Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Yamaha Clavinova CLP-700 Series

I believe you can save custom settings via Smart Pianist while it's not possible on the instrument controls itself but I may be wrong.

You're right, Beowulf.
Just downloaded the Smart Pianist app and it's possible to save snapshots.
Would be nice if they implement a way to save these snapshots to some banks on the Clavinova


Yes, all 700 series.

Is it possible to connect studio monitors to the CLP 745 via the audio output to get the same sound as the CLP 775? What studio monitors would be suitable for this purpose? As far as I know, monitors will work at the same time and sound will go through them and from the piano.

The CLP-775 has six speakers and a transducer. You can't get the same sound with studio monitors.

In fact studio monitors are made for an accurate and dry reproduction of the source signal close to the listener, while digital pianos are built to project a convincing reproduction of an acoustic piano to a room.

The CLP 745 lacks bass for me. Do you think that after a few months when the speakers warm up, the sound will become brighter and more saturated? Will there be more low frequencies?


I didn’t buy the CLP 775, but preferred the 745. But only because the 745 model has a keyboard I like better.

Adding a USD $40 100-watt subwoofer picked up the bass nicely for me. Achieved the same result as a transducer on a soundboard.

A real piano doesn't produce much bass, as it is a piano, not a bass. A digital instrument is intended to replicate that. What has been your experience with real pianos so far?

Yes, according to physics of the piano, the lowest C has a very weak fundamental partial. The second partial is weak too. Only the third is comparable with the followers.

https://nanohub.org/resources/18884/download/2013.06.19-Giordano-REU.pdf

(Around p17)

As someone pointed out, i found that CLP 745 speakers are slightly bass heavier(muddy?)....
And I found that that sound could get a little more power.
My two complaints with 745....loved the action (not tried the 785 yet)

Probably with 775, especially with 785 you'll get better frequency separation, with the bass sounding more clear, less muddy.

Studio monitors with 745 will be a welcome addition.
You could enhance the internal sounds and will be ready for the vst experience...

I really liked the action and the sound of the 745, I have never tried any kawai to compare

23 September - 785 Showcase

I was trying to find an information that i saw in this thread about differences between the 785 and others in the 700 serie, and i found:



CFX = 6 Layers for the 785/795 and 5 Layers for the 775/765/745/735.
Bosendorfer = 5 Layers for the 785/795 and 4 Layers for the 775/765/745/735.

Any more info about that ?!

Maybe an exclusive ppp layer?

I brought my child (grade 1-2 level) to try out before I buy, comparing between teacher's kawai upright, yamaha U1 PE upright in the shop, yamaha baby grand in the shop, 745 and 785. At home she practises many hours on a 20 yr old DP (technics brand px203 which has hardness similar to 785).

I can't explain her findings but I believe there is merit to some of it, because a child's hands are weaker and would be able to detect resistances and difficulties better than adults. Her findings :

745 is the lightest (and she loves it - she loves any piano that is light due to her strength being more limited (just like how she likes the lightness of CA79 too).

The next heavier she thinks is 785. We have mention here that downweight of 785 is at least 70g and could be even 90g but yet she thinks 785 is perceptibly lighter than the acoustics. I agree the initiating downweight of 785 is high - the keys don't budge unless sufficient weight is applied, but maybe after the intiation, the inertia might be lower in 785 compared to yamaha acoustics, hence her conclusion ? To me, I notice the heavier downweight of 785 versus acoustics and found the inertia of acoustics to be no higher than 785, so I really can't explain her findings. Contrast this to how forums keep referring to the heavy weight of 785. My wife an amateur also felt the same way superficially comparing these models.

If I go by this, I'd get her the 785 but I worry what a heavy downweight could do to ruin a student's technique. The natural answer is to get an acoustic but assume I just can't, nor is silent piano an option.

And despite the good 50g downweight of 745, my kid it found to be starkly lighter than all the above pianos, perhaps due to low inertia so after the initiating downweight, the follow thru movements are light. I try to repeat chords to judge the overall inertia, short of a better tool.

Anyone understand how these observations can come about? Acoustics heaviest to a kid, then 785 then 745. Her home practice has always been on a weight similar to 785, which isn't good for young kids, and she's a strong 6 yr old and has gotten used to this weight. Yet she struggles a little with teacher's kawai upright (again, due to somehow acoustic feels heavier). I hope to find a DP suitable for her learning journey and can only consider yamaha vs kawai. (Kawai shortlisted to only CA79.). Thanks !

Upright pianos tend to have heavier actions than any digital pianos on the market right now. The only issue I have is with the GrandTouch on the 600 series which has some kind of friction in its downward travel which made it quite fatiguing to play. That has disappeared in the 700 series. Now, it is still heavy but in a 'good' way.

Many kids start their piano journey on uprights such as the U1 which have heavier actions than the GrandTouch and they do fine with them. So, we as adults should not be complaining about actions being too heavy!

When i tried clp 745 i felt the same that a upright piano Yamaha b1 talking heaviness , is it normal!?

This friction, could it be the down weight that initiates the action? I didn't use actual weights to measure but I estimated with my fingers - by resting them gently on the key tops to feel how much the keys depress with that weight. All the acoustics and 745, CA79 start to move a little, with reflects their approx 50g down weight. Only the 785 remained immovable, reflecting what's said to be 70-90g down weight.

That sounds like there initial resistance, and may be what yamaha uses to try to recreate the harshness of acoustic uprights. After overcoming that weight, the rest of the action might be a little less inertia than acoustics.

