Yamaha CLP-990
Gary & Caroline
pull the trigger, I'd like to ask if anybody in this newsgroup has any
experience or opinions about this piano that you could share.
Thanks in advance,
Gary
Frederic Jeanmougin
I recently (and quickly) tried a CLP955.
It seemed to be a very good product.
Gary & Caroline <cb...@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message :
graX7.20845$sg.35...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Ace
Before you pull anything, be sure to check out the Yamaha GrandTouch
GT2 or similar ones from the GrandTouch series. They provide a
reference to how good a digital piano can sound and feel. Then
compare it with any of the Clavinovas. Chances are you will spot the
difference straight away. The CLP-990 may seem like the ultimate
digital piano with its spruce keys, 80.4 MB dedicated piano sample,
string resonance, 8 stage half-pedal and even a floppy disk drive etc,
but if you want a digital that sounds like an acoustic grand in a home
environment, then no current Clavinova will suffice. If you want a
explanation why, check out this site:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~t.vanheelsbergen/opinionE.htm
The piano sound that an audience would hear is different to the piano
sound that a pianist sitting in front of the same acoustic piano would
hear. The latter hears a "nearby" piano sound, while the former hears
a "far away" piano sound. If you have been playing acoustic pianos
all your life and you suddenly switch to a digital piano with a "far
away" piano sound, then the sense of detachment between the instrument
and the sound is far too evident, no matter how accurate the sample
is. And vice versa, if you amplify a "nearby" piano sound on stage,
the audience at least 50 feet away would find the sound to be weird.
It's a trade-off between one or the other. For some reason, the
digital piano market is in favour of "far away" sounding digital
pianos. The current Clavinova series emulates a "far away" piano
sound while the current GrandTouch series emulates a "nearby" piano
sound. Even if you crank up the volume, a "far away" digital piano
would still sound "far away", only louder. This is why speakers can
never reproduce real piano sound. The shape and direction of the
sound waves produced by speakers and strings are simply too different
from each other. The only solution would have to be a "distance
slider", so that one could choose "nearby", "far away" or anywhere in
between.
Come on Yamaha, implement a "distance slider" and be one step ahead in
digital piano technology!
Ace
Juan Arango
> If you want a explanation why, check out this site:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~t.vanheelsbergen/opinionE.htm
A very interesting and reasonable description, I think.
Now, the most perfect solution would be a piano with samples for
"nearby" and "far away", but rather than having a slider, the piano
would have to use the "nearby" samples for its built-in speakers and
headphones, and send the "far away" samples to the auxiliary output.
That way the pianist would always hear the correct "nearby" piano sound,
but when in a bigger hall, an external amplifier/speakers system would
provide the "far away" resonance that public expects. That would be
really cool.
Juan
Gary L. Schaps
You might find this CLP-990 owners opinion interesting ...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cvpug/message/2990
Gary
Frederic Jeanmougin
> 80.4 MB dedicated piano sample
80.4 MB is it after or before samples are unziped to be played
(I suppose samples are ziped to save memory) ?
> And vice versa, if you amplify a "nearby" piano sound on stage,
> the audience at least 50 feet away would find the sound to be weird.
Is it the reason why P200 samples are thin ?
To be suitable for a stage usage ?
Martin
> > the audience at least 50 feet away would find the sound to be weird.
>
> Is it the reason why P200 samples are thin ?
> To be suitable for a stage usage ?
This sounds like a nice theory ... but I don't buy it. Surely a
"nearby" sound means "ears/mics close to the piano mechanism", while a
"far away" sound means "ears/mics some distance from the piano".
In the jazz clubs I go to they stick the mics as close as they can get
to the piano mechanisms, so in that sense the audience is hearing an
amplified "nearby" sound. I've no doubt that this is also the way most
studio recordings of pianos are produced (although perhaps not for
classical music, I'm not sure). I just can't believe they would
position the mics "far away" from the piano when taking samples for a
digital piano.
Martin.
Steve
I too was very interested in the 990. Its piano samples are the best you'll
find on any digital piano (excluding Gigasampler setups) and the action is
great to play. What stopped me making the final purchase was the position of
the speakers (directly facing the pianist). I found that at anything other
than low volumes, the mid-frequencies were overpowering enough to distract
me from my performance. In the end I decided to wait until next year when
Yamaha are allegedly releasing an updated 990 (995?) model with the speakers
back underneath the body - (thank goodness!)
Steve
"Gary & Caroline" <cb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:graX7.20845$sg.35...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Martin
> Yamaha are allegedly releasing an updated 990 (995?) model with the speakers
> back underneath the body - (thank goodness!)
>
> Steve
>
>
> "Gary & Caroline" <cb...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:graX7.20845$sg.35...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I'm considering purchasing the Yamaha Clavinova CLP-990 piano. Before I
> > pull the trigger, I'd like to ask if anybody in this newsgroup has any
> > experience or opinions about this piano that you could share.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Gary
Gary, Steve, (or anyone else),
May I ask why you want to buy a CLP-990/995? I've not tried one
myself, but I don't doubt that it's extremely good. Is it so good that
you're buying it as your main piano, in preference to a conventional
piano? Or is it for some other reason?
