I don't have the vst yet but do you find any performance works out a lot better than anything you've heard thanks to finding exactly the right sound? Most recordings of APs compromise too much in dynamics and far field mics so they'll sound good on any speakers and situation.
Yes for sure in various circumstances.
To be sure, for readers.. in this case, VST is music instrument software like Pianoteq, and AP is 'analog piano' or a real physical piano.
There will be some top tier pianists who would only wish to play and record a physical piano, but these days I'd say that would mostly come down to those who are used to fine actions on grand pianos they favor. (those same people may benefit from travelling with a dpiano and Pianoteq for times without a real piano to rehearse with etc.)
Dpiano actions, though some are great, are still not as great - which is not a problem for mere mortals who cannot play well enough to clip the limits of their keyboard's abilities.
For my purposes Pianoteq is better than a piano in the studio for a range of reasons.
Its responsiveness and playability is as close to a good grand when using a reasonable dpiano and you can get very distinctly close to a sound you want for a recording very quickly, esp. if you are a recordist or intend to focus on mastering a DAW and some skills involved in producing your own way.
In the past, a studio may have a lovely in-house piano and a couple of mic arrays ready to roll into place. If you wish for a different sound from that default layout, someone will need to get creative on the fly and it may take 2 or 3 hours or more really, until everyone's happy with the 'strange' new mic arrangement and how it can be mixed. Some may be thrilled they have a more unique sound, and some will say "people aren't used to hearing the piano like that". Studio time = expensive, so that's not everyone's idea of time well spent. With Pianoteq we have the luxury of saving time and money, because, unlike a studio piano, over time we can make hundreds or more of our own favorite piano recording layouts on many different pianos each to quite professional levels, and put each to use with a click.
In contemporary music, unique can 'sell' well, so people are getting more creative with how a piano could sound and also how it may benefit their music on any scale - and nothing on the market allows for such depth of experimentation as Pianoteq does, with such comparative ease compared to the time-consuming analog world equivalent of physically moving things around, testing, communicating from mix console to studio folks "left another half inch" for hours
No grazed knees, sore back or becoming tired of waiting - I think any studio would be crazy to not offer Pianoteq, even if they do have a wonderful in-house piano. Why not both? etc. With a physical in-house piano, it gets recorded and any further MIDI work would require software to extract that MIDI (and usually it's not as good as playing the MIDI on a good dpiano). Pianoteq wins hands down in pretty much all my use cases.
I find that while Pianoteq is awesome, I find digital pianos cause fatigue due to the lack of a real cushion created by the hammers against the strings. After playing on a digital piano, my hands and fingers ache. If there was a way for a digital piano to truly have the action of a real piano, not one of those pseudo-hammer actions, I mean the full gamut of a real grand, then this might be a different story.
I also find going from the digital to a real piano and vice versa requires a technique adjustment. If I apply the same pedaling and fingering techniques on a digital as I do on a real piano, I will definitely cause runouts and lose the sound on a digital. When playing on the real piano, I find my technique is choppy until I get used to the pedals and keyboard.
All and all, the digital piano does have its advantages in a practice studio. Being able to focus with headphones or low volume late at night at home is the biggest one for me. Recording too is the other advantage. Recording digitally means there's no outside noise. Where I live, I have helicopters landing frequently at a local hospital, traffic passing by my window, and noisy neighbors. When trying to record my real piano, it's a constant battle between the noise and being on edge waiting for a ruined recording. With the digital recording, there's no interference and the editing is simpler because there's less data manipulation needed.
I find that while Pianoteq is awesome, I find digital pianos cause fatigue due to the lack of a real cushion created by the hammers against the strings. After playing on a digital piano, my hands and fingers ache. If there was a way for a digital piano to truly have the action of a real piano, not one of those pseudo-hammer actions, I mean the full gamut of a real grand, then this might be a different story.
I asked this question mainly from a position of ignorance. I do not know how much throwing money at the problem makes it it all but disappear?
How much do keyboards vary in this regard?
Do you have any experience with the highest of high-end digital pianos?
I can only go by reports, and my very limited experience of graded hammer action at the lower end of the market.
From the reports, reviews and various forums posts here and about the quality of actions seem to vary amongst manufacturers across the board. Often even between models from the same manufacturer.
So I'm curious about your frame of reference.
jcitron wrote:I find that while Pianoteq is awesome, I find digital pianos cause fatigue due to the lack of a real cushion created by the hammers against the strings. After playing on a digital piano, my hands and fingers ache. If there was a way for a digital piano to truly have the action of a real piano, not one of those pseudo-hammer actions, I mean the full gamut of a real grand, then this might be a different story.
I asked this question mainly from a position of ignorance. I do not know how much throwing money at the problem makes it it all but disappear?
How much do keyboards vary in this regard?Do you have any experience with the highest of high-end digital pianos?
I can only go by reports, and my very limited experience of graded hammer action at the lower end of the market.
From the reports, reviews and various forums posts here and about the quality of actions seem to vary amongst manufacturers across the board. Often even between models from the same manufacturer.So I'm curious about your frame of reference.
