Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Yamaha CFX Mark 2

That recording really shows how it has the dark and rich character of the SX series, as opposed to the more conventional (more metallic?) piano sound.

It seems to me that someone has fallen asleep behind the wheel in the Yamaha marketing department.

This long and no one has heard a decent recording of the new CFX yet. This video looks and sounds like it was put together by a bunch of high school students. Personally, I think overall it was the wrong approach and just a jumbled mess- like an infomercial with the beginning a bit over the top and not matching the rest of the video. The first few seconds of music was more compelling than the section of the advertisement where the actual piano was introduced. The piano sounded muted against the orchestra. They could have mic'd the piano a bit closer just for advertisement.

Normally little things like this doesn't bother me but I run a business and these things matter to me. They could have done a better job with this introduction so far as I thought it was supposed to be a revolutionary experience. It doesn't feel like that. At least give us a nice recording.

Rant over.

Some more information on the CFX2, courtesy of Cunningham Piano at NAMM (interview with Yamaha)


Manufacturing changes:
-"Unibody concept" - minimize any gaps in the joints to backposts to the outer rim, to allow vibrations to pass through and minimize any loss of vibration. This includes using a Yamaha-specific "non-chemical based glue" 🤔

-Also use "scarf joinery" between backposts and rim rather than finger joinery.

-The new rim is made of beech (harder) and mahogany rather than maple and mahogany. Beech is harder/stiffer so getting tone out of it is harder. This is where ARE comes in. They artificially age the wood for 2.5 months on the CFX (rather than ~2 weeks on the SX) to "align and parallelize the grain in the wood". 🤔 🤔 ARE allows both projection and warmth at the same time.

Design changes:
-Quarter-inch molding between sound board and back rim eliminated.
-Soundboard has a new crown design.
-Bridge is now higher.
-Plate is different alloy mix (not sure about this one)?
-Something is lighter (plate or soundboard, maybe both)
-"Killer octave" has 10mm extra string speaking length for longer sustain.
-No lid lock (fewer holes in the rim for better resonance)
-Removed the 4th lid hinge.
-Yamaha logo on side is embossed and under the clear coat.
-Perforated music rest
-New Yamaha action in CFX2 ("anyone can play it now" - what does that mean?) More control for pp/whisper, should be easier to play.
-Two different hammer shank designs (different geometry) - from A0 to end of the dampers. A different design for undamped notes.
-Different zones of hammer shank rigidity from A0 to F6, (soft to hard), then again soft to hard from F6 to C8.

When wood ages the wood along the grain (parallel) stiffens and becomes more brittle allowing for more projection, and the wood across the grain becomes more spongy/softer. Thus, theoretically producing a wood that has qualities of projection and warmth at the same time. Whether this happens in a 1500 pound piano with pressure cooked rims remains to be seen.

Better resonation! Nice!

Oh!!!!!!! Interesting!!! ahA ... ahA ... I see! Oh really?!! Cool!!!! Wow!!!!!!!! (but in his mind ----- hurry up! I want to play it .... now!!!!!!!!!). Joking of course. Nice vid.

Thanks for posting the video of Hugh Sung playing. The CFX2 sounded quite similar to the CFX to me. It had the same "pure" bass as the CFX rather than a more growling bass like the S7X (in my opinion). They seem to discuss that they've made the notes easier to play. I'm not sure that's a great idea as mostly pianists do not want to practice on a light piano and then perform on a heavy one.

I may be misreading, but I assume the CFX is generally intended to be the performance piano?

Regarding the direction of action feel, I'm curious if anyone feels Fazioli (or any other maker) has had a significant influence in the last decade or so?

Well that's fine but it means it's not a great piano for practicing.

The action did not feel excessively light to me, but the amount of inertia seemed on the lower side. It felt great to play. Remember that the sales presentation (I heard the same one) is not necessarily coming from the point of view of a pianist.


I doubt it. I think the latest change to the Fazioli action was a different action rail design, at least a few years ago. As the 2nd most popular piano on the concert stage with a much larger R&D department (and likely budget) than the 1st, I suspect Yamaha is occasionally taking a peek at what Steinway and the others might be up to, but also what the buzz is in the piano competition scene, and probably what their artists have to say. Just a guess, I don't know folks at Yamaha on the global/factory level, mostly national/regional level employees who are probably not responsible for designing instruments. I suspect they do contribute some sort of feedback, though.


I'd suggest reserving judgement on that until you actually get to play one. It would be a perfectly fine instrument on which to practice, tone of that specific piano notwithstanding.

There has been a trend over the last twenty years for piano actions to become lighter and have easier repetition, with the pianos generally having a brighter tone. When I was in Glasgow we still had two D's from the 1980s (which weren't that old at the time, but neither was I...) and they had comparatively slow actions and a mellow voice compared to virtually anything you hear now. Sure, they COULD be made brighter but it wasn't the fashion on these instruments.