Just curious.
Martin.
p.s. To put it another way - do you feel the technology has reached
the point where you're now willing to own a (top notch) digital piano
in preference to a conventional piano? (A question that's been asked a
thousand times before, I know.)
Steve
The only reason I use digital pianos over real ones is a) cost and b)
portability as I do gig from time to time. I love digital pianos but they
are still way of the mark as far as realism is concerned. The best I think
we can ever hope for is an instrument that sounds identical to a recording
of a piano. The complexity of resonances produced by the interaction of each
string amongst other things is just not possible using conventional sampling
techniques. Yamaha are going to need to move towards a more complex acoustic
modelling setup if they are ever going to achieve true realism. At the very
least they should be providing us with full length piano samples (e.g.
gigasampler) rather than looped ones.
The problem with the 990 (apart from the speakers) is that its within the
price range of overstrung acoustic uprights. When you're spending that kind
of money, unless portability is an issue, I'd go for the real thing.
Hope this is of use.
Steve.
"Martin" <marti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f777223a.01123...@posting.google.com...
Jeremy
<stephe...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
............
>
>The problem with the 990 (apart from the speakers) is that its within the
>price range of overstrung acoustic uprights. When you're spending that kind
>of money, unless portability is an issue, I'd go for the real thing.
>
>Hope this is of use.
>Steve.
Unless (like me) you do most of your practising late evening or when
the family is around so an acoustic is just not practical.
I am fascinated with this thread as I am also considering purchasing a
Clavinova CLP 970/990/GranTouch/"silent acoustic" (one only!)
It seems to me a digital is still at best an approximation to the real
thing, the question is, is it good enough for your particular purpose?
When I started looking I believed that I needed a keyboard that
sounded so realistic I was fooled into believing I was playing a real
acoustic. But I'm thinking now this might not be necessary (or even
practical). Control over how the sound *changes* according to your
playing (e.g. changes in timbre according to how hard notes are hit,
half pedal etc) is however important and available in varying degrees
from the digital pianos under discussion here.
I have demoed the 970 in a showroom, but better models weren't
available, and I find showroom conditions are far from ideal.
The personal experiences referenced earlier in this thread are very
interesting. Does anyone have any further experience with the relative
merits of these or similar pianos?
Jeremy
Martin
> Martin,
>
> The only reason I use digital pianos over real ones is a) cost and b)
> portability as I do gig from time to time. I love digital pianos but they
> are still way of the mark as far as realism is concerned. The best I think
> we can ever hope for is an instrument that sounds identical to a recording
> of a piano. The complexity of resonances produced by the interaction of each
> string amongst other things is just not possible using conventional sampling
> techniques. Yamaha are going to need to move towards a more complex acoustic
> modelling setup if they are ever going to achieve true realism. At the very
> least they should be providing us with full length piano samples (e.g.
> gigasampler) rather than looped ones.
Hmmm. Very interesting ... thanks.
I think that many/most people would argue that a digital piano can
*never* exactly recreate the sound of a real one, although I see that
you haven't quite said this. I've never understood why people say it.
The sound produced by a real piano, or anything else, is essentially
just a movement of particles in the air. Given sophisticated enough
electronics, speakers can surely be made to move air particles in an
identical manner.
The action of a grand piano can certainly be emulated, if not
incorporated, in a digital piano, and it seems to me that it's just a
matter of time before the sound emulation will be so good that
blind-folded "experts" won't be able to tell the difference. From
various posts and reviews I've seen, some people already say they
can't tell the difference. A digital piano will never be the same as a
conventional piano in psychological terms though, of course.
Martin.
Tom Shaw
never produce an exact replica of a physical system.
Since my hearing has gone down the tubes I think a cheap AC/DC radio is
pretty good and the average hi-fi outfit is very good. But I can still tell
it is not live. One exception...sometimes in a place such as a restaurant
in which music is heard in another room or distant area and there is quite a
bit of ambient chatter I cant tell. But it would not be a problem without
the ambient noise.
However my engineering background tells me that you can never make anything
behave exactly the same as something else. One example. There is a fairly
recognizable difference in the sound between the best tube and transistor
amplifiers and these items are much more similar to each other than a
string and a loudspeaker. In the case of music your common sense should
tell you that it is going to be impossible to exactly reproduce the sounds
of strings, horns, and even membranes unless you use strings, horns, and
membranes. It is that simple and that complicated.
It doesn't matter if blindfolded experts cant tell the difference. And I am
not saying that improvements in electronic reproduction wont ever get so
good that practically nobody will be able to tell the difference.
TS
"Martin" <marti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f777223a.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "Steve" <stephe...@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<48jY7.22919$Zg2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Frederic Jeanmougin
> I think that many/most people would argue that a digital piano can
Yes. I argue. I can't explain why, but I am sure of this.
