Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Piano Soft vs DP Internal sound

Orez Eno, I have some words about your recordings.
First, I think the difference between quality of piano sounds is evident. Sample library pianos are recorder from real stuff with much more quality and variation. Of course it comes at price, and your computer setup has to be improve proportionally to your library's size. Although I really don't like Akoustik Piano, this one sounds still better than any built-in samples of any DP, simply because of the refinement of the work involved with sampling the sounds.

Second, I've been struggling for years with plastic keys and equally plastic sounds of Digital pianos. Now, with the always-improving quality of Hammer-Action keyboards, I think I have found a reasonable resort while I can't cover the burning hole in my wallet and go out there buy a Grand.
Software pianos will never replace the real thing, but we have guys making great job at stuff like Pianoteq and Ivory (different approaches to different tastes), and we can really have some pleasure between all those plugs and leds.
The argument that you are "just a beginner" does not justify the choice for a poorer sound solution, having in mind that you should expand your experiences and explore all of your feeling to improve your playing (you are doing really well, I liked that Cementi). I hope you can try many alternatives and not be held into toy pianos.
I've been just a beginner for years while I was close-minded about technology. Even with a starving bank account (welcome to Brazil) I'm currently able to do nice job with software and a simple Casio PX-100.

Best regards!

Well I'm an engineer too, and yet nothing appeals less to me than having to depend on running a laptop plus monitors plus cabling when I'm trying to focus on my piano playing.

However limited the DP's memory and CPU may be, the boys at Roland did a fine job on packaging it all up on my HP-207, string resonance, half-pedalling and all, and I'm pretty sure that it won't BSOD* on me 20 minutes into my Waldstein**!


*Blue Screen of Death
**It's not like I have a Waldstein, but you get the idea.

Hi mafagafo

Thanks for listening to my recordings and giving your opinion.

My difference of opinion with many people here at PianoWorld on this subject is not whether or not a difference can be perceived, but whether the amount perceived is worth the expense. That’s a subjective evaluation that everyone if free to make for themselves. My motivation here was to provide comparative recordings to allow people to do that with a beginner’s playing rather than with an accomplished pianist’s playing. Such a comparision might provide the opportunity to develop a more pratcical and realistic opinion on the subject, and to help decide if it is worth further depleting your starving bank account. I hear you.

Naturally, I’m as curious as anyone, and based on advice I received here about nine months ago, I took the plunge and set up a system using a high end computer, a high quality audio interface unit, and what conventional wisdom here at PianoWorld claimed at the time was the best software. I see that that opinion has since change slightly, people now seem to prefer either Ivory or Pianoteq, but I think that is natural. Opinions do evolve over time.

My emphasis on comparing the playing of a beginner, like me, is not because my playing is very bad, but let’s be honest, it is not good either. Yes, I can hit the notes in the correct order, and I believe my playing is smoother than it was a year ago. But I feel I have a long way to go. I’m not depressed about that. Indeed, I am excited about it. I look forward to further improvements in my playing skill. But at my level I am not fooling myself about drawing out the full potential of any instrument, electronic or acoustic.

Specifically, at my level I have not yet developed the dynamic expression skill that I see many people here at PianoWorld possess, dynamic expression that would really take advantage of such features as dynamic sampling. I have listened to demos of the various sampled libraries, and they are all very impressive. And, those demos were all created by very accomplished pianists. However, I admit that when I finally got a virtual system up and running and I started to play it myself, I felt that the difference between it and the resident sounds on my CLP-230 were so marginal that it was not worth the trouble and expense of setting it up. I submitted as proof two sample recordings of my own playing and of course it is up to anyone here to form their own opinion about whether or not the difference is significant enough for them.

And, it is not as if I don’t appreciate high quality sound. I have enough to perceive that the speakers that are installed in my CLP-230 are marginal, and I have improved on them. I have installed an external audio amplifier and four three-way speaker units, two per stereo channel. Each speaker enclosure is 3 feet tall and each has a 12 inch woofer plus midrange and tweeter with proper cross-over networks. Everyone who has listened to my system agrees that it sounds as good as any top-of-the-line acoustic grand piano. Many are surprised that they can even feel the sound on the floor, just like they would from an acoustic grand in a residential living room. And I respond, “Of course, the speakers are on the floor, just as an acoustic would be.” Yes, of course there are better instruments and better sounding virtual systems. But the question is, "Is a virtual piano system like Akoustik Piano good enough for me to warrant the expense?" The published demos certainly suggest that it is. But my experience after listening to my own playing is that it is only marginally better. And, several friends who have listened to me switch between systems feel exactly the same way. The conclusion is that for my level of playing skill it is hardly worth the expense and trouble of setting it up.

