Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Advice for console piano

Hi.

I'm new to this forum and are hoping for some good advices for my upcoming new piano:) I want a piano for practicing and looking for a classic console-style piano that looks nice and doesn't take up too much space. I want the best possible action regarding feeling and durability. Sound and playability are of course important as well. I don't really want an upright style cabinet like Yamaha CLP 685, Nu1X or Kawai CS 11, because I want the note stand to be as high as possible like on a grand piano. Low note stands are tiring for the back I believe. Models like Yamaha AG:s or Kawai NV10 are too deep for my room (and a bit expensive for a DP). I'm playing different kind of music but mostly classical and I want a practice instrument that can stand some serious beeting up:) Models I'm considering are:

Kawai CA 98
This one looks promising but I have no long time experience of the Kawai actions and how the durability over years are. The Scandinavian warranty is also limited to two years (I live in Sweden).

Kawai CS 8
I like the cabinet of this one

Yamaha CLP 675
Nice cabinet and sound, but I'm not really fond of Yamahas new GrandTouch action. It feels like a non-proper regulated piano to me.

Roland HP 605
Nice cabinet and OK action (maby a little bit too light and noisy). The modeled sound is a little bit too plastic though.

I don't completely dismiss upright style pianos and wonder also what your experience are on Yamaha Nu1(X) and Roland LX17?

Hoping for some advice on this delicate matter.

Best Regards

Johan

Well if you don't like the touch of the yamaha, and think the roland action is too light and noisy and don't like the sound, it seems you've already made your choice.

Hi

None of the cabinets like CA series are as high as a grand piano where the music rest is, the same for the roland hp605 and many of the cabinets are like that.

The only one I am aware of in that sort of price range that has a music rest on top, like a grand, at the proper height, is the Casio hybrid GP 400, ( but not the GP300 or 500 model),




Welcome to the forum.

I can understand that it seems that way but my comments are only my superficial impressions of these pianos that might change after discussing with other with more experience of these models.

Thank you:)

I suppose you are right, but if one can trust the specs the Yamaha CLP675 and Kawai CS8 is about 96cm without the note stand and the CA 98 is 94,5cm. The note stands on the grand pianos that I have at work is around 98-99cm so it's not a big difference.

Thank you for the advice on the Casio piano, I will check it out.


//Johan

I wouldn't buy a piano just for virtues of its music stand. If need be you can buy or build an upgrade to the music desk. Meanwhile there are many things about a piano to judge first, methinks.

To make a long story short: you have summarized the general opinion on some of the three major brand top digital pianos about the two main aspects, sound and action.You have also tried them confirming that. The probability someone will try to change your mind are near zero if you don’t add more deep details about what you are looking for, which kind of music you usually play, what are your preferences. Or go, buy a Kawai and enjoy playing music!

The height of the music stand is of course not my only criteria, but if everything else on the piano are comparable I do prefer the ones with better ergonomics. About the upgrade to the music desk that you mention, is it possible to buy such a thing?



I think you might be right... I just would like to have some opinions from those who have some experience from the mentioned models/brands. I have an old Yamaha p-120 on which I have replaced the action twice, so I want something more robust. I like the wooden keys on Kawai but it would be nice to hear some opinions from some long time owners of Kawai pianos since Kawai DP:s are pretty rare in Sweden. About the Roland pianos I didn't really like the sound when I tried it, but I also know that Rolands new sound engine is highly customizable so maby someone have some suggestion about that. I play a lot of chamber music and want something that works really well for practicing. At my work we have a few different grand pianos (Fazioli, Steinway, Standard Kawai, Shigeru Kawai and Yamaha) and I like them all so I don't have ONE preference, although I really like the Fazioli action but prefer the sound from the Shiugeru Kawai and the Steinway.

Can I come and work at your place, please? I'll even brush up my Swedish... Snälla?

Regarding your question: There was a guy here in the forum from Göteborg a few months ago (or maybe it was last year?) who was looking at a similar decision as yours, who ended up buying the CA97.

