So, I have been thinking some interesting stuff lately regarding the future of digital pianos and how it relates to our hobby and the classical music world at large.

Some quick background on me - attended conservatory that was a Steinway school (so I played on a lot of nice acoustics) and have a piano degree. I own a Hallet and Davis 5'7 instrument that I have had for 14 years, so a mid-low end acoustic grand. I owned a Kawai CA51 digital for years, and recently got a Kawai NV10 hybrid (which has had some reliability issues, but the action is absolutely out of this world good).

Needless to say, I learned how to play on many different acoustic grands. When in college, I got a CA51 - which at the time had one of the best actions for a digital piano. But it was very obviously still a digital piano action despite the wooden keybed. Too light, and there were a few technical things I could not really do with it when it came to the most difficult passages in certain concertos. That being said - it was an excellent workhorse instrument for learning notes and getting the basics down. But the problem was, it was not an instrument that I could polish a piece on and have it translate to an acoustic. You couldn't execute the same kind of phrasing, and you couldn't develop your technique. I got TIRED when I practiced exclusively on the CA51 for a couple of months and then played the same piece on an acoustic. It just didn't translate.

Moving on several years, I now have owned a Kawai Novus NV10 for a few months. And as i said, it has had some reliability issues with the hammers. And the speakers are garbage! However, the action is insane. I played it side by side with a Shigeru acoustic and it felt absolutely identical to me. When I combine that with good headphones/speakers and Pianoteq calibrated with a good velocity curve and some auditory tweaking, I have run into the opposite problem.

Not only does my NV10 have an action that is better than 99.9% of acoustic instruments, the level of phrasing and expressivity I am able to achieve with ease on it is better than all but maybe the top two or three acoustic pianos I have ever played in my life. In many ways, I prefer playing the digital.

In terms of carryover to an acoustic instrument, I have found that from a stamina issue that has now been solved. Technically, I can do the same things on the NV10 and acoustic pianos. However, from an expressivity standpoint I am now finding that it takes me a significant period of time to adjust to an acoustic instrument to achieve the same level of musical phrasing and expressivity (if it's even possible).

The NV10 and Pianoteq are just so perfect every time, it's easy to achieve what I want. And then you get used to that, and build your technique subconsciously around that to take advantage of the higher level of expressivity. And what I am now finding is that unless I sit down at a freshly prepped Steinway D or Shigeru (which only happens maybe once a year, if that), it's actually more difficult for me to adapt to acoustics because they are so inconsistent.

Just thought it was an interesting anecdote as these new hybrids like the Yamahas and Kawais come out and more and more people buy them. If an amateur player never has to worry about performing on-stage and transitioning their technique to an acoustic, I think it's hard now to argue for any reason to purchase one instead of a digital hybrid. I would bet money that most people would play better and produce better recordings on a digital hybrid than an average acoustic. I wonder if we are witnessing the end of the acoustic piano in the home and church environment?

I saw you mentioned you intend to work on improving NV10's speaker systems on your own. I was about to ask you why don't you just consider buying an acoustic piano as it seems you practice on speaker systems more often than headphone?

I owned a CA78 and a GX2 and I spend most of time with GX2 as I feel more enjoyable to play on an acustic piano. Acustic piano is indeed more difficult to control especially when you perform with the piano that is not your own and you need to get used to the inconsistency and find a way to adapt. The good about acoustic piano is that it would last longer than digital (even though you might need to get more services when acoustic pianos are really old). If a digital piano is broken after the warranty years, you might have hard time getting it fixed if the parts/component are EOL. I personally don't think acoustic piano market in the home and church environment will be ended.

I think that the question is more the opposite, why would you buy an AP... But I’ll let computerpro3 answer this.
I would just like to point out that no, APs don’t necessarily outlast DPs. A DP can last a lifetime and may not need any maintenanance during this time. Instead an AP will need tuning and even restoring (I had to completely restore my baby grand after 30 years...)
Of course this is provided that you don’t feel the need to upgrade your DP, which, if you really like the action, and use virtual pianos for sound, you may not need to...

DPs haven't been around for a lifetime yet so I don't think you can make this claim with any credibility. I think it's very unlikely a DP would last a lifetime (say, 70 years - how many other consumer electronic devices have lasted that long?). So not a lifetime, except in the odd freak circumstance. And, regardless of the thing's overall durability, of course after ten years or so the tone generator in it has become rather outdated.

I have had a number of digital pianos wear out on me, usually the contact strips. I have also broken one, but that’s because I carry them around, which I do not do with my acoustic grand! They are different instruments. But neither will last a lifetime without maintenance. If you are a serious piano player, there are very good reasons to have a real piano.

I don't agree with this at all. I've taught in enough digital piano labs (regular use environment) of various ages and been around enough gigging musicians to see digital pianos wear out and break, whether it's contact strips, broken keys, other action parts, headphone jacks, capacitors, and so on. I went on a tour once with a guy who played so hard that he literally broke most digital pianos he touched, but he had the means to just keep replacing things. In a home environment, I have no doubt that anything above an entry-level, cheapest components possible digital piano can last 20 years, but not indefinitely.

A mid to high-end acoustic piano in a light to moderate usage home environment should last 50 years before needing major rebuilding work. You can cut that number in half for the highest intensity, institutional use, or situations with particularly nasty humidity extremes.

Precisely! Keys break. Contact pads break. But worst of all ... control electronics break down. If these are obsolete the piano may be un-repairable.

Getting ten years out of a digital is not surprising. Twenty years is pushing it. But an acoustic upright can be expected to last at least twice that long.

Just curious computerpro3, before you got your NV10, you certainly tried out the AG's but you never bought one of those. Yet this thread is about the "new" hybrid digitals and not just on the NV10, so you obviously are conceptually including the AGs in your discussion/comparison. I assume that means you don't think they are horrible. So how do you think the keyboard actions of the N1, N2, N3 compare with the NV10 keyboard action?

I thought they were very good, I just preferred the action of the Kawai. I also prefer Kawai and Steinway acoustic actions over Yamaha as well. But I definitely think they are good enough to include on this thread.

I think there are two interesting things here: I want to make sure people realize I am specifically talking about the basically the NV10 and Yamaha Avantgrands. No other digital piano qualifies at all.

Second, everyone is talking about reliability arguments - and that is absolutely fair. However, my main point was more along the lines of a performance standpoint. It takes at least a $50k instrument to get an action as good as the NV10 in the acoustic world, and then the instrument has to be maintained religiously and kept in proper temperature, humidity, etc to stay as controllable and expressive as the NV10 is and will remain indefinitely. I choose my NV10 every single time vs. my acoustic grand which admittedly, is not a Steinway. However, I would choose my acoustic grand 10/10 times over the Steinways in the practice room back at school because they were not maintained as well as my personal grand is.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it takes a $50-100k grand exclusively, well maintained, to approach the level of expressiveness and ease I can accomplish on a NV10 or Avantgrand. And that has profound implications to the piano industry, given an entry level Avantgrand is $8k...

Frankly, it's probably a good thing. I think these hybrid instruments have the possibility to really increase the availability of top-flight instruments to younger kids, which is only a good thing for classical music.

Computerpro3 you would be a brave person indeed to post this on the classical forum! You would be run out of town on a piano board.

But, having to make a switch to digital from acoustic myself due to circumstances, I can believe what you say. Though the MP11se I now play is not really close to my Steinway B, it is more than adequate and adaptable. I have not played the Novus, but maybe someone can acknowledge how much of a step up it is compared to the GF1 action.