I am not bitter about what I have done. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to educate myself on this subject. And as far as the expensive computer I bought is concerned, I needed that anyway for other reasons. But now that I have been through the experience I feel that it is only fair, since it is here at PianoWorld that I first received the advice to do this, that I report the result. And my recordings speak for themselves. I feel I owe it to others who are contemplating investing in a similar system the opportunity to hear my recordings. If I had heard similar recordings before I had set up my virtual system, I would not have done it.

I think this is the most valid point that I have heard in this thread. Many people here graduate to virtual systems from keyboards that are worth less than $1000. Hence the improvement in sound that they perceive is significant. I have a $2,500 instrument, so it is only natural that it’s higher quality sound narrows the gap between resident instrument sound and virtual (software) system sound.

I will be posting again in this thread soon. Eternal has asked me to provide a MIDI file of my playing to allow him to evaluate the tonal quality of my playing on an Ivory system. Perhaps that will be informative. Stay tuned. I’m a bit busy this week. I should be able to submit the MIDI file in this thread by the weekend.

One also has to remember about the price being an issue here. What's better:
$2500 for a high end digital piano,
or
$500 for Casio Privia + $300 for Ivory + $500 for computer = $1300?

You end up paying half the price for a (slightly) better sound (but admittedly worse action). And most of the time - people already own a cheap digital piano, and a computer - so the final cost is much less.

I was in that boat - I didn't know if I would enjoy piano - so I bought the cheapest instrument I could get that had a good enough action. Only after I really got into the whole piano thing, I decided to upgrade the sound.

Eternal:
Good news. I have the MIDI file. Here it is.

MIDI file for Orez Eno playing Clementi

I recorded a new performance on my YPG-625, which unlike my CLP-230, does support exporting saved performances in MIDI format. Since it is a more recent performance (10 minutes ago), my playing has improved. It is a bit faster, and I think a bit smoother with better dynamics. Please feel free to disagree if you feel my progress is not very noticeable.

There are also a few other issues about MIDI file recordings that I want to elaborate on, but I do not have time right now. Perhaps Thursday I will submit an audio recording of my CLP-230 playing the same MIDI file, and I will also submit a separate performance of the same piece played directly on the CLP-230 and using its internal recording features. You will see that the sound quality of the two are not the same, and I’ll elaborate on that on Thursday.

Getting back to our discussion, which I hope others are finding interesting, you advise a good strategy for a person who has already purchased a $500 keyboard. But I had already purchased a $2,500 instrument. So for me, I had less to gain by setting up a virtual piano system.

I do admit spending more for my computer than many other people would. I had my reasons, as we have discussed. That is why I have openly admitted that I needed the computer anyway for other reasons. But do you really think a $500 computer will do the job? Also, is that quote based on having to build the computer yourself from basic parts? If so, not everyone has the skill, time, patience, or love for building computers to succeed with that.

After all that has been said, and after what I have experienced myself, I actually feel that even if I was to start over again from scratch, I would still take the same route that I did and purchase the CLP-230 for $2,500. Today I could do even better. I saw a CLP-330 at my local dealer for $2,450. It has dynamic sampling, which mine does not. It has the ability to save MIDI files directly, which mine does not. And I think its tonal quality is a bit better. I spent considerable time at the CLP-330 using studio quality headphones. I really like it. But of course it would be foolish to upgrade. My CLP-230 is still very good. The differences are only marginal, just like the differences I am finding between my Akoustik Paino and CLP-230.

Then, there is the subject of keyboard action. You yourself admit that the keyboard action on an inexpensive keyboard is marginal. The keyboard on my YPG-625 is certainly not as good as on the CLP-230. Keyboard action is something that was very important for me as a beginning student. The keyboard action on the CLP-230 is fine. I have no complaints.

Finally, you admitted yourself that the pedal action of Ivory was not to your satisfaction. And Akoustik Piano doesn’t even support partial pedaling. In contrast, I find the pedal action on my CLP-230 to be very nice. I have had the opportunity to play for extended periods on several very good acoustic pianos, and I have found the pedal action to be very similar to my CLP-230. Of course a more accomplished player might not agree. But that’s the way it seemed to me. However, when I play my Akoustik Piano system, that has no partial pedaling, or when I play a sub $1000 keyboard at a music store, I find the pedal characteristics upsetting.

