2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Advanced Piano Tricks
Advanced Piano Tricks
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
62 members (Alex Hutor, Beemer, Andrew E., ando, An Old Square, Baltguy, Animisha, anotherscott, 14 invisible), 562 guests, and 318 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
E
Evalon Offline OP
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
E
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
Hi All,

I am looking for a new DP and have previously posted a thread relating to Yamaha's now long discontinued CLP-990 which I understand should have a very authentic keyboard action.

However, since I will likely only use the new DP together with a computer and software I wonder if there have been some real changes to current DPs that make them more nuanced and detailed in terms of registering the keyboard action - and then transmitting this information to the computer? I.e. do modern DPs pick up more nuances in how I actually play - or are the differences between current DPs and earlier DP models mainly e.g. in the digital signal processing, (internal) amplifiers and speakers, and maybe how the keyboard action feels when playing?

I reckon this topic has already been touched upon in these forums although I haven't found it mentioned ...

I would appreciate hearing about your experiences with this!

Cheers wink

Jesper

Last edited by Evalon; 11/08/21 12:21 PM.
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 561
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 561
There are some other modern features you may consider given you will be using a computer.... and that is USB hookup and audio over USB (do the Google on it).

I have a Roland RD 2000 that has this feature and it eliminates the need for an audio interface.... although some here still use one. I think folks use it to convert digital from their computers to analog to then feed their amp/speakers. I use an old digital to analog (DAC) from my home stereo for that.

If you are committed to using your computer... and I think that is fine as I do it too... then the priority for a keyboard purchase is that the action is something you like, it has USB hookup, and it is modern - meaning it should pass and receive all the MIDI signaling (via USB). I can't give advice on the quality or extent of MIDI implementation, but I assume that any modern keyboard that has the USB link will provide adequate MIDI control... but that is an assumption.

MIDI 2.0, recently ratified may be something for you to examine. Many here on this forum feel that the finer increments in velocity passed by 2.0 are a waste of time... I on the contrary immediately favor "more" of whatever having experienced that nuance can influence emotions... even when specific differences are not immediately perceptible. Yes, that is wacky to some but I am wacky. I would want MIDI 2.0 although I would prioritize the keyboard feel above all else.

Peace
Bruce in Philly


Peace
Bruce in Philly
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 379
M
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
M
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 379
I use a 12 years old Kawai CL35 without USB, and works flawessly with a MIDI-USB adapter. (Very similar to this one: ESI MIDIMATE)
Also, I have a Kawai MP11 that has a better action, it was built in 2014, I bought it used. This latter DP has native USB, and note off velocity but it makes almost not differnece, at least to me.
I don¡t believe that any cheaper digital piano action will be as good as a CLP990, and for use it with external sound, I would stick to it. I haven't played it, but I remember I read very good opinions in this forum.


Pianoteq / Kawai CL 35 & MP11 / Old 1920's Upright Zimmerman
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 9
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 9
Ultimately it is just a stream of MIDI data with note on, velocity and note off. Not a lot of nuances to be captured, for as long as the old keyboard works correctly. All MIDI keyboards have some differences, so it is hard to answer that question in general, but even 20+ year old MIDI keyboards can do this right. You may want to be able to modify velocity curve, which something like Pianoteq would allow.

If you like the feel of the keybed, and everything still works correctly, I'm betting you will find nothing lacking.

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
I would not assume MIDI over USB or MIDI 2.0 would perform any better than traditional DIN MIDI does for classical piano practice unless you can find some evidence, which I have never seen.

MIDI over USB might be more convenient as noted above but maybe you get better low latency performance with the drivers included in an interface (e.g. RME).

This may change over time. There are no MIDI 2.0 pianos for piano player as far as I know (well Roland has the A88 mkii, but MIDI 2.0 is "coming soon" and that is not really marketed to classical piano players).

Newer laptop CPUs have many power saving schemes which cause audio dropouts. For best performance, I would avoid laptop for music and go for a desktop if possible (get a used business unit cheap). Desktop CPUs may be much better than anything stuffed in a laptop regardless of the marketing.