A dp that costs $8000 does not have to last a lifetime, but I can see that one or two decades is easily possible. And that, for me, would be a lifetime. Nice to hear somebody who is really satisfied with 21 St century tech.

They can run me out of town if they want, but to be taken seriously I would just verify that those doing the most complaining:

1. Have a classical piano performance degree and/or play at college or professional level
2. Have spent years playing 20+ different Steinways/Yamahas/Bosendorfers/etc 4+hrs a day
3. Own a NV10 or Avantgrand (NV10 for me)
4. Own a regular digital piano (CA51 for me)
5. Own an acoustic grand (Hallet and Davis)

Since the hybrids are so new to market, I think it's a pretty small subset of people that do. Probably maybe a hundred in the USA at this point, if that. Which is part of the reason I made this thread, I think these new instruments are game changing once they start spreading, cost comes down, and more people get to live with them.

I agree with you that hybrid is the future of piano. Though your main problem with the Novus seems to be the sound projection through speakers. And that can be fixed by adding back the parts from an acoustic piano still missing to get a true hybrid instrument.

The end result can be an really expressive, good sounding piano, with a rather small footprint at a much more affordable (upright) price.

To the OP: I agree that the action on the NV10 is mindblowing. Coupled with pianoteq and a good pair of headphones - yes, expressiveness and control are better than what you can get on all but the very very best acoustic grands, and only when they are properly maintained and regulated.

But it seems to me that you are approaching this from a technical perspective - that of the (classical) player who wants to practice, learn pieces, etc. Perhaps also from the perspective of the studio player, or recording artist.

But how about the other part of the equation - the sound of the instrument? A proper grand in a large enough room - there is just no way that the speakers of a DP or headphones can recreate that sonic experience. For me, the joy of playing a good acoustic piano also has to do with the sound, the tone, how it fills a room with sound, and how I interact with the tone and sound the instrument creates. I'm fairly confident that DPs won't get there sonicly for quite some time.

About 6 years ago, I signed up for a freshman level piano taught at the local university. I was the oldest person in the group class of twenty students. In class we used Roland DPs. At home I had my Yamaha. Many of the students staying in the dorms were lucky to have a small keyboard to use for practice. They did have small practice labs (closet sized room with not well maintained studio uprights) with long waiting lists for appointments. I did have one recital on a Steinway that was in tune. Most of my tests were on the Toands. Because I practiced on an acoustic grand, I no longer worried as much about which piano I was playing, I could probably “handle whatever” as long as I had my sheet music. Daily practice on an acoustic helps us “keep our chops” so to speak. Ive heard that many guitar players consider acoustic much more challenging than jamming on that Stratocaster.

Others have noted the typical components that wear out on a digital, but specifically related to the current generation of true hybrids, one of the things that has been mentioned to fail after 1-2 decades is the optical sensing system, in particular the LED emitters. The GranTouch of a hybrid that predates the AvantGrand, and this is one of the things owners/butters have reported having to service or replace.

And that is his point, J&J. These hybrids have an acoustic action. Moving from a CS11 to the NV10 was a bit of a challenge. As good as the CS11 is, the action on the NV10 is so much more responsive and, well, sensitive to touch. Good for a pro, but requires the novice be more precise. Of the pianos I have played, other than perhaps some expensive high end grands at a Kawai store in Orange County, this action feels the best. It is way better than the grand pianos my two previous teaches had. Since I bought mine, I browsed at a used piano store and tried several brands and sizes. I did not prefer any of them to mine. The action was heavy and clunky, even the sound was either too shrill or too loud, or too boomy. That being said, I will agree with you. If my circumstances changed, I would buy a grand. However, it would be tuned and regulated to be as good as the Novus, but with a real a acoustic sound.

There is no more credibility in your comment than in mine. You cannot say for sure more than I do since consumer electronics haven’t existed for 70 years. Of course when I say “can last” I mean in ideal conditions, such as using them only at home a keeping them clean etc. as you would do with an AP. My 1993 GEM keyboard (not a DP, but similar enough) still works and while I had to do a small repair a couple of years ago it was nowhere as expensive as for my 30 year old AP. And thanks to MiDI (one of the first to have it) I can use any virtual piano with it. I expect my other DPs and keybords to last me for decades to come as I only play at home and keep them clean (and I don’t play a lot since it’s a hobby for me). Again this is only a “reasonable prediction”, and only time will tell.

My PX-330's action certainly didn't last a lifetime, but I suppose if I keep replacing it the unit as a whole might. (it's on it's second one now, but it now either needs repairing or replacing) Home use only and actually not all that much playing, but I do hammer it when I do play.

Greg.

Electronic components fail, no matter how sparingly they are used or how clean your house is. It is clear you are going to have to find that out the hard way. You may have a 1993 keyboard. I have a 1986 digital piano, which I have been playing today as a matter of fact. It still works perfectly. Nothing has ever failed on it (yet). But it will not last a lifetime, of that I am completely certain.

That's like saying you've had the same floor mop for 50 years - and in that time it's had five replacement handles and ten replacement heads!

That's called Ship of Theseus and fundamentally it is still the same mop. My PC desktop is the same kind of ship, which already lasted me 25 years and is still going.

My ap450 action was pretty poorly on a few keys after about 3.5 years but I got it replaced with an entirely new action under warranty, no way I see that action lasting longer than 5 years if hammered long enough by a serious player, it is still flawless now, up to the point I added the CA78.

Before that we had yamaha from the 80s my missus owned, I wanted to play the piano back in the day (around 1999), but a few keys on that were gone as well after 6 weeks, she had it for about 10 years before that, so I gave up after 6 weeks of trying. I didn't enjoy it anyway back then. The piano didn't feel anything like a piano, felt like it had springs inside , it was weighted in some way, but it also sounded awful, so that was that, I stopped, and started finally in 2014 with something much better.

The difference between that Casio and the old yamaha was night and day, the yamaha cost around £750 in the day, almost as much as the AP450 5 years ago, DPs have come a long way for the same money in 30 years in replicating a piano. If I can get 10 years out of the kawai CA78 including some repairs along the way if needed I'd be happy enough for that money. Tuning an acoustic 3 - 4 times a year, as I reckon would be needed in this lovely UK climate mounts up quickly.

My ten-year-old Clav will be replaced in two years. It still works, though the action isn't quite what it was. But I want better. So I call it "done" at the twelve year mark.

If, instead, I were to soldier on with it ... I'd surely not expect it to last forever.

Everything comes to an end. Everything.

Well I didn't really mean for this thread to be about reliability, but here is what I can say regarding that:

I can replace a digital hybrid about 10 times before the cost equals that of a top tier Steinway. And that's not counting the lifetime of tunings and regulations an acoustic requires. So that's not much of an issue to me when it comes to the acoustic vs. digital argument.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Not worthy of consideration in this context.

I don't really understand why that is the case.

There is exactly one technical area where a Steinway D beats a Novus NV10 - the quality of the projected sound to an audience, given an ideal environment. Of course, there are several other non-technical areas (Steinway is better in build quality, romanticism, etc), but when it comes to making music it's a lot closer. Is this important? Absolutely. But do most of us play for audiences? Absolutely not.

The action on the Nv10 is equally good or more consistent, I can achieve recordings that sound identical to acoustic and nobody here would ever know, and the expressivity and control I get out of it in conjunction with Pianoteq is equal to the vast majority of Steinway Ds in existence. Further, I've played on a lot of bad Steinway Ds - even those that were regularly maintained by universities! The Nv10 doesn't suffer such inconsistency.