Again, I hope people are finding this discussion interesting. I hope we are not beating a dead horse to death. If you think so, just let me know and I will stop.

See you Thursday with results of the above MIDI file on my CLP-230, and possibly even on my Akoustik Piano system.

One last comment: I would have prefered making the MIDI file from the same instrument (CLP-230) that I used to make my previous recordings. But I had problems doing that. So the YPG-625 will have to do for now. I feel that I play a bit better on the CLP-230 due to its better keyboard action.

Indeed, I'm right now looking for a better piano, since my Privia does not fill my needs anymore. Of course a Clavinova or a Roland will bring dramatic improvements to sound quality, due to its action. I only think that there is no DP to beat high-quality sample libraries.
Now I understand your point, Orez Eno, about the "beginner / expert" difference of needs. Perhaps a huge and expensive sound library could be an extravaganza right now.
But thrust me: in a few years, you will want that "plus" sensitivity, that magical response of a grand, and you will want it more and more.
Then, you will look with better eyes towards libraries and modelling software. I cpuld bet that.

Oh, by the way, great topic, best regards to you all guys!!!

Orez Eno,

Regarding your last post and the pedal action.

I can't imagine a beginner who learned on a DP (no matter the quality) being able to switch to an acoustic piano and feel comfortable.

The most important problem will be, from my point of view, the pedal action.

On most DP's (even high-end), you can play a whole piece with the sustain pedal "on" without making it sound terrible.

What do you think of piano softwares regarding pedal action ?

Pianoteq approach vs Ivory approach vs CLP230 ?

Well, I am definitely a beginner who learned on a DP, and I have had the experience of playing a Baldwin Concert Grand acoustic piano at a community college. In the spring semester I was able to practice twice a week, three hours each time. To do that I had to get up at 5:00AM. Practice time on the grand is permitted only at certain times when there are no other activities in the concert hall. This current semester I am doing it again, only this time three times a week. That’s nine hours a week! So, you can see by the investment I am making that I consider this experience very valuable. However, I do this for educational purposes, not necessarily because the Baldwin is better than my own CLP-230. I made some posts about that earlier this year.

As far as the transition from electronic to acoustic, speaking for myself, it was the keyboard action of the Baldwin Grand that I found most different from my own electronic piano, and it was quite difficult to get used to. The action of my CLP-230 is a lot smoother and I still prefer it to the Baldwin. The pedal action was stiffer on the Baldwin. Yes, I admit that. It took more force to depress the damper. However the transition from damper off to damper on was very much the same as on my CLP-230. This is not the case when I play using my Akoustik Piano system, my YPG-625 keyboard, or when I play a sub $1000 keyboard at a local music store.

Last semester I was introducing myself to syncopated pedaling with a waltz rhythm. I practiced the technique extensively on both the Baldwin Grand and my own CLP-230. I found the performance characteristics of both instruments to be very equivalent. And, I would hope they would be. My impression is that the whole emphasis of the Clavinova line is to accurately simulate an acoustic grand.

Of course acoustic pianos differ a lot from each other. Just visit any acoustic piano store, and I have. Perhaps a different acoustic might be more difficult for me to get used to. But the Baldwin Concert Grand that I am currently practicing on has been very highly praised by the faculty, by the more advanced students, and as well as by visiting performing artists.

If you keep the damper fully depressed on my CLP-230 it sounds terribly muddy, just like any acoustic piano that I have tried. If you play a scale with the damper held down the whole time it sounds very dissonant, again, just like on any acoustic.

Your comment got me curious. I tried the same experiment on my YPG-625, a sub $1000 keyboard. It was the same. The sustain characteristics of both my instruments seems to me exactly the same as an acoustic. The sustain on both of my instruments is very long. Is it as long as an acoustic concert grand? I don't know. Perhaps I will measure the two out of curiosity. But the sustain on my CLP-230 is certainly long enough that you cannot get away with just holding the damper down. That sounds terrible.

Note that I feed both my instruments into high quality audio systems. Perhaps if you repeat my experiment yourself using the internal, very small speakers, you will not hear the sustain as long as I can.

I find that the transition between damper off and fully on does not feel as good on the YPG-625 as it does on the CLP-230. I assume that’s because the CLP-230 supports partial (half) pedaling and the YPG-625 does not. But the length of the sustain of both instruments is about the same in my opinion. To be sure, if I stop syncopating the pedal each measure and just hold the pedal down, the piece sounds very muddy. It's very irritating to listen to.