He did a long writeup here:
http://rickardnilsson.se/kawai-ca97-first-impressions/

(also follow the link in the beginning to his Reddit post, for more details).

And here is the quite long forum thread he made, where you can follow the whole history of his decision and subsequent purchase as it unfolds, including the issue that he had with one key and how it was resolved, eventually:

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2642994/1.html

If you don’t like the Roland sound there is no way to customize it. You could change it to be bright, mellow, with more resonance but you couldn’t change the basic “tone” as you couldn’t tune a Fazioli to sound like a Steinway.
But if you could accept his sound you could also enjoy the pros of a modeled engine that it’s not only about long resonances but also a deeply connection in playing. Usually people start feeling this after a while.

That connection is why I went with the Roland. It's subjective, but it feels very responsive and musical to me.

And as far as the LX-17 compared to HP-605, it is the same keyboard, same sound engine. It does have more fullness to the sound from the bigger and better speakers, and it also has more air with the lid open (the only Roland model with that) but it is still the same Roland tone.

I originally had the HP-605 and shortly traded up to the LX-17 and I think it was worth it. (I did this in a few weeks and got full credit for the 605 purchase price and only had to pay the difference up to the 17).

Of course, who can resist such a polite inquiry:)

Thank you for the links, how funny that we are living in the same city!





This is very interesting and also a difficult thing to experience in a piano store with a lot of noise and people I believe. I think I'll have to find a way to try out a Roland piano for a longer period of time. My opinion about the Roland sound might have to do with me being used to how a sampled based sound engine behaves.



I understand you and the LX17 is a absolutely gorgeous piano but would you describe the sound of the HP 605 "good enough" and is the sound and feeling with headphones exactly the same?

On one hand I think the HP605 is good enough. On the other hand, I did upgrade to the LX17. So, there is that. However, they had the LX17 on sale, so I got to upgrade to that for a lot closer price to the HP605.

In describing the difference of the sound between them, to me the biggest difference in the LX17 and the HP605 (and even LX7) is being able to open the lid. It's sort of like taking a blanket or sheet off a speaker. Not the the sound on the other models are muffled, but without that blanket there is some openness/air the others do not seem to have. It's not exactly like that, but about the best way I can describe it.

Through headphones the sound is exactly the same.

Music stand raiser solves your problem

I recommend you test the Kawai CA 98 against the Roland LX17 and the Kawai CS11. Haven't played the CA98 yet, but the CS11 sounded better than the CA97 (so worth trying both).

Good luck finding a shop to try the Casio!

Zilthy is right with regard to the LX-17. The sound of that piano (if configured with enough resonances and the lid open) is quite expansive. You don't get the 'left / right stereo' experience you feel with so many other piano's. And, it has a powerful low end because of its huge woofers.

With regard to the sound: it can be customized. Even though the 'Roland tone' will indeed be in every sound, there are four piano's to start from:

Grand Piano: Tuned for the middle note character
Ballad Piano: Tuned for the +1 note character
Mellow Piano: Tuned for the -2 note character
Bright Piano: Tuned for the +2 note character

You can make your own, up to the +5 or -5 characters, but you'll have to set all the characters for each key, and re-tune the piano. (Character adjustment changes the key's tune; the further you adjust, the more the tuning changes.)

I started from scratch with Grand Piano, set everything off or to 0, then set each parameter individually to listen to what it does, then set a starting point for each of them and adjusted where necessary. I also changed some note characters and volumes to fit into the sound I like and to work better in the room.

To me, my own LX-17 configuration sounds awesome, but if you just don't like the modeled Roland sound, no amount of tuning will change your mind.

Thank you for the tips about the music stand,I will check it out. About Kawai CS11, how would you describe the difference compared to CA97? About the Casio I actually know a store that has that model for show.



Thank you very much, I really appreciate this kind of hands on recommendations, I will try it out for sure. Can I ask you if you have any experience from earlier Roland actions and how you think the PHA-50 compare to them?

