Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Kawaii ES100 Vs. Roland FP-30

balian, my best advice would be to play-test both the FP-30 and ES8 in person, rather than rely too heavily on what you read and watch online.

Best of luck!

Kind regards,
James
x

True . It's sometimes too easy to get caught up in spec sheets & online reviews trying too look for the 'best', forgetting that a) most digital pianos nowadays are pretty damn good b) what feels best is probably more easily resolved by spending 10 minutes on the pianos than comparing spreadsheets.

God knows how much valuable learning and playing time I've lost looking up the differences between various tonewoods and nut widths and string materials in guitars...

Hi Balian, I suggest that a fairer comparison should be between Roland FP30 and Kawai ES100, because Kawai ES8 has a key action with counterweights only comparable with similar in other brands; and in this case Roland does not have any model of key action with added counterweights. Cheers!.

I'd argue that counterweights or otherwise, Roland actions can go toe to toe with some of the best in the industry without any fear of being "out specced".

Jay

Kawai ES8 is a class up compare to FP30, and I agree with Fer De Armas that a fairer comparison should be between FP30 and Kawai es100. Roland has a newer key action, and in my country it is more expensive then es100. They are very similar in action, Roland has a let off, Kawai doesnt, but I am satisfied with Kawai es100 which I use as a portable solution, so for my needs it was not an option to pay more. The best thing is to just try both product and decide for your needs.

Well, you know, there's a point where the washing power either washed white or it didn't - you can't realistically keep claiming to have improved something which, in the past, you've extolled the virtues of without losing all credibility for the claims.

The truth is, I'm sure, that the numbers on these things increase to create the illusion that they are constantly improving and cheaper products use similar acronyms to create the illusion they are similar to the higher priced models.

"marketing guff", nothing more.

As I said in another post, it creates the rather laughable premise today that the £430ish FP30 has a better keybed than the £4000 V-Piano and if you believe the numbers and the acronyms it also has more piano sounds and the same "SuperNATURAL" engine as their current top of the range LXxx models too. Wow, impressive eh?

The consequence of that unfair "marketing guff" is, that it is very difficult for the customer to decide what he is receiving for his money. An unpleasantly mind boggling experience, totally avoidable.

I suppose but, I don't think it's that difficult to choose a digital piano from the bigger brands because nigh on every
town and city has a store that stocks a few you can go and try.

Just play them and pick one you like the touch and sound of and perhaps ignore all this PHA3/4/GHA/Ivory feel nonsense.

I mean, I've never knowingly touched ivory in my life and I presume Steinway et al don't use dead elephant teeth on their acoustic grand pianos, so why market your digital piano as having a feel that doesn't really exist any more?

To me it's a bit like selling cotton by saying "Just like slaves used to pick!" - the word "Ivory" seems to be synonymous with the most abhorrent and unnecessary cruelty and suffering. It's not a word that summons up luxury keys any more is it?


Perhaps for a beginner who might think they don't know a good piano sound or action from a bad one it's more difficult, but there seem to be a plethora of digital pianos under £500 from brand names. Even Casios DPs seem to have a good reputation now.

I think if you avoid the noname, unbranded cheap DPs you won't really go wrong whatever make you pick. After a few years of playing then you might care and know more and then your 2nd purchase will be more informed.

There's a problem of local supply for some makes though. I can understand people asking about physis and similar things because they are like the proverbial.

It is not unreasonable to expect that in the 7 years since the release of V-Piano, that not only have we taken steps to drastically improve all of our piano actions, but also some of the modelling technology has made its way down to other models.

The New HP and LX models feature SuperNatural Piano Modelling. We've never made that claim with the FP-30 at all. The word Modelling doesn't appear prominently in the marketing like it does with the HP and LX Series. The FP-30 Piano sound engine is a combination of Sampling and Modelling. aka The Generation of SuperNatural that preceded the new HP/LX fully modelled SuperNatural.

