Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards How close are we to digital beating acoustic pianos?

I have both a digital piano (Yamaha P120) and an acoustic upright (Petrof P125) and to me, there's no comparison between the two. To me, the acoustic is FAR more enjoyable to play. In fact, I rarely play my digital anymore since purchasing the acoustic about a year ago.

Now, why is it I prefer the acoustic more? I've given it a lot of thought and for me, it boils down to three key factors: (1) the acoustic sounds better (much better IMO); (2) the acoustic provides more tactile feedback (which could be considered good or bad I guess, but I consider it good because I believe it gives me better touch and control); (3) the acoustic has much better sustain.

I realize digital pianos have several advantages over acoustics (portability, headphone jacks, different voices, etc.) and that's why I intend to keep my digital around. Personally, however, I don't ever see myself ditching my acoustic to go exclusively digital. I know digitals will continue to improve and evolve, but they'll never be a replacement for a good acoustic upright or grand IMHO. Digitals and acoustics are simply different instruments that provide different experiences and I think it'll always be that way.

I am sure there were exactly the same sentiments when diesel engines started to take over the steamies.
Well, there is always a sentimental value! :rolleyes:

Your assessment of P-120 vs. an upright makes sense, but what about CLP-270, CVP-307, Roland HP-207, Kawai CA-91 vs. uprights??

Just from a purely technological perspective, we are talking about faithful reproduction (and beyond) of the sound of about two hundred strings excited by hammer action in a resonating box.

I bumped into this:

http://www.pianoteq.com/pianoteq_details.php

What do you all think? It's software that does actual piano string simulation instead of piano-sampled recording response.

I downloaded the trial - need to play with it for a bit but on first listening, it sounds very nice. I'll have to set up a VST host and try integrating it with my s/w to see what results I get.

Thanks for the link!

There have been a couple of threads that have talked about pianoteq. Another one to look at is true pianos.

http://www.truepianos.com/

digitals are not percussive instruments... they never will be

they're fun, functional and have many options tho.

WhiteBear - I tried out many of the Clavinova digitals (don't remember the model numbers) in the same store where I eventually purchased my Petrof upright and the end result was always the same - I much preferred the sound and feel of the acoustic (not to mention the looks). It wasn't even close. The digitals all felt and sounded synthetic to me. And for what it's worth, I didn't find the Clavinova's to be that much of an improvement over my P120.

I'll keep my digital around for sentimental value ( :rolleyes: ) and for those times when the advantages of the digital might come in handy, but it's the acoustic that I choose to play on every night now.

-krypt0

I don't know of any attempts at virtual reality that have been very successful. Synthetic digital pianos are certainly far from the reality of a real piano.

I don't know...I think the Aibo comes pretty darn close to reality --> Aibo . Just kidding, of course.

One thing that is never mentioned, that is definitely a consideration where I live because of the obscenely high utility rates is power consumption of digital pianos. Acoustic pianos cost nothing in terms of electricity. If you play a lot on a digital, at least where I live, if you have a digital and a computer and monitor on, it would probably cost as much over a year--or even a lot more-- as two tunings of an acoustic piano, if you have a digital with really good speakers. Playing through headphones might be a different story, but with a digital piano you are still using someone else's energy besides your own.

Finally..I read on this post that digital pianos, in fact, do wear out, after a period of time for various reasons. With light use maybe it is not a problem, but with heavier use they can and do wear out, as I understand it.

Nothing is all that simple. I remember a VERY long time ago when a music professor for a class I was taking claimed the audience could not tell the difference between a live orchestra rendition and one from an EMU Proteus . I think he needed a different audience. I can definitely tell the difference.

For me, as with some people, I actually prefer the
sound coming at me from the top of an upright than
the way it comes from a grand--of course the action of any vertical piano, except for a Fandrich or something, will never be the same as that of a grand.