Just today I've been having an ongoing debate/exchange about this with a correspondent who I met through a piano learning platform, who also introduced me to Pianoteq. He is an early beginner, in terms of skills on the piano, but is on an endless quest, what I call The Impossible Dream, for the Perfect Piano.
Having gone through quite a few models, he now has the Roland FP 90x, which is a fabulous piano with superb action. A good pianist could play the music of the spheres on that piano! It is right at the top of the line, for slab pianos.
Now, no longer satisfied with Pianoteq, he is using the VSL Synchron Bosendorfer Upright because he says it has greater purity of sound. He said Pianoteq is too "metallic." When I said he could adjust for that with the condition slider (and I know nothing about such things) he said he is tired of being told to make changes.
P.S. he is a sound engineer.
He now says that only an acoustic piano will let him control dynamics and balance the loudness of his two hands. When I explained that control over dynamics and expressiveness was Pianoteq's greatest strength, and that the only way through this challenge was developing better technique, which he is already doing, he switched the argument or debate in another direct.
So, getting back to your question, I know that my friend will never be satisfied with any acoustic. Even if he got a Fazioli or a Bosendorfer (which won't happen) it will not sound the way it would if played in Carnegie Hall. No tuning will ever be perfect enough. Etc.
So...bottom line...yes, some digitals have better action than others. Sometimes much better. BUT, how much does it matter? It depends.
Pianoteq removes all limitations regarding dynamics and the ability to achieve colors, tones, expressiveness, limited only by your skill as a pianist. It removes all limits on polyphony.
It DOES matter for advanced pianists playing trills, repeated notes, etc., which are limited by lower end action. The keys simply can't keep up with the demands being placed upon them.
For the rest of us, a decent keyboard which is comfortable to our hands works fine. You do want an 88 key fully weighted keyboard. Most have adjustable levels of hardness needed to play, which is good. Some have better connectivity than others, which matters if you need that.
As we advance, we may outgrow it. Really advanced pianists may move up to a hybrid piano. It is also possible to midify a grand piano. I know two teachers/concert performers who have done that.
Hugh Sung, who has done a lot of things for Pianoteq, is also a vp of Cunningham Piano. He midified his Yamaha grand and plays it with Pianoteq and uses the AirTurn page turner. Willie Myette, of the brilliant learning platform JazzEdge, midified a grand piano for his studio.
Long answer, but I've been on a tear about this the past few days.
Thanks for the the extensive reply there Barbara. You have been doing your research!
I am aware that the cheaper actions are supposedly inferior for trilling.
From my reading over the years (as I occasionally check the state of play) apparently the main issue is not in truth the third sensor that you get on the first step up from dual sensor entry level models but mainly an issue with the physical mechanical nature of the hidden parts of the smaller shorter keys on the more compact budget models which do not allow for a fast return of the keys.
I keep reading comments from people who have been disappointed that their three sensor keyboard has not been noticeably quicker than their dual sensor models.
It is almost certainly extremely cheap to add a third sensor anyway - they would probably just switch to only that form in future anyway to reduce costs in manufacturing.
On the other hand the larger longer keys in the more expensive larger heavier keyboards inevitably add the lion's share of the cost to the designs. More expensive to ship, manufacturer, store safely, more expensive on materials and so on.
I agree from what you're saying I doubt your friend will ever be happy. I know the sort. Something perfect is just around the corner, but he will never get there. Chasing ghosts, probably big chunk of the fun to be fair. Same with the chase for the ultimate acoustic indeed.
Thanks for the the extensive reply there Barbara. You have been doing your research!
I am aware that the cheaper actions are supposedly inferior for trilling.
From my reading over the years (as I occasionally check the state of play) apparently the main issue is not in truth the third sensor that you get on the first step up from dual sensor entry level models but mainly an issue with the physical mechanical nature of the hidden parts of the smaller shorter keys on the more compact budget models which do not allow for a fast return of the keys.
I keep reading comments from people who have been disappointed that their three sensor keyboard has not been noticeably quicker than their dual sensor models.It is almost certainly extremely cheap to add a third sensor anyway - they would probably just switch to only that form in future anyway to reduce costs in manufacturing.
On the other hand the larger longer keys in the more expensive larger heavier keyboards inevitably add the lion's share of the cost to the designs. More expensive to ship, manufacturer, store safely, more expensive on materials and so on.I agree from what you're saying I doubt your friend will ever be happy. I know the sort. Something perfect is just around the corner, but he will never get there. Chasing ghosts, probably big chunk of the fun to be fair. Same with the chase for the ultimate acoustic indeed.
Yes, I've read that the length of the keys makes a big difference. I've learned a lot from this Forum and some other groups. I do read reviews, for general interest, not because I want to trade up. I've read that the Casio PX1000x/3000x (I think those are the numbers) are flawed because the keys are too short, for example.
I have the Roland FP501, which I love. I don't have a desire for something better. It has the PHA4 keyboard, which I love, even though many don't. Maybe you are one who criticized it. I don't remember. But it works for me, and will probably be a long time until I outgrow it, if ever.
To be fair, my friend is working hard on his technique. The physical instrument is the area he explores, along with virtual libraries to some extent, and sound equipment.
