Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Yahama Avantgrand N1 or N1x ?

Yahama Avantgrand N1 or N1x ? I have found N1 for 3500 euros, and it is from 2012, very good condition, not much played, now i wonder , the new N1 x is obviusly better , but is it worth extra 4000 euros, thre price for new N1 x is about 7700 euros?

If you intend playing mainly through headphones, the binaural CFX patch in the N1X is a real upgrade although a €4000 price premium is too much for that only IMO. Otherwise the old CFIII patch is still a good piano and through speakers it sounds great. Maybe just OK through headphones though. There’s an audio USB interface on the N1X but that’s not very important anyway. There are some additional voices and virtual resonance modeling too and it’s the VRM that makes the resonances more realistic but on the N1 there are pedal down samples AFAIK, so it’s not that bad. I think you should try the N1 and if you like it, then it’s a very good deal with such a discount.

How can you determine that a piano has not been played much? I think you'd have to open it up and look for wear in the action parts, right?

i am aware that N1x is better in every aspect, the guy who sells it is an older and retired , i tested it and it sounds , looks , feels ok, the main question: how many years will it be ok ,does it require maintenance or mechanical service , how long will it last?

Real grand piano actions can last for 100 years and more. I’ve got a 120 years old grand piano action that I regulated fully and it feels almost the same as the N1X. On the N1 you may need to hire a technician to regulate it, say every 5-10 years depending on how much it’s been played. These are simple regulation steps such as normalizing key dip (may change due to felt compression), escapement position, hammer drop, backcheck adjustment, jack lubrication. An experienced technician can do that in 1-2 hours but having the service manual is preferred where exact measurements are described, as well as the software re-calibration after the regulation.

CG, I think the question was how long will an N1X last?

Well, unless it's made of self-destructing materials and the electronic elements fail, it should last long. Another topic is the digital sound engine being outdated and it already is to some degree. But in terms of acoustic piano action, it should last a lot. Probably much more than typical digital piano actions.

What about the optical sensors, will those last long, too?

No reason to fail IMO. They are contactless, so apparently much more durable than the simple rubber dome switches. But it's electronics after all and electronics fail.

That seems to make sense. I mean, the GranTouch has been around forever, and it still pops up for sale as being in ‘excellent’ condition. So yes, these things are built like tanks (not literally, Mac).

It seems to me that buying a used hybrid is the better choice over a brand-new ‘digital’; not just for durability, but also because it stands a better chance against planned obsolescence. Perhaps with some assistance from VSTs, but still..........
Conventional digitals are conceived and designed from the perspective of becoming -or appearing- obsolete within a couple of years.

I dont think that is true, or at least not in the sense the term is typically used. Planned obsolescence IMHO is a product that is intentionally designed to have a limited useful life. An example would be smart phones, which gradually perform worse and worse on purpose. With DPs, that doesn't particularly happen; my Yamaha P120 isn't notably worse now than it was when it was bought ~15 years ago. I will upgrade to a better product, one that wasn't available back then, but the P120 still does what it always did just fine. Digital pianos are superseded by new models because there is a relatively rapid improvement of technology, whereas acoustics (and the action of hybrids) have little to no meaningful development happening. As such a 10-year old hybrid isn't action-wise particularly worse than a new one, provided the used hybrid is well maintained.

Given the technology of current DPs, I dont see this trend of improvements continuing in the same sense it has the past three decades; there is only so much that can be improved upon a current state-if-the-art DP action without it becoming a de-facto hybrid.

I agree with sleutelbos : my CLP150 from 2002 is still working fine... it is not like, let say a printer which use a sponge to get rid of the excess of ink and stop working when the sponge is full after too many cleaning cycles.

And digital piano progress is quite slow... the CLP6xx and the CLP5xx are too close that we have low incentives to upgrade. My CLP150 is quite far from the nowadays CLP, but it takes a decade for Yamaha to improve every parts (sound generator, keyboard, user interface, not sure about the amp/speakers).