I have a CVP which I find unsatisfactory as the sound comes out of the bottom, for the most part. Maybe I do not like this because it is not like an upright. This is a CVP-107 and quite honestly I did not buy it for the sound..which I always thought s'ed big time. And some people hate the action on almost all CVPs.

I just find they are all different instruments, and as far as I know, no digital is close to a 5 '10" grand in reality. I have no idea about these new ones from Italy--that one is being rafllfed off.

My two cents.

I had a P120 and liked it very much, but I traded up for the Yamaha P250 and there is a big difference.

The first difference you notice is that the entire sound system is much better. The bigger amplifier, bigger speakers make the sound much fuller. With the P250 you get a lot more feel of the vibrations from the sound because of the upgraded sound system.

The enhanced sound system is the reason I upgraded from the P120, but the P250 is by no means the top of the line. Like anything else you tend to get what you pay for. The P250 cost about double the P120 and you can pay a lot more for the highest quality digitals.

At some point you aren't really trying to duplicate the sound or feel of an acoustic, but are just trying to get great sound from a digital.

A couple thoughts:

-- After spending the day working on computers and electronics, it's great to come home to an acoustic musical instrument that doesn't require either. No electricity needed. No buttons to push, just keys. No surprises where some wire's loose so it doesn't work.

I like this simplicity, this anti-technology aspect of an acoustic.

-- Whenever people talk about DPs, they always talk about upgrading. Even if I spend lots of money for one today, in 1 year or 5 years, it will be be considered horribly out-of-date and need to be upgraded. On the other hand, if I buy a good quality acoustic piano, I'll never have to upgrade it, just maintain it regularly.

I like never having to replace it, even though this behavior runs counter to the usual trend of replacing goods every few years.


There's a whole host of reasons -- the sound, the touch, the vibrations, the way the I experience playing it -- why I prefer an acoustic, which have already been stated. For people like me, a DP, no matter how good, will never even come close to an acoustic.

Mary

For me, a beginner, I had the option of getting an old Stelzner upright grand for free (+ shipping) or getting a new digital - ended up with a Roland FP4. I have no intention of needing to upgrade for 10 years or more.

Factors that swayed me:
Sound - the digital sounds better than the old acoustic, which would need hundreds of dollars of work to possibly make it equivalent. My brother has an older digital Yamaha P200 - the difference in sound to the newer digital is huge. (Plan to add studio monitor speakers at some stage in future as a sound upgrade.) 128 note polyphonic ability will capture nearly anything one could care to play on the 88 keys.

Touch - adjustable on the digital. Talking to a friend who is an accomplished classical pianist - she lamented the difficulties of practicing on a home piano and rocking up to perform on whatever is there and the problems that creates when practice has happened with a certain heaviness of touch which is effectively fixed on a real piano.

Dynamics - the digital has a perfectly good range from very soft to very loud and has support for 3 foot pedals like a real grand.

Size/portability - my daughter can carry her flute anywhere; now we can do nearly the same with the digital piano (15kg).

Family friendliness - can plug in headphones for practice.

Midi - digital means we can use it for midi input to the computer or midi out of other people's pre-recorded material.

Tuning - digital will never need tuning, plus it is adjustable for pitch and temperament.

Fun - the other 300 sounds are great fun to play with! My daughter loves sitting at the piano to play or play around.


The main advantages of the acoustic to me are - looks pretty as furniture, works in a power failure.

In everything else the digital competes with acoustics costing much more.

Heh, this is the topic that keeps returning. Let's narrow down the criteria, shall we? That keeps things nice and simple.

With current technology:
A quality piano will be miles ahead of any digital. You'll pay for that quality, though. If I could afford a Steinway or Bosendorfer, I'd own one!

At identical -price point-, you'll almost invariably get a better experience out of a digital. I have an inexpensive baby grand (my first piano), for instance, that isn't nearly as nice to play as my P250, despite costing many, many times more.

If you're just learning, I would be hard pressed to recommend investing in an acoustic piano. Get a teacher with a concert grand and get a good digital for home use that you won't have to maintain.

