands do not use a grand action, but the physical model is specifically created and, I assume, fine tuned at the factory level to work perfectly with its action.
With the Novus we get a grand action, but something perhaps gets lost in the process of pairing it with software that's meant to fit many actions?
Granted, there are tools to make this connection smooth and playable (velocity curve, etc...) but still I wonder if the all inclusive Roland has an inherent edge over the Novus paired to Pianoteq.

Interesting. Shouldn't this comparison be Novus->Pianoteq versus Roland->Pianoteq?

I haven't seen any evidence that Kawai's HI-XL isn't specifically tailored to whatever action it's used on, just as I haven't seen any evidence that Roland so tunes its SuperNatural or V-Piano models it whatever action (PHA-III, PHA-III Ivory Feel, Ivory-Feel G, PHA-IV Standard, PHA-IV Concert, PHA-50, etc.) it happens to live in?

No. Because I'm curious about how Roland's on-board physical modeling would compare with the Novus running an external (software) physical model.

That would depend upon so many variables it would be almost impossible to answer without adding to the modelling yourself by tweaking the adjustables. . .and then, of course, it'd be meaningless. lmo.

as it relates to playability (latency aside), would the Roland respond more accurately to the player's touch in terms of dynamics?

Not quite. I include the shank. Neither hammer nor shank are involved in initiating a sound. On an acoustic, it's quite the opposite, yes?The only parts on (most) digitals that get involved are what might be loosely equated to the wippen of an acoustic action.

Not so.On the Yamahas (and also Rolands, I think) you can remove the hammer and shank ... and the piano will still play. The feel will be quite different. Quite awful I'd imagine. But it will still play. It's the plastic mechanism under the key that presses on the sensor. The hammer and its metal shank are just there "for the ride".

Also this is incorrect:That's true on an acoustic piano, but not on most digitals. The hammer is there for the feel. It plays no role in striking the contact sensors.

Some of the high-end Kawais might be different. I've not seen detailed images of them.

And of course the AGs are entirely different.

But the run-of-the-mill Yamahas and Rolands (and maybe some of the Kawais?) just don't work the way an acoustic action does.

Unless you adjust dynamics up, almost all modern DPs will register note on with velocity of 0 and it won't make a sound. It's not as relevant as the converse (hammer can move independently of key and strike the sensor without the key bottoming out) which it doesn't sound like you deny. Again, I think we're just disagreeing on what constitutes "hammer." If you remove the entire hammer mechanism (including the pivot), the keystick will still "function" (and may or may not return) but nothing will strike the sensors and you'll get no sound. I think also if you cut off the shank, you will still run into the problem where a key struck briskly but not physically bottoming out will not put enough impetus on the remaining part of the hammer to sufficiently strike the sensor, so it would make a difference in that case as well.


But the run-of-the-mill Yamahas and Rolands (and maybe some of the Kawais?) just don't work the way an acoustic action does.[/quote] I think we agree that most of these digital actions aren't the same as acoustic actions. However, I feel the main difference is in the lack of true escapement rather than which part of the hammer hits the sensor. My take is if you modify a typical DP action so that the hammer head strikes the sensor array, it won't make the action any more realistic except by appearance, because we're talking the same levers and fulcrums at play here. You just adjust for the velocity difference along different points of the lever.

Just my $0.02.

High end DPs tend to have it as a parameter that can be set (minimum velocity to sound), but even at the lowest setting (i.e. where what would show up as a MIDI key velocity of 1 is sufficient to trigger a sound), on the CA67 it's certainly possible to press the key fully down, but with insufficient velocity to sound a note. And that's actually not a trivial thing, either; because the hammer grading is, in my view, slightly exaggerated on the CA67 in comparison to an acoustic grand, I sometimes find bass notes literally not sounding at all in quieter passages on normal touch sensitivity, in spite of the key being pressed fully down. Not often, but often enough to be a real consideration when playing.

I'm not sure why there should be any disagreement ...
This becomes clearer with a picture.

[img]http://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwdESI8nPDtaOUpyZ3NYeVBfNmc/view[/img]

You can see that the hammer at the end of the shank does not touch the contact sensors.

(This is a GH action. The GH3 and NW actions are similar.)

I have to confess I'm somewhat baffled by your style of discourse--you really seem stuck on making a point that isn't in contention: yes, the hammer head doesn't strike the sensor, that's never been in question, and continuing to push it strikes me as a strawman argument. But it is still the *hammer mechanism*, as distinct from the*key* that strikes the sensor. What is relevant in the picture you posted is that the hammer appears to be fully captured by the key. Here's a better pic (this is an NW-Stage action):


The thing is, if it did what you've been advocating all this time (if "the hammer at the end of the shank does not touchtouches the contact sensors"), it wouldn't make an iota of difference in the feel, sound or behavior in the action you show. The part of the hammer that hits the sensor is still part of the same lever, subject to the same forces from the key depression.

What would make a real difference if there was true escapement and recapture of the hammer. And even then, it still wouldn't matter if the sensors were hit by the hammer head, or the back part of the hammer where the key makes contact. Again, you'd have the same force acting on it and you'd just need to adjust the velocity curve to compensate.

