Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Qstn: Digital Piano Sound vs Acoustic

I agree.

When I wrote above:

I was also thinking about a much cheaper "low end" upright (IDK, well below $5000 for a new upright, or something like that).

Apples and pears, both can play music but are very different in sound and touch.
Mid range digitals are already more convenient in an average flat like ours, in the sense that it's easier to control the sound projection and play intimately. They are very good at this.

Furthermore, digitals are 'voiced' so that bass is easily kept lower than melody, like in a perfect recording. In acoustic pianos it's very difficult to do so, you need good technique. Bass keys are heavier, hammers massive...It's another world.

When I record I get better dynamics from my digital, and sound is way more clear and spatial. It is 'easy' in some sense (you know what I mean). But it's also fake in many things.

The upright (entry level) has a very good action that helps me to play, and when it's in tune and I do things well...THAT is the sound I want !! I've come to the conclusion that the worst thing of my upright is my house. (well, and some bass weird notes that go out of tune very quickly)

If it's to produce a recording, it's the DP. If it's for the realtime playing experience, it's the acoustic. It's that simple for me. As long as the acoustic is in tune and in good working order, it's the acoustic. DPs have been gaining ground over their 30 year journey, but they're still not there yet for me.

I too find my digital very easy to play (although I have changed the decay rate to get a more realistic sustain out of it so it's easier to muddy things up than on the standard settings) but I also find pretty much every acoustic I sit down at to be less than ideal in terms of either action (inconsistent response across keys and velocity speeds) or sound (generally tuning, which requires maintenance, but sometimes just overall tone - great if you're Tom Waits but not if you want to play a wide variety of stuff).

Agree that digitals almost emulate the sound of a studio recorded piano played back through speakers, but are far away from replicating the sound of an actual piano as it would sound in the room. I don't think that's such a big thing though, they're convenient for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to have a loud acoustic piano in their house, and much much cheaper over their lifespan.

Just once I would like to play a top drawer, tuned and regulated grand piano to see if a performance I can get out of my digital can be matched on a quality instrument that is set up to play at its best.

Okay, maybe twice.

The OP asked if it is possible for a DP to *produce* a "better" sound than an acoustic. To discuss this already subjective topic one needs at least to agree on how the sound is actually being produced in order to compare it. I see at least three different scenarios here that can be compared, namely:

1. The sound produced by a DP using *speakers* against the *natural sound* produced by an acoustic.

2. The *direct/internal recording* of the sound produced by a DP against a *recording* of an acoustic played through the exact same speaker/headphone setup .

3. The *recording* using mics of the sound produced by the DP's speakers against a *recording* of an acoustic using the exact same mic/speaker/headphone setup.

We also need to account that the perception of the "quality" of the sound from the perspective of the player is not the same as that of a passive listener.

I believe the answer to the first scenario is relatively straightforward since it is difficult for a speaker setup to be able to faithfully replicate the sound properties of an acoustic instrument. However, the answers to the the second and third scenarios are not that straightforward but they could actually be evaluated on a blind A/B testing procedure. In the two latter cases, I am not sure how many people would be able to systematically tell apart the recorded sound of a "quality" DP from the recorded sound of a "quality" acoustic piano...

OP producing three different ...

Keep it simple ...

Sit down in front of either, and play. Ask, which sounds better? High end digital? Approx $5,000. Low end acoustic? Less than $15,000.

Nothing more. No headphones, microphones, external speakers, equalizers, amplifiers, sound proof rooms, just two instruments, new, played by the same person who is kinda good.

Simple ...

It's a great question - but you classify fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) as LOW END?! You can do an awful lot with fifteen thousand dollars........are we allowed 2nd hand? If so, I'll find a nice reconditioned Bluthner or similar quality grand on eBay.

In which case, I'd take the acoustic piano every time. Not the DP as I stated above......that would only apply if the prices were of 1:1.5 ratio, perhaps. Not 1:3.

I found this video a few days ago:

This is really hard to be objective about. Personally I much prefer playing my humble Pearl River upright (UP115M5, bought new in 2013) than my Kawai CA65 (bought new in 2014).

In fact I think the upright sounds better too, better now than when I bought it. Whether it really does I have no idea, but you certainly don't have to spend anywhere near 15000 USD to get a nice sounding upright.

I've unembedded the video to save space. I am the person who left the Top Comment about the sample done with the "ears" microphone sounding very tinny (the other samples were taken from line out) on the Novus - I've seen various explanations about why it doesn't sound right, and that there is going to be another recording done, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.

I have only seen one other youtube video where the speaker sound from a DP has been recorded and that is this one https://youtu.be/Eff_qzw3lD4. This also sounds "tinny" to my mind but it is a poor quality microphone. I have never seen a serious attempt with a quality microphone.

My own CA 67, sounds close in overall sound to upright piano my father bought new in 1956 and now situated at my daughters house, but its in tune - which the upright is not and in need of some attention. However its still lacking a little richness, especially when playing many notes, something I think is just a limitation of the size of the speakers in it.

I don't believe I've ever heard a good quality recording of a digital piano captured using microphones. The recording quality will also certainly be inferior to that captured from the Line Out connectors, and will not serve as an accurate representation of how the instrument sounds when heard in person.

The recent Novus recording video linked above is interesting, but I very much doubt any NV10 owners would honestly say the sound heard in this clip is anything like that heard when playing the instrument in their home.

