Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Just accept it: it'll NEVER be a real piano...

A bit wrong here, Joe if I might say.
Time was, I played this LX 17, next to various acoustic uprights and grands. I recoiled in horror. the darned thing sounded like an acoustic, felt like one, played like one.
I was not happy. Wondered what the world was coming to.
You see, I liked my digital and had no wish for it to sound like the real thing . . . .

And how does you not liking acoustic pianos at all make my statements wrong?

First, this is just some good, thought provoking fun.

1 - RD-2000 - ok, so you don't like it. This is not my point... just insert your favorite digital.
2 - Acoustic piano - The world compares digital to the best the world has made.... few few of us actually have the means to own one so why do we compare to them?
3 - Reality acoustic piano - My honest experiences are that acoustic pianos I play and have had access to suck.
4 - Reality for me..... my RD-2000 is better than almost all of my real life experiences with acoustic pianos.. maybe because I am a hack that my parents (very middle class) or I never purchased a mega-buck acoustic? I just have never had the privileged (spoiled?) to spend quality time with great pianos.

The original poster's comment "never like a real piano".... gosh I hope not. My RD-2000 is better than the crap I have access to.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

How 'bout turning this on its tail ...
"No acoustic piano will ever sound like the RD-2000 !"

Ha!... a twist.... gotta think about that one.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

I went to an used piano shop, and the uprights i could afford that were around the price as the CA78 didnt sound nearly as good, the action wasnt very good too, maybe they were kind of old, they even had some Kawai uprights, but when you get an upright it sounds like an upright, and i dont like the sound that much, the ones that impressed me were the Yamaha U1 or U3 i think but they were like $1200 more than a CA78, and a Grand piano? around $6000+. So even if it isnt acoustic, the sound its emulating still pleases me, and i can pretend to be playing a really good acoustic.

Now the action, i think if or when they move to optical sensors on more DPs they can improve the feel, the rubber contact bands kind of limit it i think, they could simulate something like an escapement when they get rid of it, plus add some kind of vibration like Yamaha has done to make the experience more complete.

I don't want this to sound as comparing music styles but when I played mostly jazz and easy-listening music, I much preferred digital pianos due to a very clean sound especially for more complex harmonies and syncopated rhythms with less focus on lyrical sound, legato transitions, fine control over pedaling and resonances, etc. And you can even see that I defended that opinion (digitals are better than acoustics) 5 or more years ago on this forum. However with moving almost entirely to classical music, and especially into romanticism wih slow, lyrical pieces that require every single note to sing and blend properly with the rest, I find it more and more difficult to do so on digital pianos (hybrid pianos included) compared to a real acoustic piano. This is just an opinion and it could be as much biased, as it was on the opposite side years ago

So you were once wishy, and you're now washy?

Never said all. You were talkin' about the Rd. Me about the LX.

Film Cameras vs Digital Cameras

Each has its strength. Each has its limitations. Film is still used today. And digital certainly is.

Pianos are no different. I don't expect to pay $5000 for one and it competes nicely with a $40,000 (or far more) acoustic. But, I do like the touch and the sound is more than adequate.

We can find all sorts of parallel arguments in many other products. Arguments that will never be satisfied.

Neither will this one.

+++

I still wish Kawai would add the sound as standard of "Toy Piano". It's wonderful and makes people smile.

And if we compare the high end digitals of today with even fifteen years ago. Is there a comparison? Hardly.

Not exactly. There are improvements but not really huge. Keyboard actions are basically the same unchanged principle for the last 20 years. Sound improved slightly but not that much. There are a bit more layers, a bit longer samples, some VRM resonances. But it isn't a night and day difference. And people still remember how CLP-990 was actually better in many respects to modern high end digitals.

I kinda agree with this.... my RD-600 of 18 years ago was pretty darn good, and when you just compare action and basic piano sound, well my RD-2000 is not what I would have thought 18 years of improvement would have delivered. HOWEVER.... the acoustics I have sum-total played suck, and both those digitals are better.