I am not talking about performing for a concert hall - that is where Steinway D stands alone. But in a house for the serious classical musician who looks at an instrument as a tool? The cost becomes completely relevant, and I can achieve more with an average, off the shelf NV10 than I can with anything except a religiously maintained, top 5% Steinway D.

I don't agree. I think Pianoteq is very responsive, but it doesn't sound to me like a real piano.

I agree with you out of the box. It takes upgrading to the middle version of Pianoteq (significantly more expensive), using the Bluethner as a base, tweaking with virtual microphone placement, and degrading the artificial perfectness with the wear slider. And even then, you still need to disable the low-fi Pianoteq reverb and use a high quality convolution reverb like East West Spaces II.

But once that is done, I know it sounds like an acoustic. I've done blind experiments with several professional pianists.

Can you share your your PTQ settings and mic placements?

I've been holding off in upgrading to the middle level of PTQ since I figured I wouldn't know how to set it anyways, so your settings would be a big help, and would motivate me to upgrade. Thanks for mentioning East West Spaces II. I just added it to my shopping list.

Thank you, computerpro3, for the background details. Too many people post online without a hint of their qualifications to do so and without any substantiation for their opinions. I will follow your posts with interest!

I was at my best a long time ago, after 10 years of 3x a week lessons as a child, reaching the later intermediate levels of the British exam system. After a 40-year break, have been clawing my way back on an entry-level digital over the last 15 months, marveling at the progress one can make with 1-1/2 hours of practice every day. It's been a fun experience!

I've been testing more expensive digitals recently, though not yet a hybrid; hence, such threads are of interest. Thanks, Lotus

Hello, computerpro3. I loved your article but I'm confused about something. Presently, I have a digital piano and I am planning to join some competitions, give recitals etc. (which means I am going to perform on-stage.). And I was looking for some nice acoustics becasue of this reason, but I just realized I can't find a good acoustic in my budget even if I look for the used ones (my budget is $4700). So which one do you suggest to me? A slightly bad grand (a pearl river baby grand), an average upright, or a digital hybrid.

I would be so happy if you reply.

I suppose you will rework your PianoTeq tweaks and reverb if you change the NV10's audio system. . .

How did you like the onboard sounds and playability?

I have to say, I don't fully understand the discussion at hand here.
The whole purpose of a digital piano is to emulate acoustic pianos, so how can a digital truly be "too good" compared to an acoustic?

This is the heart of the problem: It just doesn't sound right.I've tried every one of their pianos and I've tweaked them extensively. There just is no piano in there.
It's fake. It's distant. It's unsatisfactory. It's just never a piano. Not ever.

In other threads people rant over the lack of proper support for half-pedaling, or this or that other small failing of a VST.
And yet with any or all of those failings a sampled VST really sounds like a piano. A flawed piano, yes. But it's a piano.

Just never ceases to amaze me how different our perceptions can be compared to the next person. Amazing and amusing.

I listened to one of the forum member's recording of Chopin Nocturne on NV10 + VST (posted in pianist corner) . It sounds very impressive to me. To get the similar level of recording quality in an acoustic piano, you will need a very good piano in good condition, a good recording studio environment, and good audio recording devices (Microphones + interface).

If you just talk about recording, DP is much more convenient to achieve good results. But in live performance, it's different. I still prefer attend live concert as I can feel I connect to pianist and music more in live setting. And it sounds definitely different from recording in live performance.

Hi Computerpro3,

I believe to register for piano competition/festivals such as Piano Texas, you will have to make video recording in an acoustic piano. I'm planning to do that in 2020. I've bought audio recording devices and plan to do the video recording myself. I'll need to rent a studio with a decent grand piano (like Steinway) and do the recording which will cost a lot.

Hi computerpro3,

Would you care to share some sample recordings of this setup? I must admit I'm not convinced by any Pianoteq recordings I've heard so far. I'm curious what you've been able to achieve.

MoriMori, this thread is an infomercial: “Novus! It doesn’t get better than this.....unless you have a perfectly prepped Steinway D hanging around”.

Let me put it this way, a severly injured Steinway M will blow any hybrid out of the water!

Ha ha - well I disagree, but it's an amusing way to put it.

Mac I think it also depends on the computer/soundcard you are using, pianoteq don't sound bad at all since the release of the Steingraeber. But if you still dislike it now, I suspect it depends on the soundcard you are using.

Okay, perhaps not ‘severly injured’, but at least grossly neglected.

No, it's not the sound card. Everything else sounds good.

The shortfall items in Pianoteq are:
1. Fake sounding highs.
2. Overall distant sound across the compass, as though the piano were not here, but instead somewhere in the next room.
I find these in all of the many pianos in the package.
Question: I've tried the demo version. Does Pianoteq "hold back" the best sounds in that package, reserving the best only for the paid version???

Anyway, a soundcard won't produce those faults. And there are really no bad sound cards anymore.

Maybe I notice these things because I'm more accustomed to acoustic pianos?
Whereas others are accustomed to digital (and to synthetic sounds of all kinds), so prevalent in modern music?
I really don't know.

But the difference between an acoustic piano and a good sampled VST is one of nuance. Significant nuance to be sure, but the comparison is valid and meaningful to me.
Whereas the difference between an acoustic and Pianoteq is night and day.

How did this topic morph into another Pianoteq discussion with the same cast of characters quoting from the same script?

There should be bans already!

Pianoteq is the Godwin's Law of the DP forum.

I don't think this issue will ever be resolved how we all hear pianoteq differently.

No disrespect to the OP whose qualifications I can only admire, I think even at the professional level this applies, some swear by it and think it is real, some don't. Another Pro Phil Johnston swears by Garritan, Phil best loves pianoteq.

Phil Best has all of his recordings on pianoteq which he claims are carefully mastered and has blind tested people and says they fail.
Yet I went on spotify and listened and still recognise pianoteq, but it is much harder to do, there were moments I was struggling, I thought WOW, this is really convincing, but if i listen long enough eventually that pianoteq character reveals itself in the middle higher registers for me at some velocities and some dynamic levels.

I did some blind tests too, an easy way is to check out our recitals recordings in the adult beginner forum. Many of these would probably use pianoteq with default settings. I did it couple of years ago when we were at about v 5.x. I listened without looking at the notes, just to see if I could identify the pianoteq entries, out of the 50 something or so there were 9 or so, anyway, I had a 100% success rate with that.

It would be foolish of me to suggest I can never be defeated with some performance or other, but the demos on the pianoteq site fair no better for me, the few I heard anyway, especially when no pedal is used and the raw notes are exposed.

Of course it is already much easier when you know what something is beforehand, and then have bias. We are all fallible when it comes to sound, me included, hence the blind test.

I usually can't tell which model is used, that is much more difficult, but what I do hear is a common theme in the sound characteristics.

I don't think it matters whether one claims to be an audiophile and likes accuracy/authenticity in sound, because we have several here that would still pick pianoteq or a roland over anything else, I also find that strange, but to each their own, No Problemo.

Just my 02.

I couldn't agree more! I'm also curious about hearing some recordings of what you've been able to achieve.

This is a really nice thread ( at least the beginning part of it ), and I think lots of people already thought about the same thing, but maybe were not brave enough to write it down since it's sure to cause some heated discussions. However, I can only tell that I'm on the sameboat with you computerpro3, the level of realism you get on these new digital pianos its outstanding. Modelling keeps going forward, and I can only dream about the day when the industry leaders will find the perfect setup for the digital as you mentioned, blended in with the proper speaker and amplifiers so that it truly delivers in real life. I'm curious if any owner of a N3X (N3) could tell how the sound projection feels (given the cabinet shape, and having a lid which will move the acoustic waves kind of like an acoustic ) .

