Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Kawai CA-9 vs CLP-170

Hi,

I'm new to this forum. Sorry if this has been discussed to death already.
I once had an upright piano on which I played a lot. Then I had to sell it and bought a digital one. It was a Yamaha CLP 670, which I soon began to hate, because it sounded very unnatural to my ears.
Now I'm starting to learn more, I have a teacher, and I'm planning to buy a new digital. I was two times in a local store and liked especially the CLP 170 and the CA-9. I have not heard the new Roland HP 107. I read much about the CLP 170, it seems a lot of people really think, this is the best digital piano. But to my ears the Kawai sounded better. It felt almost like a real piano, when I played on it. The CLP 170 also sounded very good, almost perfect, but it felt like an electronic instrument. To me both the sound and the action of the Kawai were better.
The CLP 170 looked better and had more features (iAFC), and some sounds (epiano) were better than on the CA-9, but the piano sound is most important for me. The CLP 170 action seemed a little bit harder to play for me, I don't know if this is important. I'm no expert and not a very good player, I just like playing piano.
Now, I have two questions: Are there any other people who know both instruments and think the CA-9 is better, or am I the only one?
The other question: Can I do something wrong, if I buy a Kawai Digital?
I hated my CLP 170 for its sound, but it was very reliable, I never had any technical problems.

Regards,
Olec

You already have one?

No, sorry, I was typing wrong. I have a CLP 670 since 1990. The CLP was built 1989. At that time it was one of the better, if not best, Digital Pianos.

Olec,

Both are very good pianos, so you cannot go wrong with either one. Both seem to be very well built and the companies have very good track records. It boils down to personal preferences.

It seems that tone is one of your highest priorities. Since this is a personal preference, only your ears can tell which one you like better. Same about the action. Some prefer heavier, some prefer lighter. There are first tier acoustic pianos in each category.

I also preferred the Kawai sound to Yamaha sound. This was not entirely a surprize since I like more the Kawai sound in acoustic pianos as well.

Good luck.

Hi CMS,

yes, this can be true. I once played a Yamaha at my teachers home and never really liked its sound. It sounded thin to me, I also did not like the action.
But my teacher said, a heavier action is better for practising. I don't know if the CA-9 action is too light.

Olec

I hate to take issue with someone's teacher....but too many teachers are saying that a heavier digital action is better for practising ...Wouldnt the piano student usually want a digital with the most natural piano touch instead of a heavier touch.....And one other question that I would love to ask these same teachers is how many of todays Digital Pianos they have actually played....To be able to make an actual (and factual)comparison between makes and models...
Sorry for the rant.. .Just my $.02

Yes, too many piano teachers/professionals view all digitals in the same light. Two digital pianos can vary just as much as two different acoustic pianos.

Olec,

First, I should say that the vast majority of digitals provide just an approximation of a real piano action. For once, there is more to an action besides the "weighting" part. Most of actions do not have true escapement, they might simulate it electronically, but they do not have the mechanical part. (Yamaha GranTouch series represent a notable exception - they have a true action - they are also very expensive compared to other digitals.) So, most of digitals provide only approximations to a true acoustic piano (action and sound). (I know, this is heresy in this BB.) Nevertheless, some provide very good approximations and, many say, good enough. They also have other advantages, which acoustics cannot match.

Now, CA-9-s have one of the finest action in a digital. Personally, I do not think that it is too light. It is clearly heavier that the one on ES-3/5. I use for practice both my upright (a C. Walter, which has an excellent action, as far as uprights go) and the Kawai ES-5 (for using it with headphones, for easy recording and for MIDI).

I can see why a teacher suggests a somewhat heavier action: to develop muscles. Nevertheless, I am sure no teacher would object if the student has a Bluthner, Bechstein, August Forster or Pleyel which have very light actions, but also provide excellent control.

Go with the piano which gives you the most personal satisfaction. You are the only one to measure/value this. You are looking already at excellent digital pianos. (Now, if you are really interested in developing technique and the other conditions are met, you might want to consider an acoustic piano...)