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,745
C
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
C
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,745
FWIW (I haven't seen or played a CLP=990) --

The features that a current DP (or good VST) will have, that your CLP-990 may be missing:

(a) "String resonance" -- important to an acoustic's sound. To test the CLP-990:

. . . Hold down C4/E4/G4, let the sound die away;

. . . Strike C2, staccato.

"String resonance" will make the treble triad ring, and slowly die out.

(b) "continuous half-pedalling" -- so that, like an acoustic, you can control the sustain time of the strings, with the damper pedal.


(c) "release velocity" - the CLP-990 _may_ generate a "release velocity" when you release a key. Some (not all) VST's respond to that, by changing the decay time of the released note.

You can use MIDI-Ox, or install a trial version of Pianoteq, to watch the MIDI signal stream, and see what the keyboard actually generates. I'd be surprised if it gives a continuous damper-pedal reading, but the engineers may have done a really good job.


. Charles
---------------------------
PX-350 / microKorg XL+ / Pianoteq
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,579
9000 Post Club Member
Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,579
Originally Posted by newer player
I would not assume MIDI over USB or MIDI 2.0 would perform any better than traditional DIN MIDI does for classical piano practice unless you can find some evidence, which I have never seen.

MIDI over USB might be more convenient as noted above but maybe you get better low latency performance with the drivers included in an interface (e.g. RME).

This may change over time. There are no MIDI 2.0 pianos for piano player as far as I know (well Roland has the A88 mkii, but MIDI 2.0 is "coming soon" and that is not really marketed to classical piano players).

Newer laptop CPUs have many power saving schemes which cause audio dropouts. For best performance, I would avoid laptop for music and go for a desktop if possible (get a used business unit cheap). Desktop CPUs may be much better than anything stuffed in a laptop regardless of the marketing.

Newer laptop cpus are a lot faster than many older (and newer) desktops which utilise HDD and require a noisy fan.
I bought a nice looking Hp all in one (with no massive box) which I found, was such a device. It had a spinning disc somewhere, goodness knows where. Probably the screen-box. And it's a tad noisy.
It cost 3 times as much as my lappie and is slower and silent.
The lappie drives Pianoteq without issue..


"I am not a man. I am a free number"

"[Linked Image]"
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,745
C
6000 Post Club Member
Offline
6000 Post Club Member
C
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,745
Originally Posted by newer player
. . . Newer laptop CPUs have many power saving schemes which cause audio dropouts. For best performance, I would avoid laptop for music and go for a desktop if possible (get a used business unit cheap). Desktop CPUs may be much better than anything stuffed in a laptop regardless of the marketing.

You can turn off the power-saving options, and there's a good guide to "optimizing for audio" here:

https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/articles/207355205-Optimising-your-PC-for-Audio-on-Windows-10

I've just upgraded my 8-year-old laptop (to an Acer Aspire 5, with an Intel i7 cpu and HDD). I still have to disable WiFi and Ethernet, to eliminate latency problems. But once I do that, Pianoteq shows polyphony around 96 -- way more than enough for anything I play -- and all glitches disappear.


. Charles
---------------------------
PX-350 / microKorg XL+ / Pianoteq
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
E
Evalon Offline OP
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
E
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
Hi all ... & thanks so much for your many answers. As I read them they generally address two "different" topics:

A. How the keyboard & its own design/features may influence "piano-authentic" playing, and
B. How the computer may be able to handle the incoming data stream and process it relative to the VST (software) used.

Just a brief comment re. B.: ... As it is I will shortly buy a quite powerful computer, so in this "to be" personal setup I would be surprised if the computer proves to be a shortcoming. But @Charles Cohen I appreciate the link to a setup guide for optimizing audio on Win 10 - I reckon this will come in handy - thanks!