With future technology:
All bets are off. The likelihood is that digital pianos will likely -eventually- be a perfect or superior substitute for various applications. I don't think we're close, though - there just isn't enough motivation, moneywise, to speed it up.

Digital cameras are widely used now for almost all applications - art, journalism, academia. Sure, there are people who insist on using film - but it's more of an ideological process than an end result.

Likewise with many other areas: video, chess, etc.

It just takes sufficient technology to produce a waveform that is indistinguishable to the human ear. It can even accommodate variability if that's what is desired.

@tickler: I'm with you all the way. Although, admittedly, I spend way to much time on the computer, the idea of using something without knobs and electricity is truly appealing. (For instance, I just love film grain and sometimes I miss those analogue things here and there when using my digital camera. Which I love )

But in genreal, looking forward to owning my first digital ever and after owning an acoustic piano for about 15 years: I think the DP may dramatically increase my technique. Why?
One word: headphones. Although I practiced (seldom enough), I was always aware of how annoying this is to my girlfriend in the other room, not to speak of neighbours. And instead of the amount of repetitions of difficult passages needed, I either stopped long before or did not even begin to practice at all. Plus you get a really nice sounding instrument, that might as well leave (inexpensive) uprights behind.

nevertheless, plans for owning a real grand in the very distant future still exist

Digital audio waveforms have been indistinguishable to ears for decades - ever since CDs replaced vinyl. Even compressed audio waveforms these days are nearly indistinguishable (a used by MP3 players, iPod, etc) to ears.

Compare digital cameras to film and we're not quite there yet. Even expensive pro digital cameras are not quite up to the resolution of film yet - differences are obviously visible with enlargement. Colouration and grain of film can be replicated digitally with some work.

If a composer composed piano music on a piano tuned to a historical temperament, who is going to bother retuning their piano to peform it the way the composer heard it? The difference will be audible.

Acoustic pianos will be preferred for performance for a long time - ideological or audible? Who is doing the blind auditions?

Hmm. I guess acoustic pianos shall always be top-tier in their own class, while digital pianos should be regarded as the "jack of all trades".

The sound and action of an acoustic piano will always be unsurpassed. Nothing could sound and feel more piano than an actual piano. I've had vegetarian meat that tasted like actual meat, but will never taste as good as real meat.

The digital piano could probably only come so close in simulating a real acoustic, but what it lacks makes it up in other features. You get to use headphones, different voices, sequencing and connectivity to a computer for easy recording. With a digital piano, you can compose and play non-piano music and be a one-man band if you want to do so. If you wanted to compose for an entire orchestra and then make a recording of it, that's what a digital piano is there for.

I dream of owning a grand piano someday, but overall, I think I would be more suited for digitals. Although being a solo performer is cool, I still aspire to make a few compositions (that requires multiple instruments) in my lifetime.


As for potential of the digital, yes I think it is capable of being equal with acoustics someday, but I think the means that it would take to get there would ultimately destroy the initial purpose, which I think are compact size and close-to-realistic sound. Looking at the higher end digital pianos today, you can see that they are looking more like acoustic pianos. Grand-like bodies with soundboards and lids are being implemented and I don't see the point in that. Doing that will only raise the price up to that of a real acoustic piano anyway and only for a marginal increase in acoustic realness. I would think the goal is to try and simulate a real acoustic piano without becoming an acoustic piano itself, right?

I have hardly seen any comment on the one big difference I find between Digital and Acoustic.

That is ease of playing the digital compared to an acoustic. Huge. Plus you cannot play a digital with feeling or if you do it will not respond. I wonder what the dedicated classical pianists on the subject say?

swingal

as to 'ease of playing', my teacher (in category of classical pianists) said it's much easier to play on a grand than a digital, especially for some advanced pieces or etudes.

but i disagree with 'playing with feeling' thing, which could happen on both digital and acoustic. at least i could feel it on my digital absolutely.