Just FYI, The Roland Progressive Hammer Action with Escapement actually does have a mechanical escapement let off mechanism

Fair point, my information is slightly outdated/incomplete. I think that it is still true that most digitals do not have the mechanical escapement. For instance, my understanding is that none of the Kawai-s do not have it.

Hi Olec,

i am just in the same situation. I've also played both pianos and like the action and the sound of the Kawai a little bit more than that of the Yamaha. I would also say that i am not a good piano player and i will buy one of these pianos or a Roland in the next two month. I am just waiting for the new models presented at the NAMM this month.

But in general i do not agree with the position stated very often here in the forum:

"Buy the one that you find better in sound and action"

From my opinion and experience the top models of all three vendors are very good instruments. I believe that you will very soon adapt your play and hearing to the piano you own. You will accustom to the action and you will like the sound. Soon you will learn how to give the music your feeling and you will begin to "hate" the other models.

(Therefore i think you will find this polarization by some people posting here.)

I have started to look at the other features offered by the pianos and for that i prefer the Yamaha CLP170 - especially because of the "spatial ensemble effect" offered by it. That is interesting for me because i also play Sax and you should get the same feedback from the epiano as from the strings of a real piano if playing loud... ( i could not test this in the store :-))

Hi digikey, I was in the store a third time and I still tend to the CA9. I'm mainly interested in a sound/tone I like. I had the CLP 670 with a horrible sound, it sometimes hurted in the ears (no joke) with the headphones on and listening to this weird piano-like sound. And chords were really terrible because there was no sympathetic resonance. It sounded so unnatural. Things were getting better when I purchased a GEM RealPiano Expander. Now I'm going to buy the CA9. I would buy some kind of silent piano, which would be the best solution for me, but that would be too expensive, and the built-in digital sound would be worse than that of a digital-only piano.

I know, the CLP 170 has more voices, more features, but I'm not convinced that the IAFC is the real McCoy (don't know if I'm using this expression in the right context:)).

The Yamaha marketing was very good back in 1990. If you would read it and compare it with the things they now say about the CLP 170, it sounds very similar to the 670! Both are very good pianos, sounding almost like a real grand, and the action is so good and bla bla bla ... They said that in 1990 and I believed it. Of course, nowadays it is not such a big lie, maybe it is even true.

But I really think I have to test and play myself, thats the best way. Of course asking other nice people, like here in this forum, also is a good help.

Silent pianos don't have an inferior sound to a digital-only piano. The Yamaha silent series' digital sound is taken from the Yamaha GT20 digital piano, which some people prefer to the CLP170.

OK, you surely know more about them than me. Do they have the new features like Damper effect, sympathetic resonances?

No they don't actually because the GT20 sound is relatively old technology, which is why some people prefer the CLP170 to the GT20, even though the CLP170 is cheaper.
However...
I can't decide which one I prefer myself, the GT20/silent piano sound is just completely different, not necessarily better/worse than the CLP170. You'd need to try them yourself, the GT20/silent piano does NOT sound like an old clavinova.

The Yamaha silent grands have sustain pedal resonance effects, the silent uprights do not.

I have not heard the GT20, but of course it must sound better than an old Clavinova. Maybe I would like it, I don't know. It's just that I missed the resonance effects very much when I played on the old Clavinova. Chords sounded thin, and as if one tone has nothing to do with the other. But that's what a chord is all about, that the tones somehow interact with each other.
On ebay in Germany they sold a used Kawai Anytime, which I possibly could afford, but it was built in 1991. So I thought, the digital part of it is too old.

Let's wait what is presented at the NAMM starting tomorrow. E.g. the Yamaha CLP170 is from 2002. That's old for a digital piano. Hopefully they present a successor this year. E.g. with more sample memory improved string resonance etc. In that case either the CLP 170 will drop in price or the new model will convince me. That's the reason why i did not bought a epiano before christmas...

Where will we find the information what Namm has to offer on the net.
Have you any links?

Daz