I've gone way overboard on sheet music, music books, and various learning platforms. Buried alive! Completely paralyzed by too many choices! Feeling guilty for everything I'm not doing, no matter what I do! And then, as we discussed, the Studio edition...
So I'm not in any position to criticize. This is his glorious quest.
I have the Roland FP501, which I love. I don't have a desire for something better. It has the PHA4 keyboard, which I love, even though many don't. Maybe you are one who criticized it. I don't remember. But it works for me, and will probably be a long time until I outgrow it, if ever.
No not me. I've advised against exclusively using or judging Pianoteq via synth action or semi weighted action that's pretty much all.
I may have relayed other people's concerns about a given action at some point - which would also be in the form of a question.
I like my bottom of the range Casio well enough - I could learn on it for years. That doesn't stop me looking.
Casio know what they're doing with the marketing. They picture a very small young child playing the entry level piano. This serves them in two ways.
1) Get them while they're young. Show the potential customer that this is an affordable model for their kids.
2) imply to the adults that this is suitable for children, and by extension something that adults maybe shouldn't stick with.
BarbaraRB wrote:I have the Roland FP501, which I love. I don't have a desire for something better. It has the PHA4 keyboard, which I love, even though many don't. Maybe you are one who criticized it. I don't remember. But it works for me, and will probably be a long time until I outgrow it, if ever.
No not me. I've advised against exclusively using or judging Pianoteq via synth action or semi weighted action that's pretty much all.
I may have relayed other people's concerns about a given action at some point - which would also be in the form of a question.
I like my bottom of the range Casio well enough - I could learn on it for years. That doesn't stop me looking.
Casio know what they're doing with the marketing. They picture a very small young child playing the entry level piano. This serves them in two ways.
1) Get them while they're young. Show the potential customer that this is an affordable model for their kids.
2) imply to the adults that this is suitable for children, and by extension something that adults maybe shouldn't stick with.
Casio has dramatically upped its game in recent years. Its GP 310 and 510 hybrids, made in collaboration with Bechstein, compete with Clavinovas, etc., at much lower prices. And they've gotten rave reviews.
They are a wonderful company. My sense is that if your keyboard does what you want it to, it's perfect for you.
Key Fumbler wrote:BarbaraRB wrote:I have the Roland FP501, which I love. I don't have a desire for something better. It has the PHA4 keyboard, which I love, even though many don't. Maybe you are one who criticized it. I don't remember. But it works for me, and will probably be a long time until I outgrow it, if ever.
No not me. I've advised against exclusively using or judging Pianoteq via synth action or semi weighted action that's pretty much all.
I may have relayed other people's concerns about a given action at some point - which would also be in the form of a question.
I like my bottom of the range Casio well enough - I could learn on it for years. That doesn't stop me looking.
Casio know what they're doing with the marketing. They picture a very small young child playing the entry level piano. This serves them in two ways.
1) Get them while they're young. Show the potential customer that this is an affordable model for their kids.
2) imply to the adults that this is suitable for children, and by extension something that adults maybe shouldn't stick with.Casio has dramatically upped its game in recent years. Its GP 310 and 510 hybrids, made in collaboration with Bechstein, compete with Clavinovas, etc., at much lower prices. And they've gotten rave reviews.
They are a wonderful company. My sense is that if your keyboard does what you want it to, it's perfect for you.
Well the recent replacement model is thinner, lighter and smaller, which as we know is usually not a good sign with hammer action keyboard actions:
https://youtu.be/9_2gCmnzL-4
I can't help wondering if they didn't reduce the size of the entry level model to improve it but actually to make it cheaper to manufacture, ship and to sell to better compete at the bottom of the range. Cynical I know.
BarbaraRB wrote:Key Fumbler wrote:No not me. I've advised against exclusively using or judging Pianoteq via synth action or semi weighted action that's pretty much all.
I may have relayed other people's concerns about a given action at some point - which would also be in the form of a question.
I like my bottom of the range Casio well enough - I could learn on it for years. That doesn't stop me looking.
Casio know what they're doing with the marketing. They picture a very small young child playing the entry level piano. This serves them in two ways.
1) Get them while they're young. Show the potential customer that this is an affordable model for their kids.
2) imply to the adults that this is suitable for children, and by extension something that adults maybe shouldn't stick with.Casio has dramatically upped its game in recent years. Its GP 310 and 510 hybrids, made in collaboration with Bechstein, compete with Clavinovas, etc., at much lower prices. And they've gotten rave reviews.
They are a wonderful company. My sense is that if your keyboard does what you want it to, it's perfect for you.
Well the recent replacement model is thinner, lighter and smaller, which as we know is usually not a good sign with hammer action keyboard actions:
https://youtu.be/9_2gCmnzL-4I can't help wondering if they didn't reduce the size of the entry level model to improve it but actually to make it cheaper to manufacture, ship and to sell to better compete at the bottom of the range. Cynical I know.