In the 80s and 90s, Yamaha's problem wasn't the brightness, it was that they tended to sound a bit shrill, and there's a difference. Now, makers are trying to find that bright sound with that incisive attack but without the piano sounding too shrill. It seems that the aim is actually just to allow the piano to sing, whether it is mellow or bright, which is why the best pianos are quite versatile when it comes to how they can be voiced.

In competitions, the competitors want the piano to be as easy to play as possible without the piano being uncontrollable. Fashions have changed, playing has got faster, and technique is going back to a more finger-oriented technique. I was actually utterly horrified watching the Cliburn competition because while the speed with which competitors are playing is phenomenal, especially combined with accuracy like we haven't seen before, I also haven't yet seen one competitor with a particularly good hand structure, and none of them are producing excellent tone. It seems there is an absence of any kind of connection of the arm to the ear in the high level teaching these days, and many teachers are talking about art without talking about technique, and so it becomes a crap-shoot as to who will be good and who won't. Well, more of a crap-shoot since obviously even with the best teaching, the student is in control of whether they practice or not. That point about technique is relevant to this because the students, competitors, etc, are giving feedback about piano actions and what used to be considered normal is now too slow and too dull. Imagine any of these competitors on Rubinstein's Steinway or Brendel's Steinway? I doubt it. Brendel is maybe an extreme case, but Brendel actually merely uses a voicing style from his childhood and didn't adapt to modern tastes in the mid-century.

So, makers have to respond to the wishes of the competitions if they wish their pianos to be used. It's all very well me saying that techniques have declined in one respect whilst improving in another, but you couldn't present the Cliburn competitors with a 1965 fully rebuilt to original spec Steinway D from either factory as an option and expect them to choose it over a new piano. With their playing techniques, the older instrument wouldn't be heard in the hall.

Orchestral instruments have changed too, everything is brighter, louder, easier, particularly in the brass and woodwind sections, and that makes a huge difference in the concerto rounds. You need a piano that's going to cut through that noise, and whether we like these changes or not, that seems to be the direction we've been heading now for a long time.

I didn’t realize that was a new video featuring the CFX2 and Hugh Sung. Nice to see a familiar face. He’s been kind of low key lately. Finally got to hear the new CFX a little closer with that video but as with all videos it’s hard to assess. Commonalities between what I’ve been reading is that the new CFX is wonderful to control and very even. The piano appears to project well. I wonder if it is relatively loud compared to other 9 footers. I don’t know what to make of the tone. It sounds modern and doesn’t have that vintage intimate tone of the SX series which probably means that effect is more the result of hammer material than the ARES process. It sounds like a nice concert grand but nothing particularly stood out that blew me away. I think most of changes appear to be oriented to the player experience which ultimately affects the audience experience. Would love to hear more recordings but it looks like Yamaha did a good job with this piano.

Both CFXs seem to have a very "vanilla" sound, including the bass which is very clear rather than having a growl (I would say exactly the same thing about Fazioli). Whereas I feel like the SX line and also Bosendorfer have a more rich and interesting sound.

I think the idea that vintage concert grands had an "intimate" tone is not correct. Just like present day concert grands they had to project in large concert halls whether is a solo recital or over an orchestra when playing a concerto.

I assume the "intimacy" of the SX series comes from the softer hammers. But they're still pretty powerful pianos - more powerful than the same size Bosendorfer VC.

The one new 230VC I played was a significantly bigger sounding piano than the few S7X pianos I’ve tried. Granted, small sample size.

I haven't played a 230VC. But I was able to compare a 214VC next to the slightly smaller 212cm S6X, and the 214VC had a clear ceiling.

Should we download decibelmeter apps and try an elbow smash comparison?

I'm just kidding, man this thread has taken a weird turn.

Great piano. Great for modern concerts. Great video. Well done Hugh Sung.

Fact checking needed though. US Patent 6667429B2(https://patents.google.com/patent/US6667429) says, "Wood such as spruce, maple, and hornbeam are retained in high pressure steam of pressure 0.2 to 1.6 MPa at 120 to 200° C. for 1 to 60 minutes, and subsequently, cooled and dried to obtain a modified wood having superior acoustic properties and old wood-like appearance due to a change to a deep color tone."

Yamaha say (according to Gombessa and what I heard), The new rim is made of beech (harder) and mahogany rather than maple and mahogany. Beech is harder/stiffer so getting tone out of it is harder. This is where ARE comes in. They artificially age the wood for 2.5 months on the CFX (rather than ~2 weeks on the SX) to "align and parallelize the grain in the wood".

What does ""align and parallelize the grain in the wood" mean in practice?

Which is right, the patent or the spiel?

Is it just me, or are the opening two bass chords of fantasia impromptu at 17.30 completely uninspiring? It has no growl and isn't powerful or menacing. I'm pretty sure my S7X would sound better there. It sounds just like the previous gen CFX I played in this respect.

Not sure haha! I have heard of a type of oil if the snake variety. Or have heard of magnetic polarisation etc. But aligning and parallelising grain in wood ...... sounds like star trek technology. But if they reckon they managed it ..... then hats off .... and on.