ANOTHER! way to look at it: My mom's Schroeder upright... when I touch that thing today, I can feel the action swinging the hammer... oooo... I can feel the string being struck.... I can feel the resonances.... my RD-2000 feels no way as real..... but that acoustic piano still sucks and I would be happy to light that match on it.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

Not necessarily. I would take a Yamaha baby grand -- not exactly the "best the world has made" -- over the very best "hybrid" on the market. The only problems are the bulk of the Yamaha acoustic, and the fact that it would probably wake up the neighborhood if I wanted to play at 1 am.

In my opinion, decent digital beats mediocre acoustic (by a country mile), but a decent acoustic will always be better than a digital.

We have to be specific when talking about "acoustic" since the degree of variance in acoustic pianos between them selves is far greater than the difference between an average acoustic and a digital.

A decent DP always beats any acoustic in terms of convenience and utilization no matter how expensive that piano is.

I don't give a care if it's a 100k+ grand. What matters is how I utilize it.

Acoustic is more of a luxury/profession thing. If you're a pianist you need an acoustic (in addition to DP).

Playing my DP it has moments where I think it sounds really good.

When I hit a series of notes right on my grand it reverbs the room, sends shivers down my spine and makes me appreciated the instrument.

Something a digital can not duplicate.

Is there really any need for absolute statements like this? It depends on the person. For somebody who wants none of the features of a digital and just wants to play an acoustic piano in a singular location in their own home, an acoustic piano might be a more convenient and offer better utility.

Yes, reverberations. Something that could be a problem on digitals. A good point.

A personal anecdote - I practice mainly on a VPC1 with pianoteq. I also have an upright (quite a decent one) and I always find that quite weird to play after the VPC1. However, I went for a lesson recently (first one) and my teacher has a Steinway grand. Felt extremely similar to the VPC in terms of action. I played for the first time on that Steinway a lot better than I can play my upright acoustic piano.

My teacher had no problem with me practicing on a VPC1, I also found that I could achieve everything I wanted, albeit fairly limited, on the Steinway, namely the stuff I'd been practicing at home. I was pleasantly surprised.

There are differences, the feel of the pedal, and also the way an acoustic will shout in your face if you're not careful. But nothing I couldn't get used to in twenty minutes. Therefore I conclude that practising on a VPC or decent action with software that at least responds more or less the way you want it to, is a perfectly viable way of operating, certainly at my level, which is about intermediate.

It seems to me that the synthesis level of the digitals is acceptable in modern times. Maybe not so much in the past.

The other advantage of digitals is a spin-off of the headphones point. It allows people to do more practice, and possibly might help keep the standard up. Someone with a one bedroom apartment can now actually do some proper piano work at 4 o clock in the morning if they so desire (keyboard thump aside). This will certainly not harm the general standard on the piano scene - quite the opposite. Helps keep it alive.

So perhaps it's essential that digitals are not, and never will be, real (acoustic) pianos?

One thing that comes through in discussion is that an acoustic is very much an individual - one is not like the other.

So just picking acoustic is an undertaking.

My reference as guitar as main instrument is that acoustics really, really, are different. I travelled around 3 different shops, 100 km in different directions, and played everything they had in stock. I recorded as well, took at preamp and mikes I use - to compare in computer later to help memorize a bit to help in deciding.

Same brand, same model - but most leave you indifferent.
Electric guitars are different individuals too, but more subtle I would say and are never compared to an acoustic as they sound - they are very different instruments.

So just saying acoustic is better is not the full story. In general they fill a room with sound where you sit in a way that speakers have a hard time doing - but putting that kind of money on an instrument also means other things matter too.
- do I like this very instrument or not?
- how will this sound at home?

And you are stuck with the room you are at with an acoustic. Digital can provide different reverbs for ambience that you prefer - just for playing. Upfront or in a hall.

Those that have a situation and a room that serves well for a grand piano - those are to be envied.

There are ads all over that people are giving away acoustic pianos - after the x:ed move they are sick of it, Just come and get it.....I don't want to move this beast again....and contract an army to carry it.....

Real piano, not a real piano... it's good enough for Andrew Lloyd Webber.

[img]https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...d2f208f4d9a1b4bef4d4ec7f&oe=5E9A985C[/img]