Instead of trying to argue, let's all be happy that we live in a time where we have so many options and we can experience so much with pianos ( both acoustics and digital ) . Steinway Spirio system it's also a really nice addition, concerts recordings better sound perfect I hope

Why must you compare with a Steinway D (which costs $150,000, is that right)?
I don't see why the NV10 must be compared with the most expensive concert grand.

Why not compare with the 6' parlor Steinway? Or a similarly sized M&H (at $30,000 maybe)?
Or a $20k Chinese grand?

Do the grand actions differ that much amongst those? I don't think so.
Mostly they differ in the scale and soundboard and enclosure. In other words the OUTPUT side.
They're very much the same in the action (the INPUT side).

So ... must the NV10 be compared with only the most expensive grand?

Since people are asking, here are two quick clips I recorded before work this morning. I apologize for a few missed notes, I was in a time crunch and only had time to make one go of it.

Here is an example of what I feel sounds a bit fake - this is Pianoteq with the piano condition set to "mint"

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyub243he0a7jpu/pianoteq%20mint.wav?dl=0

Here is what I feel sounds a bit more real (but doesn't sound as pleasing), with the condition slider set in the middle of mint and worn.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p3cfmsr5639l4gp/Pianoteq%20worn.wav?dl=0

I only had time to add a preset reverb to it, East West Spaces II. The preset I used with Northwest Hall TS RR 2.6s. This will be a little wetter than the Front/Rear mics. When I have more time I will play with the mics and reverb settings to show what I believe it's capable of and post here, but I've got to get back to work for now.

computerpro3, that's a terrific playing! I wish you good luck with the Texas competition. And it's a favorite piece of mine which I thoroughly enjoyed in your performance.

However the sound is almost unbearable to my ears Especially the second version has some nasty sound artifacts that make it even worse than the first one.

And since I'll be criticized of being the regular "hater" of Pianoteq, I'll stop here before being persecuted by the Pianoteq aficionados

Use a MIDI cable and connect a top of the line Clavinova to the NV10. Problem solved.

Isn't this called N1X?

I think the OP made some interesting comments, and before things get too Pianoworlded (aka off topic), I would like to add a few comments.

1. Novus action is fantastic. Yes. AvantGrand actions were unofficially endorsed by professional pianists, and Kawai one-upped Yamaha by adding longer key sticks and damper rod lift simulation. I think at this point there is little argument that these two actions are not awesome grand piano actions.
2. Speakers of Novus isn’t that great. I think they are plenty good, but Yamaha N2 and above are better.
3. Pianoteq is realistic. This is what most people are commenting about and it really depends on the listener. Some people are more sensitive to Pianoteq’s artifacts than others. On the Google Music store, there is a Phil Best recording of Chopin Nocturnes done on Pianoteq. To me, the piano sounds a lot like Moravec’s 1966 recording of the Nocturnes, and most of the time I can forget its Pianoteq. Every now and then I hear Pianoteq which makes me a little sad. The detuning feature of Pianoteq adds realism but also hides its flaws. It’s more of a crutch rather than greatness of Pianoteq.
4. A hybrid DP can be better than an acoustic grand. I think this has been true since the AvantGrand introduction. I think more people are coming to terms with this now. Even a nice acoustic grand, like a Steinway O, is not really a match for a nice concert grand like a D. A small grand is a different instrument than a concert grand. A professional who has to sound good on any piano must work hard to achieve that. A professional who only has to sound good on a D could just practice on a D. I think the simulation of a nice D is achievable using a novus and a vst, to a degree. But for some people might prefer the “real” sounds of an acoustic (even an upright) rather than a vst, where as some people might prefer the “realism” of a virtual D.

I think we live in a nice time where someone could enjoy playing a virtual D to his or her satisfaction at a fraction of the cost and space. Making music is fun, however we do it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate on the minute differences of keystick lenghs and Pianoteq sound. :-)

Agreed. Absolutely unbearable. I don’t think you could experience a more unpleasant, unpiano-like sound from something purporting to be a piano.

Same here. Great playing, horrible sound... Having said this Pianoteq can do much better than this. While I think Pianoteq is not as good as the best sampled pianos (and what's best is also subjective...) I think ti's not far behind and completely fake as some believe. If I had to rank the virtual pianos that I have played (dozens and dozens of them), it wouldn't rank at the top but it would definitely rank "above average".

Could you provide the MIDI files, please?

I only listened to the second clip. I actually think it would fool the fast majority of the general public - the unison detuning makes it sound "acoustic". Sometimes it sounds real to me, but other times it does sound fake. For example, sometimes the unison detuning sounds like a chorus or flanger effect, rather than a recording of real detuning. Overall I quite like it. I seem to be more fussy about Pianoteq when I'm actually playing it - I definitely feel a sense of relief if I switch to a good sampled piano.

Greg.

That was fantastic playing.

With this level of performance, maybe some of us, including me, are expecting the sound quality to compete with that of a well regulated concert piano recorded and mastered by professional engineers from a recognized label.

Personally I think PianoTeq sound quality has a bit to go but have to admit this is a pretty good solution recorded at home on the fly.


But Philip Johnston wrote on these forums that he uses the onboard sounds from the N3 for playing. Then after the fact, he incorporates Garritan CFX full for music production.

At your level, I wonder if you would notice a difference PianoTeq Pro allows with respect to:

- Boosting internal sample rate processing from 48KHz to 192KHz (there are a couple of samples on the PianoTeq forum from last year that seem to sound slightly different but that might just be some randomization)


- The boost from 128 to 1024 MIDI levels (Tapping into the NV-10s sensor network and getting that data into your computer "correctly" would take a fair bit of effort)

Could we hear this with the NV10 native sound instead? I love the Novus NV10 sound over the native sound system and I don't get why anyone would prefer Pianoteq over that.

Note -- I believe the NV10 1.0.2e sound is superior to 1.0.2f.

Where can you read that claim that it has internally 1024 MIDI levels? I'd like to look it up...

* Well, the optical sensors of the NV-10 are continuous by nature but I have no idea if Kawai uses more than 127 levels for internal sounds.

* It seems the Yamaha AvantGrand may use the optical sensors for 1023 levels for internal sounds:

https://youtu.be/FG5EVGf98lU?t=155

- Rep says that Yamaha MIGHT be using over 1023 midi levels for internal sounds, noting Yamaha did not release detail publicly at about 4:10 (John Ebata of Cosmo Music Canada)

* PIanoTeq provides cc#88 "high resolution" MIDI (I think on all versions). That is discussed in the PianoTeq forums.

I've seen that video before, and the claim is SO suspect. While it's cool to see the cutaway action. that's not even a Yamaha rep, it's a music shop rep. And he doesn't give any details to back up his off-the-cuff guess. I'd love to know if manufacturers are using a higher resolution internally than they output to MIDI, but I don't think I've ever seen confirmation of that.

So, Gombessa ... you're holding out for proof? Or for good evidence?
Good for you.

People of all walks formulate baseless conjectures. Sales people make wild and unsubstantiated claims. But you're wanting just the plain truth.
Nice.

Excellent playing computerpro3, thank you for sharing your recording!

To echo navinda's request:



It would be nice to hear this piece performed with the NV10's built-in SK-EX Rendering sound engine - perhaps the "Full" or "Rich" rendering character types - and recorded to USB memory as an uncompressed WAV.