Re. A.: As it is I work as an audio hardware designer and I have had some experience with the audibility of audio hardware jitter (or phase noise as I prefer to call it). I realize there is some controversy as to the audibility of this parameter but IMHO if a person has a revealing audio system this can be quite audible. To this end - and here considering that audio hardware jitter likely is not directly comparable with MIDI jitter - I read a bit about MIDI 2.0 this morning and it appears that the MIDI 2.0 places more emphasis on (improving) jitter as well as the 2.0 standard significantly increases the resolution of the MIDI information transmitted to the computer. As I understand it normally the resolution of the MIDI 1.0 is ~ 7 bits (128 discrete information "steps") whereas MIDI 2.0 can be somewhere between 16 & 32 bits (65536 to 4294967296 discrete steps).

Now, I have no idea how many discrete steps are actually needed to fully transfer DP player information to a computer but I personally would be surprised if 7 bits were enough. My personal feel is that to allow for subtleties in (many) keys' pressure & velocity I would be much more on the "safe side" with e.g. 16 bits. With today's transmission speeds & computer power this also is easily achievable - albeit I do not know what it means to the complexity and processing power requirements of the associated VSTs (or similar softwares). So @Bruce in Philly thanks for mentioning the MIDI 2.0 standard - sounds interesting and relevant to me so I will look out for it.

However, as I think about it there is an additional aspect to this which is the ability of the key action design itself to pick up the nuances in the player's finger movements. I can read on the internet that e.g. Roland's FP-30x and Kawai VPC-1 have "triple sensor" keyboard designs but what does this mean in practice in terms of real key-movement-resolution? Would such a triple sensor keyboard action be able to perceive enough player information to genuinely take advantage of the increased resolution of the MIDI 2.0 standard?

And, with this in mind, are there keyboard designs that inherently would pick up more player information due to virtues of their design?

@Charles Cohen: Thank you also for your post about string resonance, half-pedalling & release velocity. Very good information - I will keep this in mind when considering a new DP ...

I will end here but once again thank you for your feedbacks wink

Cheers,

Jesper

Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,062
H
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
H
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,062
Hello,

@Evalon, The questions you raise are interesting, certainly from a theoretical standpoint.

In the practical realm of piano playing, it boils down to two simple notions:

1. Yes, a triple sensor system is advantageous in creating better MIDI data and thus potentially better connection between player and resulting music.

2. The 7-bit width (127/128 steps) of the MIDI velocity values are really all you'll ever need.

Ad 1.: The third sensor is placed such as to record key movements in-between fully up and fully down. Thus, this enables (for instance) the registration (including velocity) of re-strikes of a key without traveling to the full-up position first. Which has a meaning on actual acoustic pianos as well: it allows note repetition without damping of the played notes in-between, damping takes place when the key finally goes back to full up (unless of course the sustain or sostenuto pedals are engaged at that time).

Ad 2.: Just answer for yourself a simple question: would you ever be able to play a key consciously choosing which of 127 nuances you intend to get, and then consistently be able to produce exactly that nuance? You'll probably conclude that yes, this bit resolution is more than sufficient.

The physical aspects and mechanics of digital piano actions are important in how you as the player percieve the touch and connection with the instrument, which can lead to a MIDI stream that is more accurate to your intentions, leading in turn to a finer musical result. In this regard, it isn't surprising that many people here report the hybrid piano actions (almost equal to true acoustic piano actions but with digital readout instead of strings) to give the best experience and pianistic results.

Cheers and happy playing,

HZ

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
A
6000 Post Club Member
Online Content
6000 Post Club Member
A
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by Charles Cohen
The features that a current DP (or good VST) will have, that your CLP-990 may be missing:

(a) "String resonance" --
String resonance is not a hardware based function. If the VST supports string resonance, you don't need anything special in your keyboard to take advantage of it, so this is not a case where a newer keyboard may provide a benefit for the OP. The other ones you mention, though (partial pedaling, release velocity) are indeed things that are hardware dependent.