I can't speak to that, but both affordability and portability are really important to a large group of people. So I think they are trying to meet the market where it is, and be responsive to people who have different priorities and concerns. Casio has long been known for its entry level pianos, and sometimes even viewed as making "toys" rather than serious pianos. But they have really turned that perception on its head, due to the higher end pianos they are producing. No, they don't yet have the "gravitas" of Roland, Yamaha, or Kawai, but they are moving faster and faster in that direction. I don't know if they are as good as the ones by R-Y or K at the low end, just that their image is changing and they are improving their offerings. Of course, what I've written isn't news to you. You've been a customer for many years.
Key Fumbler wrote:BarbaraRB wrote:Casio has dramatically upped its game in recent years. Its GP 310 and 510 hybrids, made in collaboration with Bechstein, compete with Clavinovas, etc., at much lower prices. And they've gotten rave reviews.
They are a wonderful company. My sense is that if your keyboard does what you want it to, it's perfect for you.
Well the recent replacement model is thinner, lighter and smaller, which as we know is usually not a good sign with hammer action keyboard actions:
https://youtu.be/9_2gCmnzL-4I can't help wondering if they didn't reduce the size of the entry level model to improve it but actually to make it cheaper to manufacture, ship and to sell to better compete at the bottom of the range. Cynical I know.
I can't speak to that, but both affordability and portability are really important to a large group of people. So I think they are trying to meet the market where it is, and be responsive to people who have different priorities and concerns. Casio has long been known for its entry level pianos, and sometimes even viewed as making "toys" rather than serious pianos. But they have really turned that perception on its head, due to the higher end pianos they are producing. No, they don't yet have the "gravitas" of Roland, Yamaha, or Kawai, but they are moving faster and faster in that direction. I don't know if they are as good as the ones by R-Y or K at the low end, just that their image is changing and they are improving their offerings. Of course, what I've written isn't news to you. You've been a customer for many years.
Oh I have never regarded their graded hammer action digital pianos as toys - not even considered them playing catch up!
If anything I would have assumed if that has been any jostling with the other names, so perhaps they has have lost their crown at some point?
I remember all the cheapy kids multi sound pcm Casio keyboards. Also their toy like build 1980s digital synths - which still have a following btw.
I do think Casio are up there with the best already in that digital piano industry. I would like to see a quality MIDI keyboard, but this is highly unlikely to happen.
I bought a digital piano because I understand the economies of scale. I knew in advance that their graded hammer action would be at least equal to graded hammer action midi keyboards for less money.
Certainly they wouldn't want to risk their place at the vital entry point of the market. I suspect it is the most lucrative, even though margins will be the lowest.
Suffice to say I've seen this kind of thing before with various hardware industries. It has a feeling of deja vu.
It's not in their interest to give too much value for money at the entry level. Nonetheless they have to balance out the cheaper build quality with new properties - the supposedly improved key tops texture, the online application, battery operation for portability (useful for some maybe but a yuck to me - it's Casio toy like, not a gigging pro instrument grade), improved samples; not relevant to me, I never bought it as a digital piano for its own sounds. I bought it for Pianoteq.
I suspect they do listen to what their customers ask for. If they were asked for more portability and this chimed with their desire to reduce costs..
In order to get those larger key mechanisms you now have to pay more money.
I noticed that there are a number of complaints about the new S range keyboards, that it doesn't return as quickly as the old CDP entry models. It's not a giant leap to the next model though. Also plenty of CDP-130 (and in some countries)135, and on eBay old 120 and 100 that would be nice tools to start Pianoteq with - ignoring the internal sounds.
I would be looking at Casio again certainly when upgrading (eventually) - along with the other brands. My concern would be however that supposedly upgrading then finding it was merely a very small upgrade in terms of key action - look at the recent discussions of the Roland key action. There you can pay substantially more and still get the same key action.
I've learnt that so far it is almost certainly only going to be a small upgrade going to a triple sensor keyboard, unless it is combined with a longer key mechanism that can make mechanical use of that third sensor for fast trilling. It's disappointing to see the amount of complaints about the Kawai VPC1 for instance - because I don't have personal experience at that price point I don't know if all things are relative and I would be blown away with the response nonetheless, or if I would actually think oh dear, this is barely any better than my Casio, maybe even in some ways worse (it certainly is going by people's descriptions on here, if they are actually accurate!) . Given the price and the lack of other facilities that should contain their top key mechanism. It should be at least equal to the mechanism in the MP11se.
Upgrading a digital probably first and foremost improves the cosmetics, external build quality, internal sounds, greater polyphony for internal sounds, more samples, better internal loudspeakers, slightly more powerful amplification, key texture. Not the things that we would actually care about - that being getting our hands on the best key action!
That is unless you can go to a substantial upgrade where you do get a definitely demonstrably better keyboard, as part of the much more expensive recipe.
EDIT I have to say that later adding the piano's stand with its long chunky steel support bar to the CDP-130 seemed to improve structural integrity and somehow improved the playability. It was certainly better to have it at the correct playing height. - better than on the slightly higher desk. Better than having a higher chair.
Looking at something like that Roland A88 MK2 the external build quality is high (as seen in Woody's Piano Shack video). I imagine the rigidity might subtly improve the playability of the key action as compared to cheaper models with the same key action.
Therefore a sturdy stand would probably make the difference with those cheaper Roland digital pianos too.