Kind regards,
James
x

That is a misunderstanding. Meaning the bit about the "the optical sensors are continuous by nature". You are confusing "optical sensors" with "continuous sensors". Optical sensors can be continuous, but not all of them are. Many just function like simple binary on/off switches.
And the optical hammer sensors in the NV10 (and the NV10 only has hammer sensors) are indeed not continuous. They "simply" consist of two photo sensors in the travel path of the hammer shank. Each of these two photo sensors is an on/off-switch sensor. And the velocity is measured by the time it takes between triggering the first sensor and the second sensor.
In that regard, the system works in exactly the same way as the usual non-optical rubber dome switch sensors that you find in most other DPs: Two on/off switches in two different places in the hammer's (or key's) path, triggered at two different times, and the velocity is calculated from the time elapsed between triggering the first and the second switch.
The difference is, that the optical sensors in the NV10 work frictionless without contact to the hammer, while the more common rubber dome switches impose friction/resistance on the hammer, thus impacting the actual measurement.
BTW, it is my understanding that the *hammer* sensors of the AvantGrands (except the NU1(X) which doesn't have hammer sensors) work in the same way.
(In addition to that, the NV10 and many 3-sensor DPs also have a third sensor to detect key release, i.e. "damper down", but that is irrelevant for the velocity sensing.)

However, even though the sensors are not continuous, but consist of two on/off-type sensors, that does not say anything about the maximum number of velocity levels that can be measured with these sensors (and that is true both for the optical sensors as well as for the simpler rubber dome switch sensors). The number of velocity levels that can be measured is theoretically only bound by the resolution of the clock and number values used internally by the measuring firmware. So even a two-sensor system, if the firmware is fast enough and has a good enough resolution, could produce MIDI values 1-1023 (or high-res MIDI values 1-16,383, or whatever).

I couldn't agree more...

JoBert, how did you obtain this information?
Yes, there are a number of different ways for implementing optical sensors.
But where have you read that this particular method was applied to the NV10 (or to the Avant Grands)?

That information comes directly from the Kawai patent that CyberGene posted in the NV10 thread about a year ago (see here), plus the simple observation that the sensor hardware that is used in the NV10 matches what is described in the patent.

Thanks. That's just what I wanted.

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response here JoBert. It is both interesting and informative.

So I went and purchased Garritan CFX Abbey Road to see if sampled instruments had improved since I last used Ivory, which consider a complete failure.

The results were interesting. I think Garritan is probably the best sounding sampled instrument I have used, but after spending hours playing with each in a critical manner I think there is no unicorn.

Playability: Pianoteq, by a mile. From a musical standpoint I can do things with it that I just can't with Garritan. It's the only one that I get a sense that how I approach the key affects the sound, which uncannily reminds me of an acoustic. Pedaling in Garritan is quite bad compared to Pianoteq. And I can't figure out a consistent velocity curve - I feel like I can't control my fingers.

Sound: This is where I can't make sense of things. I think Garritan sounds significantly, significantly more real when forte chords are played; it captures a complex timbre that Pianoteq does not have. This is immediately illustrated in the opening to the Chaconne. However when it comes to soft passages with pedal, Pianoteq sounds so much more nuanced and sensitive to me. I actually notice more of a difference based on volume than I do based on bass/midrange/treble. Pianoteq also needs to be loud to sound realistic, where Garritan sounds like a normal recording when played at lower volumes.

Another thing I don't understand is that Pianoteq sounds better to me when I am actively playing, vs. listening to a recording of it. And Garritan is the opposite and sounds better on a recording.... I don't understand this at all. Or perhaps there is an issue with my computer recording it properly?

Frustrations: How come Garritan doesn't have a custom velocity curve calibration? Pianoteq's calibration is excellent, where it actually has you play at various dynamics to create a custom curve. If Garritan had this, I wonder if it would be closer to Pianoteq in playing.

Another frustrating thing is that I can't record in Pianoteq (to get better musicality) and then simply apply the Garritan to it in Logic. I'm not sure why, but all of the nuances like pedalling and some phrasing does not carry over perfectly. It's like 85%.

Anyway, I didn't save the midi file from earlier, so I did a quick re-recording so you can mess with it with various VSTS.

Raw midi file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/26dfjwr6s4ulf07/Chaconne%20Pt%201%20Midi.mid?dl=0

Garritan CFX: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpfbftc13o9ftc6/Pianoteq%206.2Garritan%20CFX%20Abbey.wav?dl=0

Pianoteq Bluthner: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dzpws9nh1t2yb3z/Pianoteq%206.2%20Pianoteq.wav?dl=0

This is unintuitive at first, but it's actually a very common sentiment. I like to think of it in video game terms. When you're playing a competitive multiplayer game, you don't care for the high quality shaders, effects and extra chrome. You want a smooth 90-100fps and no distractions. But when you're spectating, it's much more pleasing to watch an Ultra-quality rendering. The former, as you can guess, is Pianoteq, it often doesn't sound quite as real, but it has a playability and dynamic response that you can appreciate when playing. When listening to a recording, you're not controlling anything, so you can't really anticipate how the player will approach the piece or how the sound will respond to their touch, so your focus is on musicality rather than response/playability. That's just my take on it often-made statement.



Garritan's UI is like a multimedia CD from 1995. It's horrible and there's no getting around it. Dragging a mouse to spin a graphical knob? Gray highlights over gray background? No MIDI recording? And yes, no custom curve generator. It's so outdated it's funny.

BTW, what does your velocity curve look like? It's taken me a while to find one I like with the NV10.

I guess that makes sense regarding the playability aspect. But what I really don't understand is why sampled instruments play so bad. There is really no excuse for it since Pianoteq is also limited to the same 127 midi velocities. With modern data techniques, interpolation, etc, it should be trivial to make a sampled instrument equally as responsive.

Here is my velocity curve for Pianoteq. The key is putting the NV10 in "light" touch mode, otherwise it won't output full midi velocity.

Velocity layers aren't everything, but as PT is modeled, it theoretically has infinite layers, or at least one generated for each velocity presented (and it also supports high res midi I believe, for 16k+ layers). Garritan is something like 20 layers? Which is great for a sampled instrument, but not in the same league.


That curve looks similar to mine in Garritan (I use Light+). I recall you saying you hammer on your keys pretty hard, so I expect you are getting more value out of Light than I would I can get to 127 in light only if I pound harder than I ever would in real life, so I took the easy way out and use Light+, which hits 127 with an FFF strike on a single key. And I know I can't play chords as hard as I can hit a single key so that works for me.

Computerpro, you can improve pedaling in Garritan with a fix I created some time ago, the so called “CyberGene’s fix” It prolongs the repedaling window and makes it more realistic IMO. Here it is: Garritan repedaling fix

Thanks for the link to the pedal fix, that was one of the first things I noticed about it. Fixing the pedal will at least remove one major limitation to the playability, I will give it a shot tomorrow.

Is Garritan only 20 samples per key? That is really surprising to me. I don't understand why they wouldn't do 127.....or at least offer a premium version with that many. People that are buying these hybrids are spending $10k+ on what is basically a glorified midi controller....I'd spend another $1k to get a truly playable instrument that sounds like Garritan. 12tb hard drives are cheap nowadays....

computerpro3,

If you search the forums, you will see most people play Garritan CFX with both the piano controller and the software at default velocity. After a lot of experimenting on my lowly Kawai es100, this is the optimal solution on my system.

From a practical perspective, some controllers may eliminate say the top 10-20 MIDI velocities if the controller is set at "default". Whilst controllers at "light" might give you closer to 127 levels, the curve may be rather unnatural.