No one at Roland has ever directly claimed that the action on the FP-30 is any better than the V-Piano. It's primary design is to support portability without sacrificing feel. The V-Piano had no such design considerations. It used the best we had at the time.

However, I have been consistent in saying that the V-Piano bred many of the technologies that make our instruments what they are today. Today's fully modelled SuperNatural Piano Sound engine, and the still lauded SuperNatural engine that feature a combination of Sampling and Modelling are derivatives of what our engineers accomplished with the V-Piano those years ago.

Added: Almost every acoustic manufacturer uses some sort of synthetic ivory where applicable. Part of making the action give as much of the tactile sensation of an acoustic is trying to match the feel of the keytops on their acoustic counterparts. as much as possible. It's not just Roland either. We all have developed our own keytop material to try to accomplish this.

Jay

I think this is where the Roland marketing team made things more complicated for themselves than they needed to be.
What the marketing needed to say:
1) V-piano: fully modelled piano sound engine.
2) Super-natural: mainly sampled piano with elements of piano modelling derived from the v-piano to overcome sampling's limitations.
3) LX/HP: new fully modelled piano sound engine evolved from the V-piano.

The term "super-natural" is always going to be associated with the mix of sampling and modelling ;-).

1 and 2 are basically almost what we said.

3 is partially true although the enhancements in the process AND the processing power afforded by the new core processor, make the two very different. Although the simple explanation is that yes, in fact they are both fully modelled, the two are very unrelated in terms of their core customer, feature set, and affordability. The V-Piano was a tweakers paradise, but the new HP/LX Series is a very strong cohesive package out of the box. No need for external monitors, amps etc.

The analogy I would use is this:

In TV Land, Hi Definition has historically had a few variants and processes to recreate the content (DLP, Plasma, LED, OLED). No one is all over Samsung, Hitachi, LG, et al for the evolution of the marketing of Hi-Def. To the less savvy Consumer, it is Hi Def. Full Stop.

The same goes for our piano sound engine. SuperNatural is our Hi-Def.

Previous SuperNatural would be like a 1080p LED screen at 60hz....Really good and still probably good enough for most people. It has come way down in Price and is more accessible to everyone thanks to that pricing. (Think FP-30)

SuperNatural Piano Modelling would be like a Curved 90-inch 4K OLED Screen at 240hz... Still known as "HiDef", but better. Still early days for the technology, and it hasn't had a chance as yet to come to price points that everyone can afford. But eventually it probably will. (Think HP/LX Series.)

That's my take anyways.

Jay

So now it is established sampling takes, or took, place in recent and even current models.

So whats my FP50 sampled from?

Have fun Jay! Good to have you around. . .

Perhaps. It is however, I would suggest, unreasonable to expect anyone to pay £4000 for something you now seem to be suggesting is 7 years out of date and has a worse action than a £430 product.

4 is bigger than 3 and less than 50 - this is what your marketing says. If it's not true then, as I told you, your marketing is designed to delude purchasers.

OTOH, if 4 is really better than 3 - as any reasonable person looking at them might expect - especially when you say you've improved the action on the 4 then, as I say, better buy the cheap piano than the 'flagship' expensive one with the old, substandard action.

Look, the bottom line is this too : it doesn't take decades to come up with a good piano action. As I said in a post the problem has already been solved. The only reason to keep claiming it's better every time is either because in the past you have decided to make it cheap or because you hope people will upgrade and keep buying them.

There are, clearly, a lot of improvements you could make elsewhere - physical modelling, for example, has plenty of room for innovation. The keyboard action numbering system is just marketing guff.



See above. The marketing says it is better.

Unless you're saying that the PHA4 is worse than the PHA3. In which case the marketing is just nonsense isn't it?

3 is better than some of the 4s and maybe worse than one of the Ss or a G. Sheesh. Sit down in a meeting and figure a
sane story out.



So you create a really authentic synthetic ivory keybed. Haha.