BarbaraRB wrote:Key Fumbler wrote:Well the recent replacement model is thinner, lighter and smaller, which as we know is usually not a good sign with hammer action keyboard actions:
https://youtu.be/9_2gCmnzL-4I can't help wondering if they didn't reduce the size of the entry level model to improve it but actually to make it cheaper to manufacture, ship and to sell to better compete at the bottom of the range. Cynical I know.
I can't speak to that, but both affordability and portability are really important to a large group of people. So I think they are trying to meet the market where it is, and be responsive to people who have different priorities and concerns. Casio has long been known for its entry level pianos, and sometimes even viewed as making "toys" rather than serious pianos. But they have really turned that perception on its head, due to the higher end pianos they are producing. No, they don't yet have the "gravitas" of Roland, Yamaha, or Kawai, but they are moving faster and faster in that direction. I don't know if they are as good as the ones by R-Y or K at the low end, just that their image is changing and they are improving their offerings. Of course, what I've written isn't news to you. You've been a customer for many years.
Oh I have never regarded their graded hammer action digital pianos as toys - not even considered them playing catch up!
If anything I would have assumed if that has been any jostling with the other names, so perhaps they has have lost their crown at some point?
I remember all the cheapy kids multi sound pcm Casio keyboards. Also their toy like build 1980s digital synths - which still have a following btw.I do think Casio are up there with the best already in that digital piano industry. I would like to see a quality MIDI keyboard, but this is highly unlikely to happen.
I bought a digital piano because I understand the economies of scale. I knew in advance that their graded hammer action would be at least equal to graded hammer action midi keyboards for less money.Certainly they wouldn't want to risk their place at the vital entry point of the market. I suspect it is the most lucrative, even though margins will be the lowest.
Suffice to say I've seen this kind of thing before with various hardware industries. It has a feeling of deja vu.
It's not in their interest to give too much value for money at the entry level. Nonetheless they have to balance out the cheaper build quality with new properties - the supposedly improved key tops texture, the online application, battery operation for portability (useful for some maybe but a yuck to me - it's Casio toy like, not a gigging pro instrument grade), improved samples; not relevant to me, I never bought it as a digital piano for its own sounds. I bought it for Pianoteq.
I suspect they do listen to what their customers ask for. If they were asked for more portability and this chimed with their desire to reduce costs..In order to get those larger key mechanisms you now have to pay more money.
I noticed that there are a number of complaints about the new S range keyboards, that it doesn't return as quickly as the old CDP entry models. It's not a giant leap to the next model though. Also plenty of CDP-130 (and in some countries)135, and on eBay old 120 and 100 that would be nice tools to start Pianoteq with - ignoring the internal sounds.
I would be looking at Casio again certainly when upgrading (eventually) - along with the other brands. My concern would be however that supposedly upgrading then finding it was merely a very small upgrade in terms of key action - look at the recent discussions of the Roland key action. There you can pay substantially more and still get the same key action.
I've learnt that so far it is almost certainly only going to be a small upgrade going to a triple sensor keyboard, unless it is combined with a longer key mechanism that can make mechanical use of that third sensor for fast trilling. It's disappointing to see the amount of complaints about the Kawai VPC1 for instance - because I don't have personal experience at that price point I don't know if all things are relative and I would be blown away with the response nonetheless, or if I would actually think oh dear, this is barely any better than my Casio, maybe even in some ways worse (it certainly is going by people's descriptions on here, if they are actually accurate!) . Given the price and the lack of other facilities that should contain their top key mechanism. It should be at least equal to the mechanism in the MP11se.
Upgrading a digital probably first and foremost improves the cosmetics, external build quality, internal sounds, greater polyphony for internal sounds, more samples, better internal loudspeakers, slightly more powerful amplification, key texture. Not the things that we would actually care about - that being getting our hands on the best key action!
That is unless you can go to a substantial upgrade where you do get a definitely demonstrably better keyboard, as part of the much more expensive recipe.
EDIT I have to say that later adding the piano's stand with its long chunky steel support bar to the CDP-130 seemed to improve structural integrity and somehow improved the playability. It was certainly better to have it at the correct playing height. - better than on the slightly higher desk. Better than having a higher chair.
Looking at something like that Roland A88 MK2 the external build quality is high (as seen in Woody's Piano Shack video). I imagine the rigidity might subtly improve the playability of the key action as compared to cheaper models with the same key action.
Therefore a sturdy stand would probably make the difference with those cheaper Roland digital pianos too.
Very interesting post, Key Fumbler. No, I didn't think of the kind of keyboard you have as toylike, but Casio does make some that are like toys - for children. I think you referred to these elsewhere in your post. And they all have their place. In the United States, at least, Casio has not been viewed as having the same quality or "gravitas" as Roland, Yamaha, Kawai, etc. Now they are gaining increasing respect. This may be different in other countries - I can't speak to that. The internal sounds are really important for many people, but aren't relevant if you have Pianoteq. Same goes for polyphony. I bought the RP501 open box and got a very good price. It was like a brand-new piano, full five year warranty (at home service), even though it wasn't the latest model. I really wanted a console piano - not a slab keyboard. That was a top priority. I thought 128 polyphony would be enough for me, and now, with Pianoteq it doesn't matter at all. I knew I was sacrificing a better app and some degree of connectivity available in the newer model (which had just come out). But there is always a "new-new thing," and I don't chase after that. I've been so happy with my piano. I don't experience it as a compromise or limited in any way. If I were an advanced player, which I hope to be some day, I might have some frustration with the keyboard (for trills, etc.) but that isn't an issue at this point and I don't know if it ever will be. I love the Roland PHA-4 action (my letters may not be correct) despite the criticisms I sometimes read. And I can't think of anything, however fabulous, that doesn't get criticized. I can only go by my own experience, even though I always do a lot of research up front.