Digital pianos are far from accoustic pianos.
Martin
> Sorry Martin but here is my reason for saying that an electronic system will
> never produce an exact replica of a physical system.
No need to be sorry Tom.
> Since my hearing has gone down the tubes I think a cheap AC/DC radio is
> pretty good and the average hi-fi outfit is very good. But I can still tell
> it is not live. One exception...sometimes in a place such as a restaurant
> in which music is heard in another room or distant area and there is quite a
> bit of ambient chatter I cant tell. But it would not be a problem without
> the ambient noise.
> However my engineering background tells me that you can never make anything
> behave exactly the same as something else. One example. There is a fairly
> recognizable difference in the sound between the best tube and transistor
> amplifiers and these items are much more similar to each other than a
> string and a loudspeaker. In the case of music your common sense should
> tell you that it is going to be impossible to exactly reproduce the sounds
> of strings, horns, and even membranes unless you use strings, horns, and
> membranes. It is that simple and that complicated.
OK - sounds sensible - I can accept all this.
> It doesn't matter if blindfolded experts cant tell the difference. And I am
> not saying that improvements in electronic reproduction wont ever get so
> good that practically nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> TS
Well then we're just splitting hairs. What I really meant by "exactly
recreate" was - to use your words - "that practically nobody will be
able to tell the difference".
Martin.
Tom Shaw
And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-).
It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being reproduced
by a top flight electronic amplification system. My guess is that they
would not be able to do it. After all this same test has been conducted
with "professionals" regarding Strad violins and new ones with the same
results...they couldn't tell the difference. Incidentally, however, the
violinists then retreated to the position that even if the hearer couldn't
tell the difference they could since the instruments "played" better or
easier. I will leave it to you to decide whether they were trying to
protect their investments or not.news:f777223a.0201...@posting.google.com...
Martin
> Okay Martin,
> And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-).
You'd have a hard job finding one on me to split. (With my clothes
on.)
> It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
> of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
> between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being reproduced
> by a top flight electronic amplification system. My guess is that they
> would not be able to do it. After all this same test has been conducted
> with "professionals" regarding Strad violins and new ones with the same
> results...they couldn't tell the difference. Incidentally, however, the
> violinists then retreated to the position that even if the hearer couldn't
> tell the difference they could since the instruments "played" better or
> easier. I will leave it to you to decide whether they were trying to
> protect their investments or not.
> TS
That's interesting ... I wonder whether that means that the difference
between a Strad and some other make of violin is less than between,
say, a Fazioli and some other make of piano.
As far as digital vs conventional pianos are concerned, if I were a
(conventional) piano dealer I'd be very worried. Digital pianos - in
common with other electronic products - just seem to be getting better
and better, fast. I wouldn't be surprised if sales of digitals already
exceed sales of conventional pianos. I'd always envisaged spending
part of my retirement lump sum (in 15-20 years time!) on a nice grand
piano, but I now don't think I will. I'm not the sort of person who
prefers a wind-up gold Rolex to a Swatch, if you know what I mean.
Martin.
Larry
>(conventional) piano dealer I'd be very worried.
> I wouldn't be surprised if sales of digitals already
>exceed sales of conventional pianos.
In 1976 I read a newspaper article in which a music dealer was being
interviewed, the sole topic of discussion being the new digital pianos that had
been introduced just a few years earlier. The dealer made the claim that he saw
digital pianos as the death of acoustic pianos, and predicted that acoustic
pianos would be totally gone within 5 years. 5 years later, acoustic piano
sales were stronger than ever, and digital sales were stagnant.
Another article on the same topic appeared in the early 80s, with the dealer
selling the digital pianos making the same claim. Digitals had beenimproved as
they tried to find ways to boost sales, but acoustic pianos were still
outselling digitals by a 10 to 1 margin.
Today, acoustic pianos still outsell digitals by a huge margin. Digitals have
replaced some of the low end vertical sales, but other than that they have had
a zero affect on quality acoustic piano sales - in fact, the upper end of the
acoustic business is getting stronger every year. I think the public's desire
for quality and the resulting increase in premium piano sales volume has had as
much affect on the "bread and butter" type acoustic sales as digitals have had.
The only thing acoustic piano dealers have to worry about is used verticals and
low end entry level verticals. Digital pianos have had no affect at all on
quality acoustics, and I don't see that it ever will. Most people just don't
see digitals as real pianos. Interestingly enough, many people are put off with
digitals because of how quickly they become obsolete, and how short their life
expectancy is when compared to a real piano.
My prediction is that in 10 or 20 years instead of the acoustic piano being
replaced, it will be the digital piano that has petered out, with the
technology having been incorporated into the acoustic piano as an added feature
to the real thing. The biggest expense of building a digital piano is the case
it comes in, just like you pay more for the wrapping on a Twinkie than you do
for the Twinkie inside the wrapper. Once the acoustic piano makers figure out
that offering the cheap electronics within the same case of the acoustic is the
way to go, we'll be talking about how the digital piano market was decimated by
this turn of events, with only the portable slabs for pro work or the really
tacky cheap stuff being left of the digital market.