Except I thought in that other thread that you didn't emulate other acoustic pianos and it was all a "roland piano"? Remember that
marketing guff. Now you are emulating acoustic pianos after all?

"There's more holes in the story than a piece of swiss cheese"

Have you ever considered just describing your products on here without all the marketing guff? In plain English? Because your marketing is such that you can't be consistent from one lot of guff to the other which is, perhaps, not really your fault.

You might instead say something interesting about roland products if you just talked about them instead of regurgitating the adverts or trying vainly to defend what is clearly marketing guff.

You won't debate me into buying your product with some canny reply. If I'm telling you I see guff in your marketing it won't help to argue. Now I just see guff and employees who have drunk the kool aid to the point that they'll argue white is black if Roland says so.

yb,



i made no such suggestion. Do not put words into my mouth that I did not say.

You appear have an axe to grind with me, and apparently with Roland for no good reason.

Your use of the word "guff" is misplaced and unnecessary. Even detrimental to those actually attempting to learn a thing or two on this forum.

I won't engage you any further. I have better things to do with my unpaid time.

Jay

Thanks Peterws.



Sampling has taken place for quite a while yes. Besides the CLP-990M which didn't last long, to my recollection, we were one of the first companies to start using an 88 key multi sample across the home piano line. And definitely one of the first to put sampling and modelling in pianos from well under $1000 up to our top of the line.

Your FP-50 is a combination of samples from some of the worlds best concert grands. Carefully combined to create the distinct sound that makes a Roland, Roland.

Jay

Do you know maybe which ones exactly were sampled for Supernatural?

In Nov 2015 I tested the V-piano and the LX-7 Rolands.

I had already tested the Kawai CA97 and the Yamaha CLP895 30 minutes earlier before moving to the V-piano and the LX-7.
I can say that there have been two occasions when the hype and YouTube videos have matched my testing of the product: the V-piano and the Avant Grand N2. I didn't feel the same enthusiasm for the CA-97 or the CLP895: despite the great Grand Feel II action (which was awesome).

Anyway, the LX-7 and the V-piano were side by side! The V-piano had the better action to my mind: crisper and more substantial. Now, I was surprised because I had played the same action (the PHAIII) a year earlier whilst testing the RD700NX and RD300NX, and I really didn't like that action at all. I suspect that the V-piano's modelling has affected my perception of the action, or, Roland modified the PHAIII (making it a pro action) or something. Anyhow, I can tell you that the V-piano sounds better through 2 monitors than the LX-7 did through it's cabinet speaker system.

You can buy the LX-17, perhaps that sounds better with the extra speakers; however, you cannot modify the sounds as much as one can with the V-piano.

The V-piano was never meant as a high-selling piano. The low volume of production means higher cost. That's how supply and demand work. If they had expected great sales, they'd have produced more in bulk at a lower cost, and it would have been cheaper.

What I will say about the PHA-50 action is that it is the closest Roland action to a grand piano action. The V-piano action is heavier than the acoustic grand's it was sat near; however, I still preferred that action over the LX-7's PHA-50. I don't own a V-piano, but would take one over the newer LX-7.

Another thing, V-piano's have kept their value quite well considering it's 7 year old technology: the second hand re-sale value is still in the £2000's--£3000 range. Despite the older tech, the V-piano is still sought after enough to make it expensive to buy second hand. I don't think V-piano owners would take any issue in seeing newer technology emerge into lower Roland models 7 years post-release of the V-piano. Sure, they'd like the V-piano updated perhaps, but in general, people expect newer technology to filter into lower models. It happens with most every product sold e.g., cars, computers, mobile phones. Therefore, I do think your post could be fairer in its assessment of Roland's strategy.

Hi yb, I agree with you... often marketing rather than easier it has become more difficult for the consumer decision-making; so there is nothing better than try things personally, but that is often not possible for some of us. Cheers...!

If I did, I couldn't say.

Jay

Mine has an Elton John type sound when it rocks. What does he play then? Ah! I know!

A Roland. . .!