If I were an advanced player, which I hope to be some day, I might have some frustration with the keyboard (for trills, etc.) but that isn't an issue at this point and I don't know if it ever will be. I love the Roland PHA-4 action (my letters may not be correct) despite the criticisms I sometimes read. And I can't think of anything, however fabulous, that doesn't get criticized. I can only go by my own experience, even though I always do a lot of research up front.
Your Roland should be a nice keyboard too.
My budget Casio only has 48 key polyphony for the built-in sounds, short sounding samples too, but then if you give it to a concert pianist this happens:
https://youtu.be/4rNcal6ReV4
Shame he didn't follow that up with Pianoteq through some decent speakers playing the same piece.
BarbaraRB wrote:If I were an advanced player, which I hope to be some day, I might have some frustration with the keyboard (for trills, etc.) but that isn't an issue at this point and I don't know if it ever will be. I love the Roland PHA-4 action (my letters may not be correct) despite the criticisms I sometimes read. And I can't think of anything, however fabulous, that doesn't get criticized. I can only go by my own experience, even though I always do a lot of research up front.
Your Roland should be a nice keyboard too.
My budget Casio only has 48 key polyphony for the built-in sounds, short sounding samples too, but then if you give it to a concert pianist this happens:
https://youtu.be/4rNcal6ReV4Shame he didn't follow that up with Pianoteq through some decent speakers playing the same piece.
The CDP-130 has a wonderful action. I like the skeletal feel of it. It feels like there's some mechanics behind it. I borrowed a friends CDP-120 which, if I remember correctly, has the same action as the CDP-130. I loved how it felt with Pianoteq. I wish I had bought one!!!
Warmest regards,
Chris
BarbaraRB wrote:If I were an advanced player, which I hope to be some day, I might have some frustration with the keyboard (for trills, etc.) but that isn't an issue at this point and I don't know if it ever will be. I love the Roland PHA-4 action (my letters may not be correct) despite the criticisms I sometimes read. And I can't think of anything, however fabulous, that doesn't get criticized. I can only go by my own experience, even though I always do a lot of research up front.
Your Roland should be a nice keyboard too.
My budget Casio only has 48 key polyphony for the built-in sounds, short sounding samples too, but then if you give it to a concert pianist this happens:
https://youtu.be/4rNcal6ReV4Shame he didn't follow that up with Pianoteq through some decent speakers playing the same piece.
Amazing! I agree with you about adding Pianoteq and good speakers. On his own, I'm sure he would. Regarding my correspondent, he will never find what he is looking for. "The poor workman always blames his tools." He still doesn't believe me when I say my piano keyboard isn't clicking. He views that as my opinion, to be negated by his intensive research and lifetime as an engineer. He actually said I'm unwilling to face reality.
I'm ending that correspondence. Life is too short.
The CDP-130 has a wonderful action. I like the skeletal feel of it. It feels like there's some mechanics behind it. I borrowed a friends CDP-120 which, if I remember correctly, has the same action as the CDP-130. I loved how it felt with Pianoteq. I wish I had bought one!!!
Warmest regards,
Chris
Hi Chris, thanks for the vote of confidence in the CDP -130. It feels very good to me but I have limited experience with digital hammer action alternatives. Plenty of other keyboard types though. I think I will be sticking with it for quite a while.
Amazing! I agree with you about adding Pianoteq and good speakers. On his own, I'm sure he would. Regarding my correspondent, he will never find what he is looking for. "The poor workman always blames his tools." He still doesn't believe me when I say my piano keyboard isn't clicking. He views that as my opinion, to be negated by his intensive research and lifetime as an engineer. He actually said I'm unwilling to face reality.
I'm ending that correspondence. Life is too short.
I imagine concert pianists like the one in the video have only the absolute best top of the line digital hammer action pianos for occasionally slumming it away from top quality concert grands - maybe Casio would have gifted him with these anyway!
Then again I imagine concert pianists don't spend much of their spare time doing the same thing in the digital realm, software or hardware - too much of a busman's holiday.
I try to remember the poor workman and his tools when I'm tempted to look too closely at upgrades. Walk before you can run. Watch videos of serious pianists like this and be humbled. Heh heh, not exactly Casio's intention! - then again they don't make their keyboards primarily as midi controllers for Pianoteq.
I can't comment on your friend's opinion, not being privy to the whole conversation.
Suffice to say you are happy with the product, that's all that matters - he doesn't have to be on the same page.
sigasa wrote:The CDP-130 has a wonderful action. I like the skeletal feel of it. It feels like there's some mechanics behind it. I borrowed a friends CDP-120 which, if I remember correctly, has the same action as the CDP-130. I loved how it felt with Pianoteq. I wish I had bought one!!!