But that part is just my opinion of course.
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician
Doing the work of three men.....Larry, Curly, & Moe
Want to visit another piano related messageboard? Go to the piano discussion
group on my website:
Tom Shaw
TS
"Larry" <larryin...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020103110705...@mb-mh.aol.com...
rasw
> Okay Martin,
> And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-).
> It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
> of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
> between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being
reproduced
> by a top flight electronic amplification system. My guess is that they
> would not be able to do it.
We have people here that work in piano stores! Why not have someone do a
test?(Unfortunately, it would be hard to do a "double-blind" because the
pianist would know what he's playing on. I s'pose we can test between a
Disklavier Pro or Boesendorfer SE playing themselves and the same
performance played via MIDI on a digital piano with appropriate samples.)
But I'd like to see two separate tests here:
1. Have 20 people listen, blind, to two pianos (one digital, one real) from
across the room and ask which one "sounds better"
2. Repeat with a different group of people and ask which one is a real
piano.
I suspect that the real piano would win.
(However, if you compare low-end spinets to high-end digitals, the digitals
would probably win! However, they would cost more than the spinet)
The key to your statement really is in the phrase "top-flight electronic
amplification system". I think that's where digital pianos are the most
lacking. Fact is, for the cost of a professional amplification and
loudspeaker system, ($25K+) you can get a half-decent 6' grand.
At home, I have a C-7A Yamaha that I can switch to digital (It's got that
"silent action" so you can listen with headphones.) I have a loudspeaker and
amplifier connected to it. Several times I've tried to fool people by
playing it as a digital piano and every time they said "what's wrong with
your piano?"
Also, I found that, even with a pair of good headphones, I can't even
practice for long periods of time with the digital piano sounds. They're
just too artificial, and give me a headache. The "silent" mode was a waste
of $$ in that I don't find it close enough to a piano sound to make it
useful to practice with.
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Okay Martin,
>And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-).
>It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
>of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
>between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being reproduced
>by a top flight electronic amplification system. My guess is that they
>would not be able to do it.
People could almost certainly do it for dumb reasons, unless
you were extremely careful. I have, for totally unrelated reasons, been
reading up on how people "localize" sound sources -- that is, deduce
distance and bearing to the source of a sound.
It turns out people are incredibly good at this. Without
quite a lot of care, people would be able to tell the real piano
simply because it's the one where two C's an octave apart come from
sources spaced many inches apart.
There are probably many other variable which would have to be
controlled for, depending on what you wanted to test for.
You can argue that since a digital piano can't/don't
accurately image the two C's the correct number of inches apart, they
suck, I suppose, but I suspect that's not what people are generally
talking about in this thread. (I assume here that the digitals don't
image accurately, because it's hard. I could be wrong, though.)
To control for it, I'd mic a real piano, wire up the line out
of a digital, and run them both through the same sound system.
rasw
<amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote in message
news:su2Z7.6051$aH2.3109235@ruti.visi.com...
It's *very* hard to mic a piano well. In fact, unless you have professional
equipment and a sound studio, you're almost better off recording a digital
piano than miking an acoustic piano, (especially when the piano is just
accompaniment to a singer, etc.) when you're trying to make a recording at
home.
A slightly better test would be to mic both the real piano and the digital
piano's speakers.
I think if the pianos were on a stage, and the audience were 10+ rows back,
than the differences you note in "localization" would be minimized.
Tom Shaw
details of which I did not go into. But effective control is what
experimentation is all about I guess.
TS
<amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote in message
news:su2Z7.6051$aH2.3109235@ruti.visi.com...
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
>
><amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote in message
>news:su2Z7.6051$aH2.3109235@ruti.visi.com...
>> In article
><6BE10D9518109862.F82E35D4...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> To control for it, I'd mic a real piano, wire up the line out
>> of a digital, and run them both through the same sound system.
>
>It's *very* hard to mic a piano well. In fact, unless you have professional
>equipment and a sound studio, you're almost better off recording a digital
>piano than miking an acoustic piano, (especially when the piano is just
>accompaniment to a singer, etc.) when you're trying to make a recording at
>home.
Granted :)
Let's be hypothetical, and make it REALLY fair:
- have Yamaha mic a piano to gather samples for building
the next generation digital piano
- without disturbing the microphone setup, and very very fast
so the piano does't go out of tune, build the next generation
digital piano
Now compare the real and the digital through the same high
quality sound system :)
>I think if the pianos were on a stage, and the audience were 10+ rows back,
>than the differences you note in "localization" would be minimized.
You'd be surprised, supposedly people can resolve sources as
little as 2 degrees apart, in front of them. This means two strings
17 inches apart, 40 feet away, would sound like two distinct sources!
