Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards CLP170 vs PF500

(I apologize for getting into this question on the Roland HP103/HP107 thread.)

CLP170 vs PF500 -

1. How good do you have to be to appreciate the "better" GH3 keyboard?

2. How does the PF500 digital recording fare versus the floppy disk in the CLP170 when used as a learning tool, to archive performance progress or for whatever else you would use recording for?

Thanks!

I can appreciate the GH3 keyboard over that found on the PF500, and I am not even remotely a professional level player.

The floppy drive just allows for infinate recorded files, while the internal memory of the PF500 is fairly limited.

Recording on disks also makes for easier cataloging of your recordings.

1. Have you tried them at all? I would say that an intermediate player should be able to appreciate the GH3 action.

2. Both models can record your performance exactly as it's played - tempo, dynamic range, pedal, volume, etc. With a PC connected, you can save all your performances. The advantage of the CLP 170 is that you can download songs from Yamaha for a fee.

Phil,

1) I like the GH3 and the GH keyboards but I have read reviews of people who favor one over the other. I don't think it is a matter of skill but more a matter of personal preference.

2) The floppy drive on any keyboard is really a bit of a gimmic and a little out of date. Anyone who wants to record midi sequences will use a PC for anything but the most basic recording.

Rodney

Thanks for the responses. The local store just got in a PF500 so I am hoping for a chance to try it soon.

Why can't Yamaha songs be downloaded to the PF500?

I thought more people would chime in supporting the
PF500 since (I concluded) it is very similar to the P250 which seems to be popular.

I WOULD like the CLP170 but the extra $1300 or so makes a difference!

I have a PF500 and am very happy with it. I too loved the CLP 170 especially its action but the extra cost put me off. The PF500 is a worthy second though (like the CLP150 but in a stage piano case) and I personally like the solid stage piano style case better than the veneered chipboard of the cabinet style ones. I do not play fast difficult passages as I am only intermediate standard so the action is fine for me though not as nice as the GH3 on the CLP170. Not sure about downloading Yamaha songs to it as I dont do any of that, but already there are many Yamaha songs on there. What I do like is how all the voice settings can be customised in many dimensions so you get the sound and touch you like. I had a Roland HP2 for a couple of days but took it back in favour of the PF500 and I have not regretted it.

I have a p250 and it is very similar to the pf500. I can download any midi file off the internet to the p250 with computer hooked up via a usb cable.
Also, the p250 internal memory is actually quite large; Currently I have around 70 midi songs loaded and I have room for more (not sure how many more). But the floppy drive is nice to have. I have a laptop which I have to drag downstairs to the piano to transfer files, so I don't do it very often. If I had a floppy drive I would do it more frequently.

<b>"I WOULD like the CLP170 but the extra $1300 or so makes a difference!"</b>

I know I'll sound like a saleperson here, but. . .

If you really want the CLP170, you could ask your dealer to finance the balance for you?

Good luck,
Chris

ooops, oh well

An intermediate player could feel the difference of GH3, but its only advanced players that really need it. IMO, the regular graded hammer is responsive and enough for the majority of people. Its hard to 'out-play' the GH, but impossible to 'out-play' the GH3!

Well, since I'm almost 61 and have played off and on (mostly off) for about 52 years, and still I'm not YET "intermediate" (how would I know?), GH is probably what makes most sense. I doubt I will be "out-playing" anything.

The format Yamaha uses to download files for the Clavinovas (with a disk drive) is not compatible with Windows OS, so the files can't be read. Yamaha did this to protect the Clavinova features and pricing. However, this is not a problem since you can probably find midi files from other sources. The difference I've found is that Yamaha files are 2-track where you can turn off the left or right hand to hear/learn each separately.

The CLP170 has a larger grand piano sample (36MB) and a more robust amplification/speaker system. Whereas the PF500 is the P250 designed for the home environment. If you think the sound quality is worth it, then go for the CLP 170... or hook the PF500 to monitors, a HiFi system and/or powered sub.

Well, I got to take a look at the PF500 and I like what I saw, felt and heard. Now it's time to work on that tax return! $$?

pf500 is good enough (that's why i got one), unless you have more money to spend for clp170.

I'm not sure that this holds true anymore. The old DOC format titles that used to have percussion on track 15 and accompaniment on tracks 3 through 10 have been remastered for XG. Also, the sequencers on the P-250 and PF-500 support the ESEQ format as well as phrase mark cueing and looping, and selective track muting.

-neil

Neil - just so we're on the same page, I tried to download free MIDI samples at:

http://www.yamahamusicsoft.com/index.php?action=GetPianoSoft

Though compatible with a lot of Yamaha boards and digital pianos, it doesn't work with the PF500. Click on the "compatibility guide" icon to see if your model works.

I haven't tried to install the musicsoft downloader, nor will I try. If we go by the compatability guide alone, and plug in the CLP150 (which doesn't have a built-in floppy drive), you will notice that some columns are marked as NC - not compatible - But not all of them. If we plug in the CLP170 (which has an internal floppy), more columns will be flagged as compatible. [Also notice that the PianoSoft Solo series is not compatible with any of the CVP-3XX models, so you shouldn't feel so bad.] If Yamaha is using a mechanism to prevent unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material, I can see how a floppy can be encoded that can only be read on a Yamaha drive - and that explains the disparity. But I wouldn't expect the PF500 to be any less capable than the CLP150 (and CLP170). The bundled file utility should be able to transfer SMF Format 0/1 and ESEQ midi files to the internal flash of these diskless models, or they can be played (ESEQ excluded)
on a connected personal computer using your favorite sequencing package/midi player.

If I had to generalize, I would say that more Yamaha series (and not necessarily titles) are available for Clavinovas with removable storage and/or IDC connections, than are available for diskless Clavinovas and other Yamaha models. But I'm not sure that this would influence my purchasing decision.
---

On second thought, I will step back and defer to your experience and the experience of others.

-neil

bump