Physically modeled pianos (Page 2 of 2)

Yes, it's not a proof... I need to agree with you.
But if the Lx 17 technology allows that, it would be just pure stupidity to exclude such adjust keeping just keep noises and ressonances adjusts, while competitor like pianoteq have similar good features.

Good observation Steve.

But if it was the case I presume Roland probably would have updated V-piano, if have the same Modeling technology, to catch up consumer's attention and as a justificative for the higher price compared to LX-17. 
V-piano at the time of release also have some few problems in the timbre, and probably still have.  V-piano grand sound a bit bete rin the vídeos, but it have a lot of wood pieces, a cabinet similar top a grand piano.

If I understand Piet well. LX-17 have a better timbre than V-piano.

Beto,

The LX-series (and related keyboards) does allow for the editing of things like hammer hardness and such. As far as I can tell, one can’t change the number of strings or the material of the strings — the way we can on the V-Piano — but other than that, most other parameters seem to be in place. If you search the web for ‘Roland Piano Designer’, you’ll quickly discover what the app was developed in aid of, and which parameters it includes.
(Also on the web, there’s been some disappointment voiced over the absence of a ‘decay’ parameter.)

And yes, based on what I’ve heard so far, I’d say the LX sounds considerably better than the V-Piano. (Which I would never call that remarkable an achievement because, while certainly capable of some good things, beauty of timbre is, in my opinion, not what the V-Piano will ever be remembered for.)

Steve,

I still don’t understand your reasoning why, despite you accepting that the LX doesn’t have any piano samples on board, you keep refusing to call it a fully modeled instrument.

It’s simple, really, isn’t it? Either an instrument does contain samples, or it doesn’t (like the LX) in which case its output is, surely, to be declared fully modeled/synthesized, no? (Or, it can also be a combination of samples and modeling/synthesizing — like, for example, the SampleModeling wind instruments, or many of the Yamaha digital pianos —, but that doesn’t apply here.)

What was actually sampled and how these samples were then translated into model-defining code (or ‘parametrised’, as you call it), seems to me to be largely irrelevant when categorizing an instrument as ‘fully modeled’ or not. What is relevant, at least in my view, is how the sound is actually generated. If that happens without the use of any samples, it seems to me that ‘fully modeled/synthesized’ is the obvious and only correct description.

Khoa,
Here's a video comparing the LX-17, the Yamaha CLP585 and the Kawai CA97: (the actual playing starts at 3'05")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p...5I28#t=185
_

That V-Accordeon experience really bit you in the ankles, didn't it, Steve?

Never mind ..., modeled, not modeled, or modeled 'of sorts' ... at the end of the day, all that matters is what the thing is capable of, isn't it?

I'm in the market for a V-Piano replacement and while I'm not interested in any of the LX's as such (and fail to get excited about the sound of the Yamaha's or the Kawai's), I do have the beginnings of an eye — well, more the faintest of glints, to be honest — on the Kiyola which would be, furniture-wise, a much better fit in my studio than an LX. (And I don't need the speaker system of the LX anyway. Nor is the Kiyola infested with all those awful strings-, organ- and e.p.-sounds which always seem to find their way into digital pianos.)
The Kiyola still being a few months away (and there's also a rumour that it might not even ship to Europe), there's plenty of time to think this through or even change my mind (as I did last year with the Yamaha NU1 which I considered for a few weeks).

_

How true. I used to think that, given a couple of hours with an instrument, I could at least come to a conclusion about whether or not I liked it - whether it was right for me - whether I wanted to play it. I spent more than a couple of hours, more than once, with the V-Piano and came to the conclusion that it wasn't for me. Now actually I'd like to go back and try it again because I've realised I think that my approach in those days was too narrow. In reality all I was doing was comparing new instruments to those I was used to playing. And by and large what I found was that they weren't the same. Surprise, surprise!

I've realised now that it takes me weeks or even months to get the hang of a new instrument - to find out how to open it up, how to get it to speak and sing. So I might have sort of given up trying to compare them - at least at the top end anyway. They're just different. Only solution - own them all!

The LX thing looks interesting - must check that out. But, like you (Piet), I have no need (or desire) for ghastly internal speaker systems and less still for cheesy organs and strings - oh dear. So the Kiyola thing may indeed be very interesting. Does anyone know, by the way, why a manufacturer like Roland would make such a product available only in 'certain regions'? Seems a little bizarre to me but I expect there's a sound commercial rationale.

I agree too that speculation as to how these instruments work, while potentially interesting, is rather beside the point from the player's perspective. And it can easily cease to be interesting when there isn't any real information to base it on, or it becomes pointlessly partisan. Whatever it is that Roland are up to it's clearly not for the feint-hearted and if we want to get our heads round it I expect we'd be best off going away and doing a few maths degrees first.

It did not impress me much that's for sure.

Blatant lies about products do peeve me (not talking v-accord but current products) - i appreciate there is a need to hype, over-emphasise, even embellish the facts to keep up with your competitor doing the same thing but just outright lies about a product are something I detest (again, not talking about the v-accordion but the latest stuff including the LX-17).

I'm not anti-Roland, I just hate blatant lies. I could link youtube vids to where the official Roland rep (not the shop owner) outright lies about the product but it'd be a waste of time. Yet I would not knock back a Roland RD-800 if anyone wants to buy me one. In fact I'm sure I'd love it. I played it more than any other instrument at a major music store in Melbourne's CBD. My first non-acoustic instrument was a Roland PCM synth and I loved it. I've recommended a Roland product to this forum very recently; the FP-30. Can't be bothered finding the link.

This back and forth has gone on long enough. Anything more I could say would just be a waste of everyone's time and labouring the point.

There's a recent thread on the Piano Forum about a revived Pianoid effort.  Still in development.

.   Charles

Re: Roland, where they have been, where they are going next, etc.
Sure, their structured adaptive was "modeling" though not "digital", but not all computers have always been "digital" either.

As I see it they wandered into sampling for a while and are trying to "walk back" from that path.
Their current ad copy seems to reflect this, i.e. they are trying to show continuity while admitting that they have produced products that "play back recordings of instruments".
{Just my take on it, call it ambiguous if you like, or talking out of both sides of their corporate mouths}

Also, they underwent a change of ownership a couple of years ago - there is speculation that there may be some change(s) in direction(s), as there is with the new owners of Steinway.

Anyway, I still like my U-220