I think you might be able to play with the angle of the piano
the stage relative to the listener to reduce the angle between any two
sound producing points within the real piano. You might also be able
to play games like face people in different directions, to place the
piano in a region where the resolution of spatial perception is minimized.
It's not that you can't do it, it's that it's hard!
Arthur Blumenfeld
Tom Shaw wrote:
> Okay Martin,
> And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-).
> It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
> of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
> between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being reproduced
> by a top flight electronic amplification system.
I think the only way you can identify the sound of a musical instrument is to
compare it to the sound of a similar instrument that you heard. While it is
true that most of the posters to this NG have access to and have heard large
well tuned properly regulated acoustic pianos played by experts or near experts
the public at large has not. When was the last time you heard a piano played in
a public place. When do you suppose the average citizen has heard an acoustic
piano played in public. For many people today the answer is never.
If you have never heard an acoustic piano played your only frame of reference is
recorded and broadcast music through loud speakers or head-phones.
I suspect that a large number of people will find listening to a digital piano
far more satisfying than listening to an acoustic piano.
I suspect that the acoustic piano may soon become relegated to the concert hall.
I sure don't find any in public places these days.
Radu Focshaner
> It turns out people are incredibly good at this. Without
> quite a lot of care, people would be able to tell the real piano
> simply because it's the one where two C's an octave apart come from
> sources spaced many inches apart.
Do people hear the strings or do they hear the sound amplified by the
soundboard ? If they hear the "soundboard" it would be difficult to tell
where the sound originated.
What do you think ?
==================================
I really have no life...
I go around reading posts and,without having any original thought,
or adding anything to the subject,simply make short simpleminded
remarQs.
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Radu Focshaner <ra...@barak-online.net> wrote:
>amoli...@visi-dot-com.com wrote:
>
>> It turns out people are incredibly good at this. Without
>> quite a lot of care, people would be able to tell the real piano
>> simply because it's the one where two C's an octave apart come from
>> sources spaced many inches apart.
>
>Do people hear the strings or do they hear the sound amplified by the
>soundboard ? If they hear the "soundboard" it would be difficult to tell
>where the sound originated.
>What do you think ?
Oooo! I think you're a much more careful thinker than I am!
I have no idea, but what an excellent point!
Dave Andrews
soundboard ? If they hear the "soundboard" it would be difficult to tell
where the sound originated.
What do you think ? >>
I think you have a keen sense for the obvious, Radu.
--
With All Due Respect,
Dave Andrews
D. W. Andrews Associates
Church Music System Specialists
"Two Hacks Working Out Of A Garage"
Disclaimer: If there are two ways to take my words,
always assume I was after the cheap laugh.
Martin
> amplification system". I think that's where digital pianos are the most
> lacking. Fact is, for the cost of a professional amplification and
> loudspeaker system, ($25K+) you can get a half-decent 6' grand.
That's way over the mark - you can get something really good for 10%
of that figure, or perhaps even 5%.
> At home, I have a C-7A Yamaha that I can switch to digital (It's got that
> "silent action" so you can listen with headphones.) I have a loudspeaker and
> amplifier connected to it. Several times I've tried to fool people by
> playing it as a digital piano and every time they said "what's wrong with
> your piano?"
Wait a minute ... "a loudspeaker"? I hope you meant a pair of
loudspeakers. Also, I don't know how old your C-7A is but how good are
its samples? If it has a midi out try borrowing something like a P120
(Yamaha), and some really good active speakers, and then see whether
you can fool people.
Martin.
Larry
>soundboard ? If they hear the "soundboard" it would be difficult to tell
>where the sound originated.
>What do you think ? >>
>
>
>I think you have a keen sense for the obvious, Radu.
>--
In addition to having perfect pitch, perfect smitch, and a keyboard with WOODI,
I also have perfect inch. When you play a note on the piano, I don't see colors
or anything, but I see a big ruler. Based on the note you played, I can tell
you exactly how many inches up the keyboard you are........
My favorite interval is 12.75 inches..........
I really can.
Yes I can.
I swear.
What, you don't believe me? OK, hum a 9"............
<G>
Radu Focshaner
>
> Okay Martin,
> And I was splitting hairs...that used to be my business :-)
You used to be a rabbi ?
> It would be interesting to do an experiment nowadays on a random selection
> of folks in which blind folded they were asked to tell the difference
> between, say, a real piano being played and the same piano being reproduced
> by a top flight electronic amplification system. My guess is that they
> would not be able to do it.
I always get compliments from my neighbours when I play some CDs through
my incredibly good KENWOOD hi-fi system. Actually, even my wife gets
sometimes confused. The truth is that the hi-fi sounds much better than
my accoustic piano.
--
========================================
Dave Andrews
<< The truth is that the hi-fi sounds much better than
my accoustic piano. >>
Yeah, I used to own a piano like that, too, Radu.
;-)
Radu Focshaner
>
> Radu Focshaner wrote:
>
> << The truth is that the hi-fi sounds much better than
> my accoustic piano. >>
>
> Yeah, I used to own a piano like that, too, Radu.