So please try setting both the NV-10 and Garritan CFX Full to default velocities and play for a while. See if that helps.

20 is actually quite a lot... If you look around at other sampled VSTs I think you'll find most are far fewer. It's already 150+GB for 20-something velocities, so 128 would likely be about a TB. That's quite a bit of storage and RAM to require (hence one of the advantages of physical modeling),. And I think there's a lot to say about diminishing returns at that point.

That said, I think VSL Synchron CFX has some keys sampled more (many at the same velocity for round robin playback), so that may be one to try.

Read most of the thread and I think OP has a fair point. My digital has an action that I love 100% . It is reliable and predictable and plays like a dream.

The renner action on my acoustic is much heavier and takes more work to play well.

But boy does it sound good when the hammers connect correctly to the strings.

There is no replacement for a good size soundboard.

From what I understand, Kawai has the best action with NV10, but Yamaha has the best headphone sound with the N1X. Is it reasonable to expect version 2 of the NV10 to not only have soundboard like the NV5, but also binaural sound for headphones?

I am currently grappling with choosing between the NV10 and N1X. If I go with NV10 now I can get full trade-in value for up to 3 years. I envision myself playing with headphones most of the time, and wonder that if Kawai still hasn't come out with binaural, perhaps they simply are not interested in it.

As an NV-10 owner, I love the action, and I do like it better than the AvantGrand actions I've tried. However, I don't think you can state that the NV-10 simply has a better action; they're both superb and it'll be a matter of personal preference. There are plenty of people out there that prefer the Yamaha action.

I think it's also NOT reasonable to assume the next NV-10 will have either a soundboard or binaural recorded audio (or an audio interface)....we don't have any evidence that supports any of those propositions. Maybe it will have some/all of those, maybe not at all. Nobody knows.


I get the "full trade-up value" deal too, but I would suggest NOT even considering that in your decision. It's a common sales tactic with pianos, and between the uncertainties of the shop still being in business, how much less they're willing to negotiate on your upgrade pricing, etc., it's not a certainty that it results in any net savings to you at all.

I also use my NV-10 with headphones 95% of the time. Personally, I don't consider the lack of binaural audio as any kind of negative. Nothing is automatically better because of binaural audio, and nothing is automatically inferior if it lacks it. Binaural recording is a process that must be implemented correctly, and there are a lot of lackluster examples out there. I think a fine stereo recording could easily outperform a binaural sample (e.g., I would love if Garritan CFX's stereo output were available natively on the NV-10; it's not binaural but is so much more realistic and pleasing).

I also wonder why Kawai didn't go binaural on the Novus line 🤔.

I don't really expect them to create an other version of the Nv10 soon, but hopefully 🤞 an NV20 with a soundboard. However so far it looks like (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) Kawai reuses the same hard- and software components for the Novus and upper CA models, and I would expect any new released model to have the same limitations.

Now I guess it's your personal call pdavidow, between action and sound. I'm more inclined towards the action, because the sound of digitals can be upgraded (via an actual Kawai software update or VST). But here I am still not buying an NV10 because I don't enjoy the speakers 😁.

The best action? The best headphone sound? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that people who purchased the NV10 praise the action (among other things) and people who purchased the N1X praise the binaural sample (among other things). That hardly makes those factors "the best" in their class.

Most people are satisfied with their purchase whether it be the action or samples, etc., that's why they purchased it to begin with. However, that doesn't necessarily mean one is categorically better than the other. Try before you buy and decide what is best for you.


God Bless,
David

I was not aware that Kawai can do an audio software update.

Digital sound and tacktile response is still far behind acoustics.

..but how far behind; a few miles or light years?

IMO, that's actually a good question.

Tone-wise, we're not far off, assuming your standard is DP sound versus *a recording of* an acoustic piano. A few generations into modeling and advanced resonances and I wouldn't be surprised if we get to a point where they're indistinguishable.

Out/speaker-wise, I don't know if we'll ever get there. I haven't seen any indication that a digital piano can sound like a live acoustic piano* and I feel this is one area where we just get to "good enough" and live with the result out of necessity.

*IMHO, Transacoustics where you have some kind of digital output from a real acoustic cabinet are the most convincing I've heard, and I'm not sure whether it's the cabinet, soundboard, strings, or some combination of everything, but I've been fooled more than once in misjudging the source while playing.

I wouldn't judge a piano from what I've heard or what others have said.Judge a piano for yourself.

These full trade-in deals are phony. There's no such thing.How can you possibly expect a dealer to take your trade-in and pay you back the full purchase price? That's fantasy.

He can juggle the numbers so that he seems to pay you the original price on your trade-in ... and then sell you the new piano at full list price, or even more.

Don't be fooled. Expect your piano to lose at least 20% in value the minute you take delivery, and 50% in just a few years.

So adding a real soundboard would still not be good enough?

It seems like some believe that the soundboard -in a digital- is no different than speakers, but wouldn’t the soundboard provide at least a wider and more natural propagation of sound?

I mean, how many speakers would it take to fill-in the entire cavity of a baby grand?
In theory, a soundboard in a baby grand digital hybrid will fill every inch of the piano’s cavity with sound, so I think that would be a significant improvement over conventional, and very directional, speakers.

What about adding a string-like form of sensor that is both reacting to the pounding of a real hammer and providing some form of sympathetic resonance?

I'm far from an expert, but I'm honestly skeptical that a soundboard is the end-all be-all. Kawai's had soundboards on their top-end CA/CS models for years now. And though they sound nice, I've never thought they were more convincing than a good speaker setup (especially in-cabinet speakers like on an N2). And if they really were the ultimate solution, I would think that manufacturers who have a good soundboard/transducer setup like Kawai/Yamaha would be using them everywhere.


Maybe so...but then there are other questions to answer--with the soundboard on an acoustic piano, you have a bridge transferring vibrations from strings to produce the sound. With a digital, you have a recording of the output from a soundboard being piped back into a soundboard via transducer to create what....some other sound? It sounds like re-uploading lossy-compressed files to youtube over and over. I have to wonder if the soundboard is everything it's supposed to be, why do we use mics for the master sample in the first place? Shouldn't there just be some accelerometer or seismometer transcribing the actual movement of the string at the bridge instead? Again, I have no real idea how any of this works...

A soundboard in an acoustic piano is not just a speaker. It has a special crown shape and is under precise tension, so that it changes the simple string vibrations, dissipates, propagates and modifies them into what we know as the beautiful piano sound It’s the heart of why a piano sounds like a piano.

A soundboard in a digital piano on the other hand is just some wood that vibrates from a transducer. It’s not under tension and has no special shape. The transducer doesn’t feed string-like vibrations. It feeds a prerecorded sound from a piano that has already gone through another soundboard. It’s just a speaker. Large one but speaker.

Just seems to me that, apart from the actual playing experience, the sound of a digital- any digital I've heard - is processed, refined from its original all encompassing texture. It's always apparant in demos or YT vids.
Some of us might prefer this; but I reckon you get a better more organic effect only when turning the digital up; it does sound more natural then, when one is sat in front of it.
The answer would seem to be less processing for the more expensive models. There's no reason why the full sound of the acoustic shouldn't be at your digits when playing a digital.
And the speakers can't be to blame either. they can only reproduce, either well, or poorly, that which is already there.

So ... the soundboard is just another gimmick. Like the phony "escapement" clicker.

Let me go find my shovel and my hip boots.

My understanding is that the soundboard of the Yamaha AvantGrand N3 or N3X is just a piece of wood driven by transducers that provides some resonance (they call it the Soundboard Resonator).