Warmest regards,
Chris
Hi Chris, thanks for the vote of confidence in the CDP -130. It feels very good to me but I have limited experience with digital hammer action alternatives. Plenty of other keyboard types though. I think I will be sticking with it for quite a while.
BarbaraRB wrote:Amazing! I agree with you about adding Pianoteq and good speakers. On his own, I'm sure he would. Regarding my correspondent, he will never find what he is looking for. "The poor workman always blames his tools." He still doesn't believe me when I say my piano keyboard isn't clicking. He views that as my opinion, to be negated by his intensive research and lifetime as an engineer. He actually said I'm unwilling to face reality.
I'm ending that correspondence. Life is too short.
I imagine concert pianists like the one in the video have only the absolute best top of the line digital hammer action pianos for occasionally slumming it away from top quality concert grands - maybe Casio would have gifted him with these anyway!
Then again I imagine concert pianists don't spend much of their spare time doing the same thing in the digital realm, software or hardware - too much of a busman's holiday.I try to remember the poor workman and his tools when I'm tempted to look too closely at upgrades. Walk before you can run. Watch videos of serious pianists like this and be humbled. Heh heh, not exactly Casio's intention! - then again they don't make their keyboards primarily as midi controllers for Pianoteq.
I can't comment on your friend's opinion, not being privy to the whole conversation.
Suffice to say you are happy with the product, that's all that matters - he doesn't have to be on the same page.
You are right. The correspondence isn't relevant to this Forum anyway. I shouldn't have posted about it.
A bit late to this but hopefully this will be helpful. I started playing piano 5 months ago when I bought AP piano, got it tuned to 432hz and then learnt how to play. Fast forward to now, and I realised that recording with it was a futile exercise. I have a good rode mic and some good shure mics but still, its a mess to mix. I found (with the help of KeyFumbler) some guidence on this site and my wife bought me a secondhand Casio Privia px110. It was cheap and good condition. It sits right beside my AP and plays well considering it's a digital piano. Plugged into the laptop and using any VST and pianoteq produces astounding results however only pianoteq really shines at 432hz. It's jaw dropping in headphones and monitors. I am prepping to do my first piano based recording after previously only using guitars/vocals and VST drums like SM and BFD. I must admit that I am a little bit hesitant as it all feels too good to be true but only time will tell. I think that, to summarise, don't stress too much as you will have a lot of fun if you get a good secondhand piano and pianoteq and the results will shine if you enjoy yourself.
I've been to Ant Petrof showroom this year and was looking forward to play on real action. I've been playing keyboards for so long
So I started with upright pianos first and I must say it was not so great experience. Keyboard was tough and the sound didn't impress me either
Then I worked my way out to Grands and the only one I would buy would cost me 125 000 Eur. It was amazing really, beautiful mechanics of keys and the sound... gorgeous.
I was so greatful then what sound is possible with digital technology these days.
Pianoteq set the bar really high...
I also owned several other piano libraries, but never looked back.
Pianoteq set the bar really high...
Isn't that incredible. Pianoteq may need a disclaimer to use AP first before trying hahah
jcitron wrote:I find that while Pianoteq is awesome, I find digital pianos cause fatigue due to the lack of a real cushion created by the hammers against the strings. After playing on a digital piano, my hands and fingers ache. If there was a way for a digital piano to truly have the action of a real piano, not one of those pseudo-hammer actions, I mean the full gamut of a real grand, then this might be a different story.
I asked this question mainly from a position of ignorance. I do not know how much throwing money at the problem makes it it all but disappear?
How much do keyboards vary in this regard?Do you have any experience with the highest of high-end digital pianos?
I can only go by reports, and my very limited experience of graded hammer action at the lower end of the market.
From the reports, reviews and various forums posts here and about the quality of actions seem to vary amongst manufacturers across the board. Often even between models from the same manufacturer.So I'm curious about your frame of reference.
I have the Roland LX-17 which has their high-end action in it. This is the same action as found in their other very high-end digital grands. The difference being that the LX-17 is an upright form. I have found this issue to be the same across the line compared to real pianos.
It's due to the very nature of the digital piano due to the lack of soft cushioning of the hammers against the strings along with the other springy parts in between that makes the difference. The digital piano has hard plastic, metal, and springs instead. These are arranged to emulate the piano action but it's not the same. The problem is that playing for long lengths of time causes fatigue in the hands and arms from the constant pounding.
I will say that the other issue I found with very inexpensive digital pianos besides the sound is that the action rattles and there is side play with the keys. My old Technics had that issue and occasionally I would catch my fingers between the black and white keys. I have also found cheaper digitals just plain feel awful. There's no way to describe it and even the ones with padding under the keys to quiet them down still feel awful and are still noisy anyway.