I .... dream .. of a Black ..... Steinway...
(to the tune of "I dream of a White Christmas")
Debbie Kahan
single note -- middle c -- on it and, immediately thereafter on my 6'8"
Steinway grand... Believe me, there is a vast difference tonally.
Whereas the CLP-611 sounds somewhat "canned" when played immediately in
succession with the Steinway, the Steinway is brighter and has a more
fully-timbred tone than that of the Yamaha.
I have played duets with students and family members, using both
instruments, and the results have been quite decent, but for my preference I
will take the Steinway any day over the Yamaha. We bought the CLP-611
because I had been accompanying my synagogue choir for a number of years and
was fed up with the condition of many of the instruments I was asked to use.
I also use it to record duets on the two tracks, as well as to record
students as they are preparing for competitions. Of course, the sound
system inherent in the Yamaha is quite good, but that says little about the
quality and timbre of the tones produced digitally vs. those produced on an
acoustic instrument.
Just my few cents for whatever they are worth after 35+ years of teaching
and exposure to all sorts and qualities of instruments...
Debbie Kahan
a/k/a CT Music Teacher
"Radu Focshaner" <ra...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:3C36D7...@writeme.com...
Stu Alden
"Debbie Kahan" <pka...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:MhsZ7.7148$D_6.155...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> For the sake of argument, I just went to my Yamaha CLP-611 and
tested a
> single note -- middle c -- on it and, immediately thereafter on my
6'8"
> Steinway grand... Believe me, there is a vast difference tonally.
> Whereas the CLP-611 sounds somewhat "canned" when played immediately
in
> succession with the Steinway, the Steinway is brighter and has a
more
> fully-timbred tone than that of the Yamaha.
>
>
The 611 is 2 (3?) generations behind the current 900 series. The
quality of the samples has improved significantly with each
generation.
Ace
> single note -- middle c -- on it and, immediately thereafter on my 6'8"
> Steinway grand... Believe me, there is a vast difference tonally.
> Whereas the CLP-611 sounds somewhat "canned" when played immediately in
> succession with the Steinway, the Steinway is brighter and has a more
> fully-timbred tone than that of the Yamaha.
>
> I have played duets with students and family members, using both
> instruments, and the results have been quite decent, but for my preference I
> will take the Steinway any day over the Yamaha. We bought the CLP-611
> because I had been accompanying my synagogue choir for a number of years and
> was fed up with the condition of many of the instruments I was asked to use.
> I also use it to record duets on the two tracks, as well as to record
> students as they are preparing for competitions. Of course, the sound
> system inherent in the Yamaha is quite good, but that says little about the
> quality and timbre of the tones produced digitally vs. those produced on an
> acoustic instrument.
>
> Just my few cents for whatever they are worth after 35+ years of teaching
> and exposure to all sorts and qualities of instruments...
>
> Debbie Kahan
> a/k/a CT Music Teacher
>
>
>
LOL who wouldn't take the sound of a Steinway over a digital?
Yes, almost all digital pianos these days sound "canned" except for
the ones that are built solely for pianists (Yamaha Grantouch etc) and
not for studio recording or gigging. I bet most of your piano CD
collection also sound "canned". Neighbors may not be able to tell the
difference between the sound off a real piano and the sound off a
decent hi-fi because the distance and walls etc distort the sound.
This is why you don't see double-blind tests being performed in the
showroom anymore. Most people don't realised there is anything wrong
with the sound of their digital until they listen to their digital
side by side with an acoustic grand (or even an upright). The
acoustic pianos sound very open and resonant, whereas the digitals
often have a tone which is too clean or straight, resulting in a dull,
muffled or electronic sound.
Not so with the Yamaha PF P-100 which I have. The P-100 does NOT
sound "canned". This is why Yamaha dared to do a double-blind test of
a P-100 aside an acoustic Yamaha grand, both behind a curtain in the
showroom. This was done many years ago. In fact the P-100 is from
1989, and in 1988 Yamaha developed its AWM technology so the P-100 was
the first digital to implement AWM. So Yamaha had to do a good job
with the P-100 to show off the realism of its AWM technology. Hence
the engineers sampled the Yamaha acoustic grand in such a way that the
P-100 would sound as close as possible to the Yamaha acoustic grand
when played side by side with one.
These days they don't make them like they used to.
By the way, if you haven't done so already, check out the following
site:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~t.vanheelsbergen/opinionE.htm
It talks more about this "canned" sound and a theory as to why so many
digital piano makers choose a "canned" sound over an "open" sound.
You can download an mp3 demo of the P-100 from the following link:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~t.vanheelsbergen/Music/P100.mp3
Then tell me whether you think the P-100 sounds "canned" or not
according to your ears. Keep in mind that the mp3 file degrades the
quality somewhat, and the quality depends mostly on the sort of
heaphones or speaker setup you have. If possible, listen to it using
2 high quality flat response near field studio monitors. This will
bring out the tone of the P-100.