My Akoustik Piano virtual system does not support partial (half) pedaling at all. I don’t like that. I prefer a transition over a small range in position of the damper, just like on an acoustic. I don’t like Akoustik Piano’s instant transition at a particular position. It sounds too abrupt to me.

As far as pedaling goes - I only use Pianoteq now. It sounds horrible if you keep the pedal pressed for longer than needed.
My Privia supports half pedaling as well - and the firmware simulates the way it should behave much better than Ivory.

Orez - regarding your question about a $500 dollar computer, I actually am using one that cost just that much (if not less). It's not my main machine, and is dedicated only to the piano, so I didn't bother buying an expensive graphics card. Here's the price break-down of something very similar with what I ended up with:

Shuttle Barebone Kit (case + motherboard + supply)- $240
500GB Hard Drive (7200) - $70
Intel Dual Core E2200, 2.2MHz Processor - $70
4GB RAM (PC6400 DDR2 800MHz) - $40
M=Audio 2496 Audio card - $80.

That's $500 right there, and most of the cost went into getting that fancy tiny case (I plan on mounting it right underneath actual piano bench, so you won't even see the computer. You could easily get a regular case with motherboard for $150, and spend the savings on a CD Drive, a monitor and shipping, or a processor upgrade.

I do have another computer meant for video processing and gaming - where I spent twice as much on as on this, but as far as audio editing this is more than enough for my needs.

I'll sequence your MIDI file when I get a chance later on this week.

Comparison of Akoutik Piano Software Piano to Clavinova CLP-230
The following recordings are the results of sequencing the MIDI file that I posted earlier in the thread on my Clavinova CLP-230, as well as on my Akoustik Piano virtual (software) piano system.

Note that this is a different performance from the audio recordings posted earlier in this thread. I had to create a new performance because the CLP-230 does not provide the feature of exporting saved performances in MIDI format. Indeed, it doesn’t even provide the feature of exporting saved performances at all. Performances on a CLP-230 need to be recorded from audio, which I do using Audacity audio recording software.

The MIDI file was produced by recording my performance on a YPG-625 keyboard, which does provide the feature of exporting saved performances in MIDI format.

Once the MIDI file was created I loaded it into both my CLP-230 and my Akoustik Piano virtual piano system and made audio recordings of the results.

For those who have not read the entire thread, the motivation for doing this is to compare the Akoustik Piano software system against the resident sound of a CLP-230 using music that would be typical of an average beginning player, rather than music produced by a virtuoso pianist like in the official demos. These recordings represent what a beginning player can expect to realize themselves with their own playing on the Akoustik Piano virtual (software) piano system.

Virtual Piano (Akoustik Piano by Native Instruments)
These files were produced according to the following steps:

1 - Load the MIDI file into the software

2 - Select the piano configuration that I like the most, which is the “Concert Grand D” instrument.

3 - Create WAV file directly from software.

4 - Convert file to mp3 using utility (WAV MP3 CONVERTER by Hoo Technologies).

I produced two files. The first is CD quality (44.1K sample rate and 128K bit rate) I provide this for convenience of anyone wanting to listen to the files streamed from Box.net rather than having to download them. The second is the highest quality that the converter utility could produce in mp3 format (48K sample rate and 320 K bit rate). I provide this one for people who have a fine ear and can tell the difference. Personally I cannot tell the difference, but I know some people are gifted with better ears than mine. Box.net may be unable to stream the high quality recording and as a result you may have to download the file. Note that the Akoustik Piano software does not allow me to make adjustments to the WAV file that it produces and I do not know what sample rate they use.

CD Quality Akoustik Piano Recording

HQ High Quality Akoustik Piano Recording


Yamaha Clavinova CLP-230 Resident Sound Sequenced from MIDI
These files were produced according to the following steps:

1 - MIDI file was copied into user memory of piano from host computer

2 - Audio headphone output of piano is fed to input of external audio interface unit (PreSonus Firebox)

3 - MIDI file is played using front panel controls of the piano and the resulting audio output is recorded using Audacity software.