Originally Posted by Evalon
Re. A.: As it is I work as an audio hardware designer and I have had some experience with the audibility of audio hardware jitter (or phase noise as I prefer to call it). I realize there is some controversy as to the audibility of this parameter but IMHO if a person has a revealing audio system this can be quite audible. To this end - and here considering that audio hardware jitter likely is not directly comparable with MIDI jitter - I read a bit about MIDI 2.0 this morning and it appears that the MIDI 2.0 places more emphasis on (improving) jitter
Looking at jitter as phase noise is interesting... I see the rationale from an audio perspective, but as you say, it's not directly comparable, and looking at jitter as a potential phase issue would not apply to MIDI data. But more to the issue at hand, it's also worth noting that improving jitter negatively affects latency. Basically, it can't improve the "worst case" latency so MIDI 2.0's jitter reduction feature solves the issue by making everything "worst case." The premise being that it's better to have everything "late" by the same amount than it is to have varying amounts of lateness even if most of those amounts are less late. So to take advantage of the anti-jitter algorithm, it becomes even more important to reduce maximum latency overall, since all notes will in effect now have whatever your maximum latency is. There's some good info about this at https://www.midi.org/forum/4704-reduced-jitter-more-latency-with-midi-2-0

Originally Posted by Evalon
Now, I have no idea how many discrete steps are actually needed to fully transfer DP player information to a computer but I personally would be surprised if 7 bits were enough. My personal feel is that to allow for subtleties in (many) keys' pressure & velocity
Piano sounds do not make use of pressure, only velocity. But as for velocity...
Originally Posted by HZPiano
Just answer for yourself a simple question: would you ever be able to play a key consciously choosing which of 127 nuances you intend to get, and then consistently be able to produce exactly that nuance? You'll probably conclude that yes, this bit resolution is more than sufficient.
Musical expression does not depend on what you can reliably reproduce. (If it were, 10 values would probably be enough!) For an analogy, imagine a vocalist gliding up from one note to another. Can s/he reproduce every one of those infinite in between pitches at will? No. But if the vocal cords somehow "quantized" the in between pitches to some nearest fixed value, depending on the distance between those fixed values, you could hear something different in that vocal glide (same with a violinist sliding from one note to another, etc.), i.e. a "stepping" effect. Our possible number of finger velocities is similarly infinite. The question isn't whether 127 values is enough to capture each possible value we might create in our playing, it is not. That said, I think 127 probably IS sufficient to recreate something close enough that there would be no audible difference to be had in creating more. But people disagree about that, hence the interest in high resolution MIDI velocity, as supported in some boards and some software. (Which, btw Evalon, is available in some hardware/software that is not MIDI 2.0, though MIDI 2.0 will make it more prevalent.)

Originally Posted by Evalon
I can read on the internet that e.g. Roland's FP-30x and Kawai VPC-1 have "triple sensor" keyboard designs but what does this mean in practice in terms of real key-movement-resolution? Would such a triple sensor keyboard action be able to perceive enough player information to genuinely take advantage of the increased resolution of the MIDI 2.0 standard?
The advantages of the third sensor have nothing to do with MIDI 2.0. It allows you to restrike a key from lower in its travel. This can aid note repetitions (particularly softly played ones and trills), and also means that, even without the sustain pedal down, you can restrike a key without silencing the note first (because the key doesn't have to be raised to the point where it silences the note before it can be restruck). Kawai's site says they also use the third sensor in measuring release velocity. Technically, release velocity does not require 3 sensors (the Korg SV1/SV2 are 2-sensor boards with release velocity, IIRC), but maybe there is some advantage to using the third sensor in conjunction with this feature, I don't know.

To sum up: Other than subjective preferences about the feel of the action, the potential technical advantages of using a newer board to trigger your software pianos would appear to be these:

* triple sensor

* continuous pedaling (also possibly available to add to an existing setup with an adapter like the ones at https://www.audiofront.net/MIDIExpression.php - but that also requires purchase of an additional pedal and, if your piano is a console unit, the issue of where to place it, plus whatever is involved in configuring it)

* release velocity

* higher resolution MIDI velocity

* jitter reduction in MIDI 2.0

The audible advantages of each of these things can sometimes be debatable, or may vary with your repertoire and technique, but I think those are what you're looking at.