I'm thinking that's why my family thought 785 was still lighter than both the acoustic upright and baby grand - they estimated the entire movement weight, not just the start weight. But I sense this start weight being significantly high may, as some in forums comment, generate fatigue, having each key needing a significantly higher strength to initiate movement. Might also interfere with a kid learning how to play softly, cos a kid tried to hit keys hard in general yet having to pull back immediately after. (My current old DP may have a similar issue, which may explain why my kid is starting to have issues in fine control when visiting uprights am hour a week at the teacher's). The only saving grace is, my kids opinion is 785 is still lighter overall than acoustics, and this might reduce the harm in purchasing 785.

Erring on the side of lightness would mean buying the lighter models mentioned, and it might have the opposite effect, giving the impression that pianos are light and training the fingers to press too gently, resulting in fumbling whenever exposed to acoustics.

Wonder if the conclusion is, none of these are suitable for founding good technique at the early stage for kids. (As an adult I feel I can handle all of these models.)

Kailord, how was/is your sound experience with 785 ?
It's a huge step up from the 745 ?!
More power/more speakers/spruce cone speakers/transducers/bigger cabinet...
I found in my first experience with the 745, that if it was less bommy and with just 10% more volume headroom, would be an instant buy.
This week I'm planning to test the 745 again...

i may not have much piano / mechanics knowledge but i think i judge audio / speakers quite well - i did some DIY speaker/audio, and equaliser / spatial tuning.

For 745:
bass is heavier than acoustics versus treble - to the layman it sounds impressive than just a plain recreation of a grand piano bass, u feel the bass oomph. to the purist who wants grand piano output, it's a bit too much bass (let's say double the output). someone mentioned here or in another thread that grand piano C0 doesn't have a low fundamental frequency like woofer output of DPs like 745. that is the scientific way of explaining this phenomenon. u can't reduce it well i think - i checked the features, any equaliser etc, not really present. but it's reasonably pleasant effect - my initial post mentioned a muddy bass BUT i realised later i had to factory reset all DPs when i test, and suddenly the muddiness improved greatly, someone must have set something wrong. it became heavy but pleasant. i'd buy this on this budget.

For 735:
only 6" woofers, no midrange speaker. expectedly, the treble clarify is reduced. a CFX sound here sounds slightly but perceptibly nasal. the nasal quality is less obvious towards the bass but u can tell if u listen out for it. nasal quality is a reduction in the 800-2000Hz region compared to 745, when your speakers are covered by wooden panels and grills, so it's no surprise. 745 overcomes it by having 8cm speakers enhancing it. a workaround i tried is, CFX sound, add brilliance to the tune of +15 or at least +8. that doesn't make it the same but it does overcome much of the nasal quality. Bosendorfer sound also has slight nasal quality but needs less brilliance, maybe +4/+5 to correct it. that's following the principles of using equaliser to boost frequences that get muted by lack of sufficient speaker output at affected frequencies (in this case) or blocked by material (panels etc). ideally yamaha should have an inbuilt equalisation to do this (maybe they already do, we just can't see it).
using these workarounds, it makes 735 tolerable to buy, bridging most of the difference, but buying 745 gives u a more
"real" output - the CFX fine qualities at the treble range (the metallic ring of the strings etc, all the expensive resonance in the sample u're paying for, shows up clearly).

For 785:
overcomes all of this. last i assessed, sufficient in all departments. i just can't say for sure now that its bass is as good as CA79. CA79 has the perfect output - the bass provides a very good reproduction of a grand piano, with sufficient vibration of the wooden DP chassis. i recall 785 is pretty close as well. good clear bass sounds of correct volume. to double check resonance, i would just adjust volume to the correct grand piano volume (i recall it's 2 notches down from max), play bass notes or octaves, put a hand on the wooden chassis, feel how much the body vibrates, and compare that with the vibration of a grand.

For 775:
short note for completeness - less clarity / balance in the bass compared to 785. better than 735/745. but the difference with 785 makes u want to pay the extra and go all the way to get 785 where speakers are concerned.

In comparison, CA99 went excessive, a heavy boost in bass, the entire chassis vibrates too much.
The stronger bass of 745 735 and CA99 makes it impressive for listeners - they don't feel the chassis vibrating and it feels that the piano is more "in their presence", it's like attending a concert with the piano up front rather than buying a seat far away and listening to a distant sound. it's an illusion provided by the stronger bass output. for the player, i'd want an accurate simulation of grand piano, which means CA79 or 785.

headphone output:
it seems yamaha binaural is marginally more soothing, less in your face. the kawai equivalent seems to be - switch headphone setting from normal to "Front". it slightly reduces the headphone effect (the feeling of sound coming from the ears and from within your head, to a sound which feels physically a little further away). but binaural yamaha does it one step better. i didn't test extensively but this is what i observe. workarounds to this could be - open-type headphones etc (i am no headphone expert but i think there are ways now to reduce this headphone effect).

Were they comparing the acoustics with the pedal down (dampers off)?

If not, then you'll have to take them both back again

Yup just realised this damper pedal effect, and now I'm stumped. It's odd to have a piano that is only one fixed weight - it's like having to choose an average. I'm almost resigned to consider acoustic or silent acoustic instead. Not sure what to make of learning piano on a fixed weight DP during the initial phase where kids don't use sustain pedal, then growing older into higher grades that use more sustain but yet the DP remains at same weight....