I produced two files. The first is CD quality (44.1K sample rate and 128K bit rate) I provide this for convenience of anyone wanting to listen to the files streamed from Box.net rather than having to download them. The second is the highest quality that Audacity can produce in mp3 format (96K sample rate and 320 K bit rate). I provide this one for people who have a fine ear and can tell the difference. Personally I cannot tell the difference, but I know some people are gifted with better ears than mine. Box.net may be unable to stream the high quality recording and as a result you may have to download the file. These audio recordings represent the actual sound of my piano, as I would hear it isomg studio quality headphones or from my high quality HiFi speakers.

CD Quality Recording of MIDI Sequenced on CLP-230

HQ High Quality Recording of MIDI Sequenced on CLP-230

Yamaha Clavinova CLP-230 Resident Sound Saved from Performance
I have noticed that my CLP-230 does not allow any panel adjustment to the sound sequenced from the MIDI file. I cannot for example make the sound more mellow, or add slight reverb to represent the piano being played in a room. It turns out that I have my own favorite combination of settings that I like, and so it seems that the only way for me to compare the Akoustik Piano virtual system to my favorite sound configuration on the CLP-230 is to save an actual performance.

These files were produced according to the following steps:

1 - Performance recorded using front panel feature of CLP-230

2 - Audio headphone output of piano is fed to input of external audio interface unit (PreSonus Firebox)

3 - Previously recorded performance is played using front panel controls of the piano and the audio output is recorded using Audacity software.

I produced two files. The first is CD quality (44.1K sample rate and 128K bit rate) I provide this for convenience of anyone wanting to listen to the files streamed from Box.net rather than having to download them. The second is the highest quality that Audacity can produce in mp3 format (96K sample rate and 320 K bit rate). I provide this one for people who have a fine ear and can tell the difference. Personally I cannot tell the difference, but I know some people are gifted with better ears than mine. Box.net may be unable to stream the high quality recording and as a result you may have to download the file. These audio recordings represent the actual sound of my piano, as I would hear it using studio quality headphones or from my high quality HiFi speakers.

CD Quality Recording of performance on CLP-230

HQ High Quality Recording of performance on CLP-230

Conclusions
The basic theme I have contributed to this thread, which was started by Geof175, was to answer his question about the relative difference between virtual (software) piano systems to the resident sounds of my instrument. These recordings demonstrate what I have experienced for improvement for the trouble and expense of setting up a software piano system.

I openly admit that the improvement that I expected based on the advice of others was not realized and I propose the following reasons:

1 My own instrument was high enough quality that there was little to gain.

2 My playing ability (beginner) is insufficient to take advantage of the dynamic sampling feature. Note that my CLP-230 has no dynamic sampling. The Akoustik Piano software has 16 levels of dynamic sampling. Yet I perceive little difference in tonality between the softest and loudest notes. A better player might realize more since he/she might possess better dynamic expression skills than me.

3 The pedal characteristics of Akoustik Piano were not to my liking, whereas in my opinion the pedal characteristics on the CLP-230 mimic those of an acoustic piano very well. Recently I have heard that the pedal characteristics of other virtual piano software systems may not be very good either.

I provide all of this comparison material for the reason that I believe I was ill advised by members here at PianoWorld to set up a virtual piano system based on specs rather than on the actual sound improvement that I might expect to realize over and above the instrument I already had.

That does not mean a virtual (software) piano system is not good for you. You can listen to the recordings and judge for yourself. But I admit that if I had had the opportunity to listen to the recordings that I have provide here today, I would never have invested the time and effort into setting up a virtual piano. This is similar to how when I go to a piano store and see a model that is slightly better then mine, I don’t rush out and buy it. The differences are not sufficient, and the piano I already own is good enough for many years to come.

I am not bitter about the experience. I learned a lot. Also, other people are free to sequence my MIDI file (earlier in the thread) and make recordings from their own system. If I hear one that sounds a whole lot better, I might consider purchasing that software.

Orez Eno
VERY instructive. My first reaction was yes, there was a difference with the piano software sounding a bit less "covered" but after two or three seconds listening, I lost that impression and was highly impressed with both but, surprisingly, liking the resident sounds on your 230 better!!! I guess I would characterize the 230 sound as somewhat softer. If I listened several times I would probably change my mind again...and again...and again. SO I think it might be partly expectation about what one is going to hear....one's changing mood etc etc.

I think you have proved your point.