HOWEVER, my understanding of the Yamaha Transacoustic pianos is that they use the SAME single soundboard utilized for the acoustic portion of these pianos. When being played by a digital sound, they use transducers to drive this same single soundboard to broadcast the digital sound. When played acoustically, the acoustic strings vibrates this same single acoustic soundboard. And you can do both in parallel, called layering, meaning you can drive this soundboard with a digitally sampled sound, and simultaneously use the action keys to strike the strings to generate the acoustic sound off this same soundboard. And take it one step further, play a pre-recorded digital sampled sound track then play along with this soundtrack acoustically, to turn the performance into a 2-instruments performance.

As for whether the transacoustic sound of the sampled sounds is realistic or not, that's subjective to each individual, but plenty of reviews seem to be positive about how real it sounds with sampled sounds. I've never had a chance to hear one myself personally so I don't have any personal opinion on this.

As far as Gombessa's comment that if transacoustic were the ultimate solution, why wouldn't Yamaha/Kawai use it everywhere. I don't know, but I suspect that maybe because this is still relatively new technology (at least for piano, it seems like it's been around much longer for guitars), and perhaps they'd like to reserve this technology for higher priced piano lines to begin with. I'm hoping that eventually, they'll find business motivation to push this down to lower price point digital/hybrid piano lines as a replacement for speaker-based systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the successor to the N3X will be rid of speakers and replaced with a full size soundboard (not the less-realistic Soundboard Resonator they currently have) driven by transducer.

Modelling VST+Full Soundboard transducers will be the best way than sampling I think.
Just like they've done: Steingraeber Transducer Pianos

BTW, TA2/Aures of Y/K have shown great results with full soundboard and acoustic-digital mixing.

It seems like they have a ‘stringless’ version. This makes it more like the AvantGrand but with a soundboard instead of speakers; isn’t that what we’ve been asking for?

Granted, this technology pales in comparison to what Steinway is offering (a player-piano). The Spirio, as Steinway calls this state-of-the-art tech, is yet to be surpassed by anything out there (including the TransAcoustic, and now the ‘ducer stringless piano).

I believe Pianoteq is providing the modeling for the Steingraeber ‘ducer piano, but once again, this tech cannot compete with Steinway’s Spirio.

Yes, I know these technologies are meant for different things, but still there is a common aspect related to the innovation of the piano as we know it by implementing/merging digital/electronic with acoustic (the Spirio is a player-piano; WOW! The ‘ducer piano uses a soundboard to generate a modeled piano-sound created in collaboration with Pianoteq; good, but not even close to Steinway’s advanced synergy!

I haven't kept up with this tech, but I recall reading that the Spirio playback system is a fairly basic approximation of the Disklavier playing system Yamaha has had for decades? And the Yamaha goes to extreme lengths such as measuring/adjusting for weight drift and stiction in the keys to ensure smooth playback in a number of different states of regulation. It's interesting stuff but I'm not sure the playback system is all that "innovative" today.

I no have a friend with a Spirio M, and while it's pretty cool too see Lang Lang on the ipad playing a D while the keys move in time on the M, it gets old fairly quickly. To me, I want the piano so I can play, not so I can sit and listen to a recorded performance.

I suppose this works best for entertaining guests over at your house.

AvantGrands have that 🤯? I didn't pay attention but indeed, it is listed in Yamaha's website specs, now I'm really curious what it looks like/what is meant exactly. I can't find any picture online.

I think it may be a very niche market: the added price of the Aures/TransAcoustic system is quite high (in the 3 to 4k-ish €/$ for K500 Aures I believe), so for entry line pianos it may not make sense to offer a system that costs the same as the actual instrument: at that point I'd personally prefer buying a better acoustic piano.

On the other end if I can place a grand piano at home (meaning, in a house without neighbours directly around) I think I'd rather get a really good acoustic and then perhaps a digital on the side if an occasional silent practice is required. I agree however that the N3X has the perfect form factor for my current situation at least: living in a city flat, wanting a grand action as close as possible to the real deal but with controlled size and sound volume. Bonus points for a sleek looking instrument. Wink wink NV-20 Kawai 😉!

That's a fair and true point, I may have been 'inceptionned' by marketing talk 😁. I wonder however, could a digital soundboard still be a perk in that its large size produces better lower frequencies? Or can the same results be achieved with a regular subwoofer, and it is just a question of how it looks 🤔?

How about a hybrid for headphones only? Let the user worry and pay for speakers if so desired. After all, some players almost exclusively use headphones.

It's the piece of wood on top, right behind the music sheet stand, before the speaker cabinet. It spans the width of the keyboard, and is curved a little bit into the speakers cabinet. It probably has transducers underneath it to cause it to resonate a little when played through the speakers.

I'd imagine that it doesn't save Yamaha that much to forgo the speaker system on the N1X. So you can think of the N1X as a hybrid specifically for headphones, with the added bonus and convenience of an acceptable speaker system, if you're so inclined to find it adequate enough. If not, then add your own speaker system on top of it like some of the N1X owners do on this forum.

Silly post, completely disagree, can't beat a good grand, hybrids don't come close in sound, they still use tiny mb samples for one, laughably bad samples, and pianoteq is not a replacement for an acoustic live piano if you want to argue that you can use better sampled instruments though a hybrid.

I like this topic, I've been away from PW for a few month and this was a entertaining thread to get into it again:) Nice playing by the way computerpro3. Just to add something to the discussion, I think the onboard sounds on these fine instrument deserves more credibility. To me both the AG- and the NV:s internal sound sources sounds great and and the playability can't, in some regards, be beaten even by Pianoteq (I love Gombessas reference to Godwin's law:)).

I own a Novus (and Garritan CFX) too, and I am surprised by how "easy" it is to produce nice-sounding recordings with much less effort in comparison to recording an acoustic grand. I can more or less plan out an interpretation and execute 99% of it consistently without any issues in evenness or unexpectedly harsh tones. The downside though is that often I feel straitjacketed into interpreting a piece a certain way because of a smaller tonal palette in comparison to a real acoustic. Does the OP ever get that kind of feeling?

On the other hand, when my teacher records my lessons on his nice Hamburg Steinway D and I listen back to it, the recording sometimes sounds totally alien to what I thought I was doing (sometimes good but more frequently bad!).

This because you are not really "recording" an "interpretation". You're just mixing prerecorded one-note pieces using a MIDI controller.


Of course, this is what happens, when you're mixing samples (like a rap musician) instead of playing a real instrument.

I shouldn't surprise you, that VSTi plugins are meant to be used exactly this way: to fake recordings of acoustic grand pianos.

To the original poster:
I am by no means a very good or very experienced player. But I had an experience somewhat similar to yours regardless when I gave up my rented K300 acoustic and moved to a Kawai ES8 - I posted about it on this very forum if I recall correctly.
The ES8 was much easier for me to control the dynamics of compared to the acoustic and it kind of felt like "cheating" :-)
Anyways - i hated not having an acoustic and got an old U1 which I love - even if I still can't control the dynamics of my playing for [censored] on the thing :-)

Aha I see! Thanks Volusiano! Maybe that participates in the N3X's sound projection (better to my ears than the NV10).

I agree with Volusiano, I see the N1X and even the NV10 as the headphone oriented hybrids, whilst N2/N3X sound more "room scale". I can't imagine a hybrid piano sold without any built-in speaker system though.

rach3master very nice play and YT channel 👏👏!

Stringless ‘ducer-based’ hybrid piano with real -high quality- soundboard! Hello?