I have no experience with piano actions whatsoever. I've played the organ (classical, home organ, Hammond) since childhood, so my experience is with organ actions. I've switched to piano, as I like it better as a solo instrument, and started out with a Kawai MP7. This action is 'good', the PHA-50 is 'better'. (My GF, who has more experience with piano actions, labels the PHA-50 as 'much, much better'.)

If it's half-decent, I can probably play it, because I've played organs with el-cheapo crap and light actions, and organs with incredibly heavy actions.

The two actions often compared are the Roland PHA-50 and the Kawai GF2. For me, they compare as such:

- The Kawai GF2 is better at speed, especially fast trills.
- The Roland PHA-50 is better at controlling dynamics, especially playing soft trills.

So on the GF2, I can trill faster, but when going at the same speed, I can trill softer on the PHA-50. (The MP7's RH-II action is worse in both respects: slower than the PHA-50, and less control, but still doable except for the higher-end pieces.)

Addendum: I said that the LX-17 doesn't give you the left-right stereo experience you get with other piano's. That is _good_. The LX-17 doesn't sound as if it has left-right speakers, with you in the middle; it emits sound all around (expansive), and thus feels much more like an acoustic than any other digital piano I've played. In comparison, even the LX-7 sounds poor, at least to me, and I actually think that piano as a bad speaker setup with too much low end as compared to the rest of the tone spectrum.

I own an LX-17, and the RD-2000. I agree with all that Zilthy and Falsch has stated about the LX-17 and the PHA-50 action. I played on a Avantgrand N3, and various Kawai models, a CP-1, and the CS11 before my purchase and actually preferred the LX-17. It is difficult to do fast trills on the PHA-50 action, difficult not impossible. If and when I buy a "real" acoustic piano I will look for one that feels like my Rolands. It will probably take a 7 foot grand to give the depth of sound of my Roland. All this is highly subjective and personal, so test everything you can get your hands on. Other local pianist are stunned at how well the Roland does what it does. It puts a smile on my face every time I sit down to play. I can't imagine what the DP's will be like in another 10 years.

The only negative for me is the back of the LX-17 is not finished. It sounds better sitting away from the wall than up against it, hence they should have finished the back of it. Oh well, can't have everything.

This is an interesting observation. Have you tried both actions with the same sound source? Do you also know if the PHA-50 uses triple sensors, I haven't been able to find any information about that.


I think this is a surprisingly common problem with console pianos. I often find stage pianos with built in speakers sounding more balanced than their console counterparts.


Would you say that the PHA-50 is even more responsive than the N3 action?

I've tested the piano's only on their own merits. I'm not going to connect extra computers or speakers to this piano as it's in the living room, so I didn't test it as such. Observation about third sensor:

Yes, the PHA-50 has three sensors. I _think_ it has the third sensor close to the bottom of the key, as you can re-press a key very quickly and still have it sound clearly; it only needs to go up for about 20-25%. (I actually have problems on the MP7 now, because the third sensor is higher up: I re-press a key as I would on the Roland, and then I have no sound.)

This makes repeating notes on the same key easy. I love this about the LX-17 (and started to dislike the slower MP7).

On the other hand, it makes it _ harder_ for me to control trills, as I am, as I said, used to organ actions, and they often trigger at the top of the range, especially the Hammond. already. So, I am used to repeat notes and trill fast by pressing the key very little, and sometimes, the Roland doesn't even make sound as I don't press far enough. because the downstroke is longer, it's easier to control the descend and speed of the key, so it can play softer.

Because the Kawai is exactly the opposite for me (fast trills, hard control of the downstroke) I _suspect_ it has the third sensor closer to the top of the key than the Roland. (But still lower than the Roland.)

For one who can play trills closer to the bottom range of the PHA-50 keys, I think the Roland will be able to trill as fast as the GF2. I'm still trying this, but breaking 25 years of habit is.... difficult.

Note that I 'm trying to describe what I feel when playing, and extrapolating on where the sensors would likely be. I can be completely wrong about this though...