Ace
Juan Arango
> After all this same test has been conducted with "professionals"
regarding Strad violins and new ones
> with the same results...they couldn't tell the difference.
Incidentally, however, the violinists then
> retreated to the position that even if the hearer couldn't tell the
difference they could since the
> instruments "played" better or easier. I will leave it to you to
decide whether they were trying to
> protect their investments or not.
This is a very interesting position. If we do not second guess those
violinists, then it would seem that they prefer an instrument that is
easier to play over a harder one. That sounds very sensible, yet for
all I have read in this newsgroup, pianists would rather play a harder
instrument!
I say that because when discussing the pros and cons of purchasing a
digital over an accoustic piano, pianists in this newsgroup retreat to
the position that even if the digitals' sounds were good enough, a
digital lets you get away with playing without the proper technique,
which just means it is easier to play!!!
Juan
Ace
> digital over an accoustic piano, pianists in this newsgroup retreat to
> the position that even if the digitals' sounds were good enough, a
> digital lets you get away with playing without the proper technique,
> which just means it is easier to play!!!
>
>
> Juan
I'd say that if you can get the tone you want out of a digital, then
who cares about "proper" technique. You may have to use a slighty
different technique on an acoustic to get the same tone, but it's not
like all of us have access to acoustic grands, let alone first class
concert grands, so why waste our life practicing a technique that
we'll never get to use? The only pianists that I think should not
practice on digitals are the hardcore ones who perform regularly in
concerts.
Ace
Radu Focshaner
> so why waste our life practicing a technique that
> we'll never get to use?
We stink, but throughout our whole life we are dreaming of becoming
pianists....
Bad-Boy
news:20020103110705...@mb-mh.aol.com...
> My prediction is that in 10 or 20 years instead of the acoustic piano
being
> replaced, it will be the digital piano that has petered out, with the
> technology having been incorporated into the acoustic piano as an added
feature
> to the real thing. The biggest expense of building a digital piano is the
case
Profound insight Larry.
I'd never thought about it that way and yet it seems to make so much sense.
( Of course it needs a leap in the development of sound cancellation so you
can play on headphones at 2am, but hey that's only a speaker and some
electronics :-)
Peter
Christof Pflumm
> My prediction is that in 10 or 20 years instead of the acoustic
> piano being replaced, it will be the digital piano that has petered
> out, with the technology having been incorporated into the acoustic
> piano as an added feature to the real thing. The biggest expense of
> building a digital piano is the case it comes in,
Really? That's interesting. Can you give some ballpark figures how
much the different components (case, action, plate, soundboard etc)
contribute to the overall price? If the case is so expensive and
doesn't contribute much to the sound we'll perhaps see some
plastic-case pianos in the future...
Bye,
Christof
Larry
You confused the two pianos. I said the cost of the case on the *digital* piano
was the biggest cost.
I wrote:
>>The biggest expense of
>> building a digital piano is the case it comes in,
You asked:
>Really? That's interesting. Can you give some ballpark figures how
>much the different components (case, action, plate, soundboard etc)
>contribute to the overall price?
Then, even if it *had* been acoustic pianos I was talking about, you added an
extra point by leaping to a conclusion:
>If the case is so expensive and
>doesn't contribute much to the sound we'll perhaps see some
>plastic-case pianos in the future...
In fact, on a vertical the case usually *doesn't* contribute much to the sound,
other than to bottle it up. Vertical cases aren't usually involved in how sound
is produced by the piano the way the case (rim) of a grand is. Still, there
already has been plastic case pianos. Everett Piano built a console with a one
piece molded plastic case back in the 70s, held onto the piano by two large lag
bolts from the back. It had no affect on the tone of the piano. It looked cheap
though. They tried to make it look like a traditional wood case.
Christof Pflumm
> Christof,
>
> You confused the two pianos. I said the cost of the case on the
> *digital* piano was the biggest cost.
I wasn't reading carefully enough. Thanks for the clarification. But
I'd still be interested how much the different components in an
acoustic piano contribute to the price.
> In fact, on a vertical the case usually *doesn't* contribute much to
> the sound, other than to bottle it up. Vertical cases aren't usually
> involved in how sound is produced by the piano the way the case
> (rim) of a grand is. Still, there already has been plastic case
> pianos. Everett Piano built a console with a one piece molded
> plastic case back in the 70s, held onto the piano by two large lag
> bolts from the back. It had no affect on the tone of the piano. It
> looked cheap though. They tried to make it look like a traditional
> wood case.
I think I would d spent some bucks for a nice case any day. If it is
in one's living room, it shouldn't be too ugly. But I wonder if one
couldn't make the plastic look like some kind of finish. Those black
high polished uprights don't look much like wood IMO.
Bye,
Christof
Arthur Blumenfeld
> I think I would d spent some bucks for a nice case any day. If it is
> in one's living room, it shouldn't be too ugly. But I wonder if one
> couldn't make the plastic look like some kind of finish. Those black
> high polished uprights don't look much like wood IMO.