Isn’t this what we’ve been asking for?

“Oh, if Kawai just came out with an NV-20 using a real soundboard.” Well, Steingraeber has gone done that, and we go totally silent, or even worse, now we’re asking for a ‘headphone’ oriented hybrid.

Make up your mind, people!

Yes, Pete. This is like Stevie Wonder seeking a big screen TV. Or Helen Keller buying a surround sound stereo.

I think the Transacoustic, Aures & Steingraeber/pianoteq pianos are the gold standard of the current hybrid instruments. However, what makes them so great is partly the versatility to be able to play both acoustic and digital. The other killer feature is that it has real string resonans even when playing with the digital sound source which, to me, makes it much more alive than other hybrids (obviously not with headphones) and that would be missed out with a stringless transducer based hybrid.

.....but johan, the point of the ‘stringless’ option is to make it more affordable and practical.

Yes, the Trans/Aures seems like the holy grail at the moment, but these are very expensive because one is buying a whole acoustic along with the digital.

The stringless version is not only cheaper but also more practical for many who will not be able to play in ‘acoustic mode’ due to neighboring concerns. For these -many- people I don’t think it would be a big deal to have modeled string resonances over having real strings that come attached to a whole acoustic piano that, as I’ve said above, will go wasted (neighbors), and requires higher maintenance expenses.

I see your point. What you describing would basically be a grand version of the NV5. Personally I'm not convinced it would make a huge benefit over current solutions unless you made an instrument with a soundboard with the same size and construction as the acoustic instrument it tries to mimic and that would'n be a cheap instrument. However, if anyone did that and found a way to transfer the same kind of vibrations to it as strings does, it would be very interesting.

If you're not able to play a piano due to neighbors, then don't buy one. There are quieter instruments to choose from.

Or you start with practicing the saxophone and then switch to piano afterwards. You neighbors won't hear the latter anymore.

In fact: Where I live the laws pretty much only allow practicing and playing acoustic instruments, while anything featuring amplification is either banned or only allowed at really low volume. So getting a digital piano means shooting yourself in the foot.

This is a tough crowd! The NV-10 and N1X probably have better speakers than 99% of all digital pianos out there, and yet they are only best described as headphone-oriented

I may be wrong but I think there is a quiproquo on the Steingraeber here: they title "Without Strings / With Hammer Stop" but from what I gather the piano is still sold with strings (but I guess there must be a stop bar or something). So in terms of cost and size it's still another league. Unless this is indeed sold without strings, in this case you are right Pete!


Well that's kind of ... extreme 😅. Can you imagine telling young Martha Argerich "You know what, this is lovely but neighbours are complaining so play the picolo already!" (😝yes I picked an extreme counter-example). I agree with Pete14, I don't see a problem with looking for technological solutions to a common issue. Even an upright piano in a flat gets loud - not even talking about a grand. With digitals the amplification means you have more control over the max output volume.

Interesting though that you are forbidden to use amplification 🤔 does that mean you can't even listen to music or movies on speakers then? Have the law makers ever heard a drum set x) ?

Yeaah I admit this was leaning on the blanket statement 😬, you are right! On the other hand they are also more expensive than 99% of digital pianos so expectations are high 😇.

Where the h-e-l-l do you live, Joe?

The rules are backwards on your planet!

Very backwards! They even shoot themselves!

In reality having "more control over the max output volume" on my P-515 doesn't provide any advantage for me. Instead I have louder and quieter guitars to choose from.


You can listen to recorded music and movies as long as you set the amplification volume so low, that it can't be heard outside the apartment. So the actual volume depends on the building. This applies round the clock, no exceptions. It applies to digital pianos as well, so 300 W of speakers built in there are essentially useless inside shared housing with cardboard walls.


OTOH any acoustic instrument (including drum kits and concert grands) you can play as loud as you want, as long as you don't do it during the night. Some apartment people confuse this exception thinking they can blast their home cinema speakers during the day as well. Nope, if you want to make yourself heard to your neighbors, you have following options:

1. Your voice (non-amplified): Sing as loud and as much as you like.

2. Sitting down with any acoustic instrument and playing it yourself (non-amplified): hours limitations apply.

3. Your washing machine, vacuum cleaner or any other household tool.

That was meant by that electronic amplification is essentially banned, that is where we draw the line.

So, per your planet’s laws, Cecil Taylor can play his concert grand till the saints come marchin’ in, and the neighbors can’t complain?

Sign me up; I wanna live at Joe’s!

https://youtu.be/EstPgi4eMe4

But I think the NV10 with VST is better than uprights and baby grands, both of which are generally unsatisfying for an advanced classical pianist to play on, and the action is also better than most baby grands. I have to get up to at least parlor size on a quality acoustic before the quality starts to meet or surpass the hybrid sound.

Is the NV10 lacking in sound quality, such that it needs VST?

I've been wondering about this. I was originally thinking that perhaps when using a digitally sampled sound to activate the soundboard sonically, Yamaha probably would dampen all the strings because the string resonance is already recorded as part of the sample. If they don't dampen the strings, wouldn't there be a duplicate on the string resonance? One from the sampled sound, and the other from the real string(s)?

I can see the benefit of taking advantage of the real string(s) there to exercise real string resonance. But to avoid duplication of the sampled resonance and the real natural string resonance, which may sound unnaturally too much, wouldn't Yamaha have to use a different set of dry sampled sounds that don't resonate to alleviate the excess resonance? Or does it really not matter and the two sources of resonance would layer in real well???

I imagine the resonance apparent in digitals isn't necessarily that recorded in the sample. The sample would be divest of that, and something else added which is probably modelled.
It may be the Digital part of these pianos has no resonance other than what the strings generate.

Wonder if (1) NV10 with only a single 16cm speaker is sufficient enough in bass to play other instruments in its sound bank? I understand it's sufficient for the piano sounds, just wondering if it's ok for the bass or other sounds it can output / layer.

(2) is using VST sending signals back to the NV10 to output through NV10 speakers ?

New question for the thread:

I’m considering the Yamaha C3X because of the sound and feel of the keyboard. I live in a condo and would like the option to play in the evening (softly), and/or silently with headsets. The simple answer is a C3X TA2 which pretty much mandates a pricy new C3X. Does anyone feel using Yamaha’s, or other’s silent technology, and plugging high quality speakers into the headphone jack gives me most of a TA2, less the transducers driving the sound board. If this works it allows me to purchase a used and much less expensive C3X.

I’d appreciate opinions on this approach.

I've never tried what you are suggesting but it's an interesting idea and I guess it comes down to how much you prioritize plying without headphones at lower volume. If that is how you mainly going to play the piano and want the real strings (I saw in the other thread that you're not interested in the hybrid AG/Novus) I would also consider the cheaper transAcoustic options. The C3X is a great piano for shure with a brilliant action but the piano playing experience is such a complex mix of many thing so perhaps a Upright or cheaper grand transacoustic makes a better experience than playing the C3X through speakers. If I was in the market for a new piano I'd try out as many options as possible to find out what suits my needs best. That said, if you have the oportunity to get a C3X silent for a good price it sure is a nice instrument.

I wouldn't assume the sound board is either better or worse than loudspeakers.

On the one hand, Yamaha is a global leader in musical instruments, amplifiers, and loudspeakers, so they have the in-house expertise to make a soundboard system work. On the other hand, music reproduction via traditional loudspeakers has the benefit of decades of R&D (but loudspeaker design still has a way to go IMHO).

You just need to demo it these pianos to determine for yourself.