Bob

I think one of the most persuasive reasons I've seen for NOT trying "software pianos" was made by RodDaunoravicious who wrote:

"Well I'm an engineer too, and yet nothing appeals less to me than having to depend on running a laptop plus monitors plus cabling when I'm trying to focus on my piano playing"

I bought an expensive Yamaha Tyros arranger keyboard (one man band) two years ago and devoted my life to that monster. The distractions with the Tyros were not so much cords and cables as an incredibly complicated instrument. I enjoyed the gimmicks for a while but just quit cold turkey a few months ago because I was just too involved in technology rather than simple, straightforward piano playing.

Bob

dettch and RodDaunoravicious

Thanks for your unbiased opinions, first on the tonal quality of my recordings, and second on the often inconvenient and occasionally overwhelming technical aspects of virtual systems, and of complex instruments like the Tyros as well. For many, especially beginners like myself, such technical challenges interfere with the task of learning to play piano. This does not make such systems undesirable to everyone. It simply represents a different activity. I believe that that should be made clear when advising others.

I had hoped that others would sequence my MIDI file and demonstrate the tonal quality of their system with a beginner’s playing.

There is another link in this forum that provides a much better demonstration of virtual systems by comparing many voices while playing a single piece. The demo was made by propianist.
LINK to propianist demo

Naturally, propianist’s demo will be of greater interest to intermediate and advanced players. However, I feel that what I have provided here is valuable for beginning players, especially those who are led to believe that the resident sounds on their existing instruments are grossly inferior, as I was. In the end, after considerable effort and some expense, I discovered that the resident sounds on my instrument were perfectly fine. Different? Yes. Inferior? No. Worth upgrading? Not until I become a much better player, thank you very much.

Orez, it's always Compared to what? IMO your comparison of cost and complication to improved sound is exactly the one to make. That said, the decision will be strongly influenced by one's sensitivity to tone.

I started on a Yamaha P80. Quickly discovered that I tended to obsess about tone. Bought Sennheiser's HD580 'phones. Big improvement in tone. Began moving up thru increasingly sophisticated software pianos. (Currently play ArtVista's Virtal Grand - a New York B. Galaxy II's Hamburg D is literally in the mail.) Each one was better than the P80's included sounds and represented a significant improvement in tone compared to the previous software piano - to someone who obsesses about that.

Relationship with tone is, IMO, independent of proficiency. My technique is pathetic on a good day, but I'll sometimes noodle for a half hour on a particular chord.

Bottom line: a $300 software piano + (currently) $300 'phones yields a pleasurable experience which is well worth the expense - to my ears.

PS, don't expect a visiting player to slam that Baldwin. They wouldn't be invited back;-)

The recordings earlier in the thread are comparing a CLP-230 to a virtual (software) system using Akoustik Piano software. Did you notice any difference?

You could be correct. I only proposed that theory because although I notice a great difference between the online demos of various software pianos (including Akoustik Piano) and the sound of my own piano when I play it, I notice very little difference between my Akoustik Piano system and my CLP-230 when I play both. The only difference is that the online demos are being played by very accomplished pianists. So it is intuitive for me to conclude that playing ability might have something to do with it.

So, if you don’t buy that theory, what would explain the fact that my recordings of the same performance on both systems sound so much the same?

I was expecting people to question the accuracy of my recordings. But so far no one has. But just to save time, I can tell you now that I am confident that the recordings are very accurate. Still, I could be doing something wrong, and if you think so please let me know. Also, I have had several people listen to the two systems in the room both with me playing and with them playing and they are baffled by how little difference there is between the two sounds. Of course if you choose (within the software) the Bosendorfer or the Steingraeber und Soenhne (upright) their tone is noticeably different. But neither I nor anyone else who has heard my system feels that any one could be called BEST. Indeed, it seems that most people agree that each software simulation seems better suited for certain genres of music and not others. One thing that everyone has agreed on is that there is insufficient difference between the CLP-230 and the Akoustik Piano software system to justify spending $300. The improvement is simply not that great.

Of course adjustments can be made in the Akoustik Piano software to change the sound radically, like adding excessive reverb, or emphasizing certain registers. But such experiments are artificial. I’m much more interested in comparing the basic instrument sounds.

Myself I prefer using the Bechstein software simulation of the Akoustik Piano software, however I admit that most of the time I leave my computer configured as a recording device for the resident sound of my CLP-230. The sound of the Bechstein is not even worth the trouble of swapping the cables around to configure the system to operate as a virtual instrument.