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
E
Evalon Offline OP
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
E
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
@HzPiano & anotherscott: Thank you both for your interesting feedbacks ... this is just a brief message to say that I have a busy day today (and possibly tomorrow) so I probably will not get back until Friday.

Cheers & have a good day,

Jesper

Last edited by Evalon; 11/10/21 01:39 AM.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
E
Evalon Offline OP
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
E
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60
Hi again,

& thanks once more for your feedbacks. When I read them they indeed prompt many thoughts (thanks anotherscott for a very detailed and helpful reply!) where I note that:

* the feel of the key action itself is considered important (also my experience, and an important parameter),
* - with reference to anotherscott's summing up, there may be some "playback relevant" differences between older DPs and newer ones, although MIDI 2.0 may not be the main difference,
* that MIDI 2.0 from a latency point of view might be a mixed bag due to aligning the playback timing relative to the highest latency signal (although I reckon that newer DSPs would be much faster thus in practice reducing overall latency),
* that there may be some controversy as to the need for more than 127 MIDI steps.

Hmmm .. on a personal note I have more or less always been a bit cautious in accepting current states of "something" to be the endpoint of where this "something" could go. I reckon this all started years ago when I picked up a statement from - to my memory it was the then head of the New York Patent Office - who around the 1880s said something like "everything that can be invented has already been invented".

Now, in the context of digital pianos obviously there is a human reference, i.e. what is the human being capable of perceiving, and thus one may over-design things since the human being would not be able to notice e.g. an improved MIDI resolution.

IMHO part of such a talk also relates to any current state of "available references". By this I mean to say that if a current state e.g. of speakers, or headphones, or amplifiers, or digital transmission, or cables, or on a more subtle level "electronic/piano components" really do not allow for an assessment of a given current technology's (e.g. MIDI's 127 steps) qualities, or lack thereof, then one may base one's conclusions on (a) reference(s) that are inadequate. And, at least currently, e.g. loudspeakers/headphones have quite high levels of distortion (1% at 90 dB SPL is not unusual).

Additionally, and I realize that this is a highly complex and nuanced subject - and I admittedly do not really wish to enter into such a discussion - but just briefly note that in my experience the human being may observe/perceive/hear almost infinitely minute details in sound - e.g. when a given person is really relaxed, or sensitive, in a relevant way.

Thus, and this is to make a personal conclusion on the above, I would be interested in higher resolution velocity (and other relevant parameters') digital pianos because my belief/feel is that - if rightly and relevantly designed - they likely would genuinely improve the playing experience.

Anyway, from a practical point of view ...

@anotherscott:
Quote
But people disagree about that, hence the interest in high resolution MIDI velocity, as supported in some boards and some software. (Which, btw Evalon, is available in some hardware/software that is not MIDI 2.0, though MIDI 2.0 will make it more prevalent.)

This could be interesting as MIDI 2.0 DPs appear to not really be available yet ... Might you know of a hardware/software that allows for this high resolution MIDI?

@HZPiano:
Quote
In this regard, it isn't surprising that many people here report the hybrid piano actions (almost equal to true acoustic piano actions but with digital readout instead of strings) to give the best experience and pianistic results.


This sounds like an interesting option, however, hybrid pianos appear to be relatively costly - likely outside of my budget. Would you happen to know of a less costly good quality hybrid piano?

Thanks again for your fine feedbacks ;-)

Jesper

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,579
9000 Post Club Member
Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,579
Originally Posted by HZPiano
Hello,.

The physical aspects and mechanics of digital piano actions are important in how you as the player percieve the touch and connection with the instrument, which can lead to a MIDI stream that is more accurate to your intentions, leading in turn to a finer musical result. In this regard, it isn't surprising that many people here report the hybrid piano actions (almost equal to true acoustic piano actions but with digital readout instead of strings) to give the best experience and pianistic results.