Kind regards,
James
x

I was quite impressed by this, it is not spelled out, but looking at the cables and setup, the reverb of the hall is picked up also. Of course we don't know what other tricks or post mastering tricks were used, not bad for a digital though if true.

https://youtu.be/c7AINZwY-iw?t=1m58s

Note how the mics are directly pointing at the open lid is where the speakers can escape for a clearer sound projection and better imaging. I don't think the idea of the open lid is a gimmick and actually helps somewhat with sound projection into a room also.

My Casio AP 450 also that design and heard some good miced recordings like this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJWe6JW5qk

note that some of this is at least the room sound because you hear his nails hitting the keys, but no doubt there is post mastering involved, but Casio actually did some other recordings where they claimed you were hearing the room sound of the AP 450 in all its glory from just mics, also, the reverb sounds natural to a real room, not like the build in one btw.

The console speaker setup has a lot to do with I suspect, and judicious placing of high quality mics in a good studio or room with good acoustics.

As for speakers, compare my AP 450 with two speaker directly at the front tilting up to the player ( unblocked, just some cloth covering them) and compare that to a roland HP 603 which just has two speakers projecting down, the latter just doesn't envelop you in sound at all, you are not getting any direct sound for which speakers are optimised and give their frequency response as intended. While I'd say the roland hp 603 beats my Casio AP 450 in pretty much every department, sound engine, action etc, the speaker setup in the ap 450 blows it away IMO, and for half the price at that.

It is okay to have speaker below/underneath but there need to be the compliment above also for better room projection and towards the player IMO, to me it seems the lid helps with that, sound can then escape in a more direct manner instead of being trapped in a cage, or some using those tiny gaps, a worse case scenario because they want the cabinet to look pretty, but it is not ideal at all for sound projection and that results in what I call the boxy sound of many consoles.

Quite frankly, most efforts sound quite horrible in pretty much most recordings I have heard of digitals with mics, including that NOVUS comparison above, actually, even the acoustic sounded bad ... IMO.

btw. I've also heard decent recordings of people just pointing mics at their studio monitor setups with slabs and get some decent results that way to pick up their own room sound, Phil Best records pianoteq like this often, I heard him mention it once in one of his videos.

Alexander, while wring my post, I had a feeling that someone would post the Casio promo videos as a response...

James
x

Well, to be fair: depending on the room, line out is about as far removed from actual sound in person than a mic'd recording.
I notice it with my flute time and time again how drastically it's sound changes depending on the room I am standing in.

As for the topic: I really wonder how the comparison would look if we start talking about quality headphones + VST vs Acoustic.

Can I suggest this simple test?

a) Record line out from your DP and then play it back through your DP's speakers.

b) Play your DP and record it via mic. Then play it back through your DP's speakers.

Now, which one sounds more like the DP playing normally through its own speakers?

I was actually thinking the same thing. That would be a better test, and you can do that with any dp with a good action (for realism's sake). The only problem is that this doesn't apply when playing for an audience (be it small). It still doesn't have the richness of an acoustic, but it may offer more control and pleasure if the acoustic isn't placed in a good room.

I have to admit I struggle with this position a bit. Do you mean that most people who try don't mic up digitals sufficiently to provide a good test? Or that a mic'd perspective is better good enough?

To me the drawback of line-out is it compares only the tone generator, and not the speakers/amp/cabinet which might make up the majority of the cost of a DP (or be there main differentiation between them). By comparing line out only, aren't we saying an NV10 sounds exactly like a CA-78 in person? Or that an FP90 sounds the same as an LX-17 or GP607 in the same room?

It also suggests that a mic'd acoustic is also not an accurate representation of how that instrument will sound in person, but as far as I know, that's really the only way we're going to hear an acoustic if we're not in person. So as non-ideal as it may be, a similarly mic'd acoustic and mic'd digital in the same environment does seem to have comparative value to me.



I don't understand why it has to be played back through the same DP's speakers? Very few people will have the exact model DP to make that same comparison. And by using this test, how do you compare it against an acoustic piano (where all you have is mic'd output)?

There's a lot here ...

Me neither.

I don't know "most people" ... but I do know that it's difficult to get a recording with a microphone. The pros know how and they have good equipment. The rest of us don't know how and we don't have the equipment.

Is the tone generator in the NV10 the same as the CA78? I'm guessing not, but I cannot be sure.

Exactly. The only way to properly hear a piano is in person. Anything else is second-rate.

I don't want my digital piano to sound like a mic'd acoustic reproduced through speakers. I want to to sound like a live acoustic piano.

Most people who make these videos are either salesmen trying to sell the piano, or amateur pianists more interested in getting their work out there. Neither has the motivation to do a mike'ed up version.

I especially grates on me the quite clever way in which in most videos where someone is selling the piano separate the talking voice and playing segments in subtle way so you don't notice that the speaking is microphone and the playing is line out.

It's the same. "SK-EX Rendering" multisample engine.



I doubt anybody wants that. But we're not talking about achieving end results here. if someone is going to compare one instrument to another without there luxury of actually being there in person, I'd just prefer that comparison to be apples to apples.



Interesting, I actually appreciate those seamless transitions most of the time, but usually it's because I'm comparing different sound engines or VSTs and don't want any differing amplification as extra variables.