>
> Bye,
> Christof
I suspect that the cost of a plastic case/rim for a grand piano would be
more that cost in wood. While there are many plastics used in the
packaging industry that cost between $0.50 and $1.00 per pound I think
that for the rim, fall board and top, strong enough plastics would have to
come from the engineering plastics group. In general they cost between
$3.00 and $10.00 per pound.
I did at one time see (or at least I though I saw) a transparent grand
that had been made of Lucite.
Today you would make it out of polycarbonate. Very expensive.
best regards
arthur
Christof Pflumm
> I did at one time see (or at least I though I saw) a transparent
> grand that had been made of Lucite.
Yes, right, I remember a transparent grand from TV also! Schimmel has
one: http://www.schimmel.de/e/glasfluegel.html
Bye,
Christof
Martin
> ( Of course it needs a leap in the development of sound cancellation so you
> can play on headphones at 2am, but hey that's only a speaker and some
> electronics :-)
>
> Peter
;-)
Martin.
p.s. Maybe two speakers.
Martin
> I wrote:
> >>The biggest expense of
> >> building a digital piano is the case it comes in,
This might be true as far as the physical components are concerned,
but don't forget the IP (Intellectual Property) ... they need to
recoup the cost of research and development.
Martin.
Dave Andrews
recoup the cost of research and development.
Martin. >>
Hey Martin. Don't forget the DP that they also have to pay, too. DP is the
Doofus Penalty to compensate Baldwin CEO's that are inept. ;-)
Carl Benson
Before I bought a digital piano, I did some research, and came
to this exact same conclusion. The big money is in the case.
So I bought a Yamaha P200, which sounds good but is rather ugly
as furniture goes.
--CarlB
Christof Pflumm
I'v got an MP9000, which has no real case, it looks more like a big
synthesizer. Also no amplification and loudspeakers, so I hope I spent
most of my money on action and sound...
Bye,
Christof
Dave Andrews
<< I'v got an MP9000, which has no real case, it looks more like a big
synthesizer. Also no amplification and loudspeakers, so I hope I spent
most of my money on action and sound... >>
If all you wanted was action & sound, Christof, you could have rented an Arnold
Schwarzenegger movie much cheaper.
Martin
> << ...but don't forget the IP (Intellectual Property) ... they need to
> recoup the cost of research and development.
>
> Martin. >>
>
> Hey Martin. Don't forget the DP that they also have to pay, too. DP is the
> Doofus Penalty to compensate Baldwin CEO's that are inept. ;-)
Hey Dave. That sounds like it's probably a good "in" joke ... but I'm
afraid I don't get it!
Martin.
Dave Andrews
Martin. >>
=============================================
Baldwin Piano Company was pretty much forced into bankruptcy about 6 months ago
due to the mismanagement of a CEO that was brought in around the mid-nineties.
During the course of her "illustrious" tenure, she managed to get paid a large
salary and huge bonuses including an unbelievable golden handshake just to get
rid of her. There was a very inciteful article in Music Trades magazine that
chronicled the entire story, but it can all best be summed up in a quote by Ken
Pavia, the major stockholder that finally pulled the plug on the derelict diva
(and who also lost his shirt): "How does a CEO with your track record justify
her fiduciary obligations to the Company in light of the abysmal performance of
the Company. Wouldn't it have been more equitable to have crafted a severance
package based on performance?" Had the lady "crafted a severance package based
on performance" she would be making installment payments to Baldwin for the
next two centuries.
Sorry Martin -- I thought everybody here was aware of Baldwin's problems. They
are now owned by Gibson, a Company that had the good sense to buy just the
assets out from the burning rubble and not assume any of the vast obligations
that have hurt many -- both financially and otherwise.
Martin
> Sorry Martin -- I thought everybody here was aware of Baldwin's problems. They
> are now owned by Gibson, a Company that had the good sense to buy just the
> assets out from the burning rubble and not assume any of the vast obligations
> that have hurt many -- both financially and otherwise.
Oh, so it wasn't such a good in joke after all. ;-)
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Martin.
Christof Pflumm
> Christof Pflumm wrote:
>
> << I'v got an MP9000, which has no real case, it looks more like a big
> synthesizer. Also no amplification and loudspeakers, so I hope I spent
> most of my money on action and sound... >>
>
> If all you wanted was action & sound, Christof, you could have rented an Arnold
> Schwarzenegger movie much cheaper.
What are you doing besides thinking about how to twist other people's
words? ;) But Schwarzenegger can also be funny. And his accent when he
speaks english is hilarious.
And where can I rent such a Schwarzenegger-piano then? And how big is
it, I only have limited space. Oh wait, you said movie?
Bye,
Christof
Dave Andrews
<< What are you doing besides thinking about how to twist other people's
words? ;) >>
Balloon animals.
Just saying "hello" in a round about way, Christof.
;-)