Cheers and happy playing,

HZ

And if one sat at a hybrid, say, the N1, would he, as an acoustic player, be happy with the end result? I'm sure many are, since they'll regard the hybrid as adequate for silent or even non-silent practice when required to do so.
Others may well regard the action as OK, but the connection? the sound? Hmmm . . . .
I really will have to try some out. Out of my price range that is . . .
This could be dangerous . . .


"I am not a man. I am a free number"

"[Linked Image]"
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
A
6000 Post Club Member
Online Content
6000 Post Club Member
A
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by Evalon
I reckon that newer DSPs would be much faster thus in practice reducing overall latency
MIDI does not involve a keyboard's DSP function per se, which is something that manipulates audio (MIDI does not involve any audio processing). But to the bigger point about whether a newer piano could have lower latency (for non-DSP reasons), it's an interesting question. This actually might be a benefit of MIDI 2.0 as well. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that all current (pre MIDI-2.0) keyboards send MIDI at a fixed rate of 31.25 BPS, even when using a USB connection (as opposed to the 5-pin MIDI Out, which is definitely always 31.25 BPS). I think MIDI 2.0 will allow faster-than-31.25 BPS MIDI to be transmitted from a keyboard's USB MIDI Out, so that could reduce latency. The latency I'm really thinking about here is from playing many notes at once. Since MIDI (and USB) is always serial, each MIDI note is sent one after the other. If you used all ten fingers to play ten different notes at the identical moment, at 31.25 BPS, it would send one note at 1 ms, the 2nd note at 2 ms, and so on, with the 10th note leaving the instrument at the 10 ms point. If we can speed up that 31.25 kHz figure, the delay between the first and last simultaneously played note could be reduced (in theory, to almost, but never quite, zero). Note that this source of latency from the limitations of serial transmission of multiple MIDI events is independendent of the USB latency/jitter we were talking about earlier (which can apply to a single MIDI event).

Originally Posted by Evalon
* that there may be some controversy as to the need for more than 127 MIDI steps.
Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about velocity. MIDI has always supported more than 127 steps for some things, i.e. pitch bend, where 127 values would not be enough to avoid audible stepping over a wide bend range.

Originally Posted by Evalon
Now, in the context of digital pianos obviously there is a human reference, i.e. what is the human being capable of perceiving, and thus one may over-design things since the human being would not be able to notice e.g. an improved MIDI resolution.
Right. The simplest argument against the importance of improved MIDI resolution for velocity is based on the fact that MIDI velocity mostly changes volume. If you accept that people can't detect a volume difference of less than 1 dB, and that the entire dynamic range of a piano is well less than 127 dB (I believe it's actually about 50 dB), than 127 values is enough to reproduce every audible difference in volume. Though it isn't quite that simple, because velocity affects timbre as well as volume, and also because mapping of velocities to the desired values to acheive the exact finger-to-sound response you want could conceivably require more values, even if some of those values map to sounds that are audibly indistinguishable from each other. (And in fact, for any digital representation of an analog phenomenon to work, any two adjacent values should ALWAYS be indistinguishable.) Another way of looking at that is that there is a difference between how many audibly different sound levels you can hear, versus how many velocity forces you can create, so your perspective may change depending on which side you come at this from.

Related to that is manipulation of velocity curves to get the response you want. For a simple example, you may invoke a velocity curve that is designed so that so you don't have to strike the keys as hard to acheive maximum volume. Let's say the curve is manipulated such that you only have to hit velocity 110 to acheive the max volume that usually requires 127. Well, now you have only 110 values to work with to cover the entire expressive range, instead of 127. That's still a lot, of course. But the point is that if altering a curve gives you more values for a given output level, they have to come from somewhere, so you have fewer values somewhere else. If there are 16k values available, this more clearly becomes a non-issue.