Now, this doesn't mean that there aren't issues with real pianos as well. If the instrument is poorly regulated, this can cause all kinds of inconsistent playing, pain, and stiffness. I played on some 1970s Steinway grands with Teflon bushings that made the action feel like I was playing on bricks. There was also a time when Steinway technicians did something to the geometry of the pianos causing them to be extremely heavy and uncomfortable to play and a lot of other makes, models and actions varying in touch, quality, and regulation. I once played on a cheap upright with keys that dropped so deep into the key bed, just like an old Wurlitzer spinet my grandparents had, that no one could ever play a glissando without ripping the tip of their fingers or thumb off. I've dealt with pedals rattling, other inconsistent action things such as sometimes there, sometimes not, and many more issues.
Now keep in mind that I am an advanced pianist. I have played and studied since I was around 7 or 8 and at one point, I became a music major very late in my life. I have played on all kinds of real pianos and digitals. While I prefer the real thing always, the digital is a great piano but not a real substitute for the real thing, although for many there's no choice due to their lack of space and place where they live.
As I said, I really like Pianoteq, it's great for recording and quiet practicing because there's no outside interference, but a real piano it's not.
I have the Roland LX-17 which has their high-end action in it. This is the same action as found in their other very high-end digital grands. The difference being that the LX-17 is an upright form. I have found this issue to be the same across the line compared to real pianos.
It's due to the very nature of the digital piano due to the lack of soft cushioning of the hammers against the strings along with the other springy parts in between that makes the difference. The digital piano has hard plastic, metal, and springs instead. These are arranged to emulate the piano action but it's not the same. The problem is that playing for long lengths of time causes fatigue in the hands and arms from the constant pounding.
I will say that the other issue I found with very inexpensive digital pianos besides the sound is that the action rattles and there is side play with the keys. My old Technics had that issue and occasionally I would catch my fingers between the black and white keys. I have also found cheaper digitals just plain feel awful. There's no way to describe it and even the ones with padding under the keys to quiet them down still feel awful and are still noisy anyway.
..
As I said, I really like Pianoteq, it's great for recording and quiet practicing because there's no outside interference, but a real piano it's not.
Thanks for the interesting response. Very much a perfectionists response, and a valid view point.
For many people a digital is the only real piano. The space, cost and sound output prohibits this choice. Therefore the question is really asking the differences between the worst and the best digital piano actions.
For better or for worse convenience wins the day again.
I think a larger amount of people would rather use and hear the best interpretations of a grand piano in virtual form over an average acoustic upright anyway.
It should be pointed out (for other uses) that the action in your Roland LX-17 is not itself based around the vertical axis of upright pianos but approximates the long horizontal arrangement of a grand piano, despite cosmetically having an upright cabinet.
jcitron wrote:I have the Roland LX-17 which has their high-end action in it. This is the same action as found in their other very high-end digital grands. The difference being that the LX-17 is an upright form. I have found this issue to be the same across the line compared to real pianos.
It's due to the very nature of the digital piano due to the lack of soft cushioning of the hammers against the strings along with the other springy parts in between that makes the difference. The digital piano has hard plastic, metal, and springs instead. These are arranged to emulate the piano action but it's not the same. The problem is that playing for long lengths of time causes fatigue in the hands and arms from the constant pounding.
I will say that the other issue I found with very inexpensive digital pianos besides the sound is that the action rattles and there is side play with the keys. My old Technics had that issue and occasionally I would catch my fingers between the black and white keys. I have also found cheaper digitals just plain feel awful. There's no way to describe it and even the ones with padding under the keys to quiet them down still feel awful and are still noisy anyway.
..
As I said, I really like Pianoteq, it's great for recording and quiet practicing because there's no outside interference, but a real piano it's not.
Thanks for the interesting response. Very much a perfectionists response, and a valid view point.
For many people a digital is the only real piano. The space, cost and sound output prohibits this choice. Therefore the question is really asking the differences between the worst and the best digital piano actions.
For better or for worse convenience wins the day again.I think a larger amount of people would rather use and hear the best interpretations of a grand piano in virtual form over an average acoustic upright anyway.
It should be pointed out (for other uses) that the action in your Roland LX-17 is not itself based around the vertical axis of upright pianos but approximates the long horizontal arrangement of a grand piano, despite cosmetically having an upright cabinet.
If I had a choice between an upright and a virtual piano, I would choose a virtual piano unless the upright is an old cabinet grand which is a lot different than those clunker consoles we have today.
I understand that for many people, a virtual piano is the only piano they can use due to living conditions. Recently, due to my elderly father living with me and sleeping more during the day, I'm playing my digital more and more. The good thing I can practice, if I'm left alone for more than 15 minutes, and it's better than not doing anything at all. One day I did play my Vogel 177 T and it felt odd to me and it took me quite some time to get used to the instrument all over again.
I realize that the action is that for a "grand" in my LX17 but then again in a digital instrument the shape on the outside doesn't reflect the instrument itself. I did look at the grand shaped instruments, but they're priced well out of my, budget and I don't have the room for two grands. ;-)
Perfectionist? I'm not so sure. I think it's more of where I came from since I've been playing for about 54 years and mostly on a real piano and I suppose it's more of what I am used to. If I never had a real piano, then I wouldn't know the difference between them.
Glad to hear that you still have the energy and the will to play away from dealing with your ailing father.
You clearly have a pair of very nice pianos there.