On my CLP150, I had to change the sustain pedal potentiometer... such a piece with such a use will have a limited lifespan (15 years in my case)... but changing it is quite easy, it is not like I had to change the whole piano.

[/quote]
Given the technology of current DPs, I dont see this trend of improvements continuing in the same sense it has the past three decades; there is only so much that can be improved upon a current state-if-the-art DP action without it becoming a de-facto hybrid.[/quote]


Are you implying that improvements have been ‘robust’ over the last three decades, and that things will slow down because there’s not much to improve?

The consensus here is the opposite: progress has been painfully slow over the last three decades, and the pace for improvements should be picked up.
As a matter of fact, sometimes there has been a deliberate and systematic reverse on progress, and I can give you a specific example, it’s called the CLP990. This instrument used fully wooden, long, center-pivot (a la Kawai) keys. It used 88 key sampling; which Yamaha later dropped for several years, and some might argue, a better designed sound system.

I don’t see how much of an improvement the CLP685 is over the CLP990; considering several decades have transpired.

As it relates specifically to the sound engine, why can’t the on-board CFX sound as good as the Garritan CFX? I’ll answer my own question: because Yamaha doesn’t want to spend a couple o’ extra bucks on storage and associated aspects (faster processing, etc..). This is the opposite of ‘robust improvements’ over the last three decades.

Yes, CG claims the playability of the on-board CFX is good, but laments that it doesn’t sound as good as the Garritan!

Correct me if I'm wrong but CLP-990 also had a microphone that would capture the external sounds around it and feed them through the body resonance model, like a singer singing around a real acoustic grand would trigger some resonances inside the piano, or tapping on the piano cabinet would create these ghostly sounds. That was so ahead of its time and made me salivate over the CLP-990 for long.

Bingo! A monster of an instrument, and now, after decades of ‘improvements’, we have the GrandTurd action.

That is an excellent price for the N1. These are quite rare on the used market. You can search my posts for US prices of used AvantGrands over the past few years as indications.

As long as it plays ok and does not have any obvious damage, I would just buy it.

New unit will provide a warranty, better sounds, unused parts, and store moving services. But I don't think that is worth paying more than double for. YMMV, especially if 4000 euros is not a material amount of money for you.

I'd love to see Yamaha bring back the CLP-990, but with lots of nice updates.

I would be inclined to just buy that N1. The price is great, but then I'm not all that interested in the internal sounds. You might be.

I will be using VST instruments like Garritan CFX , planning on buying extra soundcard and a pair of good monitors, i didn't found N1x to compare it with N1, would like to hear Binaural sampling.

Are you implying that improvements have been ‘robust’ over the last three decades, and that things will slow down because there’s not much to improve?

The consensus here is the opposite: progress has been painfully slow over the last three decades, and the pace for improvements should be picked up.
As a matter of fact, sometimes there has been a deliberate and systematic reverse on progress, and I can give you a specific example, it’s called the CLP990. This instrument used fully wooden, long, center-pivot (a la Kawai) keys. It used 88 key sampling; which Yamaha later dropped for several years, and some might argue, a better designed sound system.

I don’t see how much of an improvement the CLP685 is over the CLP990; considering several decades have transpired.

As it relates specifically to the sound engine, why can’t the on-board CFX sound as good as the Garritan CFX? I’ll answer my own question: because Yamaha doesn’t want to spend a couple o’ extra bucks on storage and associated aspects (faster processing, etc..). This is the opposite of ‘robust improvements’ over the last three decades.

Yes, CG claims the playability of the on-board CFX is good, but laments that it doesn’t sound as good as the Garritan!
[/quote]

I am obviously talking about action as that is the decisive difference between DP and hybrid. Go play the most expensive DP from the 90s and compare that with a CA98. The difference is night&day. I don't see that improving in the same way as there is some not that much improvement to do, beyond simply putting hybrids in cheaper series.

For sound you use a vast anyway.