Edit: Here's a GH3 schematic, that shows the the contact sensors in relation to the key and the hammer:


Remember, nobody is claiming that the hammer head hits the sensor, but 1) it's still the hammer and not the key that strikes, and 2) it doesn't even matter what part of the hammer hits the sensor if the hammer is captured by the key--even if it was the hammer head it wouldn't matter on a Yamaha action.

That last part doesn't make sense:

"Nobody is claiming that the hammer head hits the sensor" (agreed)
vs.
"It's still the hammer and not the key that strikes".

So which is it? The hammer does? Or it doesn't?

How do you distinguish "hammer" from "hammer mechanism"?

It seems to me that the hammer IS the hammer mechanism.

And the key IS the key mechanism.

And the parts in between -- the ones that don't seem to have a name in the diagrams I've seen -- are the ones that strike the sensors.
They're roughly equivalent to a wippen in an upright.

How would you count the wippen (and jack, etc etc) in an upright, in which these (and other) parts are the "action"?
Would you deem those part of the hammer mechanism? Why so?
And if so then why are the keys not also part of the hammer mechanism?
Where does the hammer end and something else begin?

I guess it's time for me to give up.

That's not the distinction. It's HammerHEAD (weight at the end of the shank, as you describe it, the part that hits the strings on an acoustic) versus the full hammer assembly (the head, the shank, the associated rivets, the pivot--the parts that comprise the hammer and are part of the same rigid body). And if it is all one part, then the hammer position absolutely matters, it's not "irrelevant" or just "along for the ride."

Those "parts in between" that impact the sensor pads are all part of the same rigid body. It's not a separate mechanism.



An acoustic has a lot of moving parts. A digital is vastly simplified, and as such the assembly names don't correspond. There's a key, there may be a leaf spring or such, and there is a single-piece pivoted hammer mechanism:



Again, in most DPs, the hammer is all one single, rigid body. There are no separate hinged/pivoted whippens, flanges, toes, etc. that make up the thousands of individual moving parts in an acoustic.

But even conceding the definition of a hammer, without all those other parts, what does it matter if the hammer's head hits the sensor rather than the "plastic in between parts?" Again, in a Yamaha action it's all captured to the key so the effect would be the same. What you need to make it matter is a means of true escapement.

Some points

No, there was not special reason to expect a 685 to be a huge leap over a 585, and I don't expect any revolutions from Kawai or Roland either. FWIW Moore's Law (the semiconductor improvement roadmap) is no longer in force.

If the 685 keys are longer than the 585 (I'm not sure but J Burns review seemed to say that)...that would be good. On the 585 the sheet music holder, when folded down to hold scores, can get in the way the steal some of that length from you (when playing fast dense chords, maybe when overlapping hands).

New acoustic pianos that cost $3000 to $5000 don't impress me. In that price range, I find digital have better sound and in some cases better action.

Nothing about how the N1 feels or sounds makes me want it at any price. I don't get how it's supposedly better. I suppose the feel is closer to some acoustics than other digitals are. But N1 doesn't feel like an acoustic to me either, and not remotely like a good grand.

Variation in how acoustics feel is huge. Digitals don't have actions like acoustics, but then again Steinways don't feel anything like Baldwins to me either and if I've practiced on one I make mistakes on the other.

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a digital piano and was waiting for the new clp 600 to arrive at my local store. Since apparently the 685 doesn't have such a good action as one would have expected, would you say the 675 is a better option? lighter action for example. This store (only yamaha dealer around) does/will not have a 685 (unless you pre-order one) so I can´t compare. Other brands are not really an option because of unavailability, etc
I would really appreciate any help. Thak you!

A lot of people like the 685 action just fine. How it feels to you is what matters, though. You have to find a way to try it yourself. Just like with shoes, you cannot go by others' impressions to determine the right fit for you.

+1. I wouldn't discount an action based on a couple of primary reports here, you need to decide for yourself whether you like it. Besides, the 685 and 675 share the same GrandTouch action so details aside I'm not sure they would seem significantly different, at least not in a way that you can trust without trying for yourself.

+2 I don't like the Yamaha digital actions at all, they feel very artificial to me, but never in a million years would I suggest to someone not to buy one based on that opinion. It's essential to play any piano you're interested before you buy it, digital or acoustic, and don't be too put off by other people's opinions of actions. Some people like the 685 action, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Bare in mind that the N1 is an attempt to bridge the gap: designed to closer mimic an acoustic grand. These things tend to evolve over time to become better and better. The N1 is old now and desperately behind in terms of sound generation. However, as you put it---"I suppose the feel is closer to some acoustics than other digitals are"---and as such, there will always be a market for it among those people who are unhappy at the quality of other digital actions.

Put it another way: if you play lots of acoustic grands, going to the N1 represents a loss of quality. If you play mostly digitals, going to the N1 represents a gain of quality, so hence the market is generated. If you're in the situation of having to practice at a semi-detached home where you need headphones, then the N1 is one choice or the Yamaha b3 SG2 silent upright is another. Obviously you don't have to tune the N1 and the polyphony of the b3 SG2 is only 64 notes in digital mode (not great).

Thanks R111, Gombessa and karvala I'll keep that in mind to avoid disappointing surprises