Despite my own experience that the improvement of a virtual system over and above an instrument like the CLP-230 is very marginal, I give the benefit of the doubt to others who claim a greater difference. Perhaps they have a better ear than me? That’s why I have submitted recordings. But so far no one has come back and said, “Orez, you really need to get your ears checked”. Also, I can say with confidence that I do have the ability to perceive differences in the quality of sound between the internal speakers of my CLP-230 and the same sound fed to a high quality HiFi system. So although my tonal appreciation may not be as good as others, I’m not exactly tone deaf either. But I leave it to you to listen to the recordings and judge for yourself.

So far, the only theory I can come up with to explain the very marginal differences between the virtual and resident systems is that the playing ability of some people can make better use of the software system’s dynamic sampling feature?

Who knows why, but so far I have not heard anyone claim more than marginal differences between my various recordings, or between the actual sounds in the room.

I don’t blame you for being skeptical about an instrument that is in a community college setting because of the heavy use that it gets. Personally, I don’t really like the instrument. I have discussed this in another thread about six months ago. But whenever I share my opinion with faculty members, advanced students, or performing artists (except for one) everyone disagrees with me. The one performing artist who did agree with me said he didn’t like the feel of the keyboard, but that the sound was superb. I also don’t like the keyboard. Still, I practice regularly of the instrument at the advice of the faculty who say I will learn better dynamic expression on the Baldwin than on my Yamaha CLP-230 at home. So far, although my playing ability continues to improve in terms of accuracy and smoothness, no one has noticed a great improvement in my dynamic expression. But I’m not giving up just yet. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the theory that some things take time to develop.

Orez, in my post above, I forgot to mention the limitation on quality imposed by your soundcard. I don't have time to check the specs today, but when I was looking for an upgrade to an M-Audio card, I did notice that E-mu's 1212M had a larger dynamic range than did that card and E-mu's older 0202. The M's also are spec'd with ADC converters which at that time were usually only spec'd on much more expensive cards.

When I got the M, I first checked its quality by listening to CD's. My 'phones were Sennheiser's HD 580's. Those 'phones are known for their flat response and broad dynamic range. The difference between the old card and the 1212M was striking. Both bass and treble were richer. From memory only, I think that the difference was most noticeable in the treble.

In any case the results that you're achieving are limited by your soundcard. I don't know about your speakers.

FogVilleLad:
As you pointed out, the first recordings that I posted to the thread were made with the computer using an external audio interface unit, an E-MU 0202.

The more recent one was with an upgraded unit, a PreSonus Firebox, which has better specs.

Although you can always purchase more expensive equipment, both these audio units give very good performance. Each represents a significant performance improvement over the typical generic sound card. Personally, the only difference I was able to perceive when I upgraded from the E-MU to the PreSonus was better noise performance on the left channel, and to notice it I had to turn the volume way up. I was using Sennheiser HD-465 headphones. I noticed no difference in frequency response between the two units.

In the case of the Akoustik Piano recordings, no audio interface unit was used. Those recordings were compiled directly by the software, which represents an advantage. So you’d expect the virtual system to sound better just for that reason. But despite that advantage, I am unimpressed by the difference between the virtual system and the resident sounds of my instrument. Yes, the virtual system has slightly better tone, but hardly enough to pay $300 for, and certainly not enough to justify the trouble setting up such a system. A previous poster (dettch) admitted that they were so close he was uncertain which was better. At first he thought the virtual system sounded better, but later decided that no, the CLP-230 sounded better.

The whole purpose of my submission to this thread was to offer actual experimental data demonstrating the comparison of a virtual system to the native sounds of a typical instrument. This was the original question of the thread. So the idea is not to trade specs, but to evaluate the data. You still haven’t reported what you thought about the recordings.

Specs are of course informative, and as a retired engineer I feel I can appreciate them. But beyond a certain point they can represent diminishing returns. For example, can you tell the difference between a recording done on equipment having a dynamic range of 100 dB and equipment having 110 dB? I can’t. Besides, the dynamic range of my piano is certainly a lot less than either of those figures. And, as far as harmonic, intermodulation, and phase distortion are concerned, I don't have time to look up the specs on the audio units that I used, but my understanding is that they both meet high standards. I suspect that they are beyond the point where anyone can notice. But of course, I could be out of date on this. Technology improves so fast. Perhaps your E-mu 1212M gives better performance? If so I would really appreciated an MP3 file of an actual recording that you did.

In the event that you feel skeptical about my recordings, I offer a MIDI file earlier in the thread representing myself playing the piece. You are free to sequence it on any virtual system or resident instrument that you choose and compare it to my recordings. I would be very grateful if you obtain better results than me. Of course to evaluate any differences that you come up with I would have to listen to an MP3 file, as I have provided to you for my two systems.