So it's not cut and dried. Hence my comment that people disagree about its importance. Personally, I lean more to the "not important" side, but as I said, it is debatable.

Originally Posted by Evalon
@anotherscott:
Quote
But people disagree about that, hence the interest in high resolution MIDI velocity, as supported in some boards and some software. (Which, btw Evalon, is available in some hardware/software that is not MIDI 2.0, though MIDI 2.0 will make it more prevalent.)

This could be interesting as MIDI 2.0 DPs appear to not really be available yet ... Might you know of a hardware/software that allows for this high resolution MIDI?
In hardware, Casio makes pianos that use hi-res MIDI, and in software, Pianoteq recognizes it. Those are the ones I know of off-hand.

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
This is helpful
http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...tually-using-midi-2-yet.html#Post3035077

The Lachnit runs high-resolution MIDI. The AvantGrand could use high-resolution MIDI for internal sounds but I haven't seen that confirmed. PianoTeq forums seem to have debunked Casio's high-resolution marketing. Some older Roland and the Vax 77 slabs used high resolution MIDI per Frederic L

https://www.flkeys.at/FLKFaqEng.html#4096

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
I can't recall any Piano VIs that run high-resolution MIDI besides PianoTeq. You might scan the PianoWorld database:

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...no-master-sticky-thread.html#Post2752919

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
A
6000 Post Club Member
Online Content
6000 Post Club Member
A
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,205
Originally Posted by newer player
PianoTeq forums seem to have debunked Casio's high-resolution marketing.
Debunked in what way? That it is sending hi-res MIDI, or that you can tell the difference? Any chance you have a link? (My google-search of forum.modartt.com didn't turn up anything helpful here.)

I also take a slight detour here and suggest that, in the end, most of the things we're talking about take a very, very distant back seat to how enjoyable you find the action is to play. I'd easily take a great feeling 2-sensor 127-velocity MIDI-version-1 no-release-velocity board over a 3-sensor hi-res-velocity MIDI-2.0 release-velocity-equipped board that I just didn't find as enjoyable to play.

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
This gets us started:
http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...s-for-pianoteq-and-vpc1.html#Post2880913

Originally Posted by anotherscott
I also take a slight detour here and suggest that, in the end, most of the things we're talking about take a very, very distant back seat to how enjoyable you find the action is to play.
I would take a junk acoustical instrument over an electronic every time for the liveliness.

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,125
And from the first page
Originally Posted by Mark Polishook
6. As for PT itself, the demos on the internet are recorded, I think, from Yamaha playback systems.. They’ll always have more resolution in terms of key velocity and than controller keyboard that you’ll come across. Most controller keyboards have a velocity range from 0 to 127 and if you’ve spent any time with a piano you’ll quickly find that to be limiting. Or maybe not (it depends on your expectations) It’s possible that a few manufacturers now have MIDI specs that exceed the range of 0 to 127 (Casio, for example, used to have that in their Privia line). But it was a deceptive spec because the extra resolution was actually just a random number added onto the 0 to 127 range (I know because I had one and tried and tested it for a while. Meanwhile, Casio nor its advocates were never forthcoming about how it all actually worked.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Piano World 

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!

Free Piano Lovers Newsletter is out now!
Piano News 2021 - 2022!
---------------------
My first professionally recorded piece
---------------------
Visit Maine, Meet Mr. Piano World
---------------------
Sell Your Piano on our world famous Piano Forums!
---------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Happy birthday, Sam!
by jotur - 01/18/22 06:11 AM
Book Recommendations
by Qazsedcft - 01/18/22 03:53 AM
Novus 5 no "fading effect" after release
by Usheraname - 01/18/22 02:38 AM
Digital pianos - starting time
by JosefPirkl - 01/18/22 01:30 AM
Most "Important" Chopin Collection
by 13bwl - 01/18/22 01:26 AM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics211,201
Posts3,161,720
Members104,057
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers

Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | MapleStreetMusicShop.com - Our store in Cornish Maine


© copyright 1997 - 2022 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5