Of course the speakers are a factor for those who have heard my systems in person, but they are not involved in making the recordings.

My speakers consist of four separate 3-way units, two per stereo channel, each 3 feet high and containing 12 inch woofers, mid range, and tweeters, all with proper crossover networks. People who have heard it admit my piano sounds as good if not better than any acoustic piano. In side-by-side comparisons playing piano or CD recordings of orchestra, my piano audio system sounds noticeably better than my wife's $1000 Bose system. Everyone who had heard the comparison agrees.

Orez Eno,
I want to purchase a new piano. My husband wants me to set up a virtual piano system, with his help. My husband is an engineer and plays piano very little. I play piano at an intermediate level. I am not an engineer but I do have some working experience with audio systems and recording. I consider myself technically savvy enough to know when I am being lied to.

Thank you so much for your very informative and realistic presentation of your virtual piano system. The truth is, I feel many of the techies at this site go overboard with specs and lose site of the most important issue, which is, “What will the instrument sound like when I play it?”

One of the people in this thread has questioned you about your audio card. Well, if he had read your posts carefully he would have seen that when you made the recordings of your virtual system, no sound card was involved. Your software, Akoustik Piano, constructs audio recordings directly. I verified that this is possible with Akoustik Piano software at my local music store. So, if anything was wrong with your sound card it would not have affected the recordings of your virtual system. Indeed, I was told at the music store that one of the advantages of a virtual system is that you can make very high quality recordings without requiring any expensive audio equipment. It’s all done in software!

I also noticed that your recordings made from your instrument (CLP-230) were made using Audacity software. I am familiar with that. In that case, if anything was wrong with your sound card, those recordings would have been affected.

So, if anything was wrong with your sound card the recordings of your virtual system should have sounded a whole lot better than the recordings of your instrument. It was silly for that person to suggest that your experiments were invalid because of poor audio equipment. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The truth is, your virtual system does not sound much better than your instrument. I downloaded your high quality recordings and listened carefully using studio quality headphones. Both systems, virtual and instrument, sound very close in quality. I especially liked the recording of your performance done on the keyboard of the CLP-230, as opposed to the recording made from the MIDI file. It definitely showed that the CLP-230 allows you to make tonal adjustments that make it almost indistinguishable from an acoustic concert grand. Bravo. You have certainly figured out how to get the most out of your instrument.

Your experiments have given me the ammunition I needed to get my overly technical husband off my back with his insistence that I should set up a virtual system. I asked him to listen to your various recordings and identify the best sounding one. He picked your CLP-230.

Thank you very much. I really want to buy an instrument, either the CLP-330 or 340, and your recordings have convinced my husband to keep his ideas about virtual instruments to himself. Besides, he hardly plays piano anyway. I want a real instrument because I don’t want to have to fiddle with various pieces of equipment every time I want to practice. We have several computers in the house and it seems that whenever I need to use one it is being rebooted, scanned, or updated for some reason. I really don’t want to deal with that. I’d like a piano that I can just go to, turn on, and play.

I agree with you that the demos online of virtual piano system do sound fantastic. But I think they are a trap. The listener is fooled into thinking that the piano will sound exactly like that when they play it themselves. But it is the virtuosity of the pianist that is impressing them more than the tonal quality of the piano. In the end when they get their system setup, they may be disappointed, like you were.

That’s what happened to me when I bought my YPG-625. The music store is well equipped with knowledgeable staff. They connected the audio output to a stage quality audio system and a very talented pianist demonstrated it. Wow! Is sounded absolutely fabulous. My husband wanted me to buy that model because he liked all the technical features. So we bought it. After I had it home for a couple months I realized I had made a mistake. Sure the onboard demos sounded terrific. But my own playing did not sound that great. Plus, I hate the keyboard. It makes terrible clunking sounds. I didn’t notice that in the store because they were playing their amplifier so loud. And all those technical features that my husband said were so great? Well, I never was able to figure out half of them. The manual is too complicated. My husband keeps saying he’ll help me, but he works lots of overtime and never has time. What good are all these features if it takes so much effort to learn how to use them?

Thanks again for all your effort demonstrating that an instrument in the price range of $2,500 can sound so good that it is barely distinguishable from a virtual or even a real acoustic instrument. Virtual instruments may be great for some people, but not for me, and now I am not afraid to say so.