Stu, whenever you do a "This vs That" comparison you always manage to give me an education so that I am able to form my own opinion of what are my likes/disslikes. This is invaluable in that it lets me asses the information you are providing, instead of having to listen to someone elses opinion of what they like or disslike. While I do like hearing someones opinion, in the end I want to have enough information to be able to make my own decision on what I prefer, and you always manage to accomplish that. So a huge "Thank You"!
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! I will be sure to pass on the "thank you" and kind words to Stu on your behalf! :) There is a real art to pedagogy in that regard. Equipping people with the information, understanding, and confidence to make an educated decisions themselves should always be the goal opposed to prescribing the "correct" answer or decision to them. I agree that Stu does an excellent job on this front!
That’s true but I could never afford both so I chose Roland and I absolutely LOVE everything about it including the modeling, the action, the wooden casing of each piano key, etc… Team Roland for Life! 🫵🤠🤚
I recently demo'd the Kawai CA49 and Roland HP 704, and the Kawai just blew me away. It was so inspiring I improvised a beautiful song on the spot, and I'm not even that good at improv! The Roland sounds okay but as others have mentioned in other posts, there's no wow factor there. Doesn't seem like modeling can currently compete with sampling. It is completely subjective though, as we all hear things differently. I can say this for Roland though.... the build quality of their pianos I found to be excellent, and I also found myself really liking the controls and interface. They have the balls to be unique, like Casio. It's super handy having a volume knob and metronome tempo knob right at your fingertips. If you live in a condo like me, you're adjusting volume constantly. I really hope Roland is able to develop a more authentic modeling sound soon, otherwise my next piano is a Kawai!
Because of your expertise and reviews Stu, I have ordered the Kawai ES920, due to arrive in late summer! You are one if not the best at distilling all the technical info and then playing beautifully through your knowledge and integration of musical styles.
Exactly my thought! In my opinion, the modelled engine sounded very thin and was something I would just avoid looking for at all. But it's good to revise opinions once in a while, because they did improve it a lot!
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! I definitely agree with that sentiment. Stu is an incredible educator and we are very fortunate to have him share his experience and insights about all things piano with us. :)
As many have written, we hear things differently. These two are among the 3 I am considering to get, To my ears, the Kawai sounds brighter, the Roland fuller and more pleasing. Need to play/listen to them in person.
I find with the Roland Supernatural piano’s they sound great but almost too polished, too good to be true. Whereas I have a Nord and am about to trade it for a Kawai, both use sampling and just feel better to play, it’s hard to say exactly why just a personal preference. Ultimately both are awesome
As a follow up to my last comment below, you sold me with this video on the Kawai ES 920. I’ve listened to all of your reviews and this is the one that really pushed me over the edge. I’m looking forward to getting one soon. Thanks Stu, what a beautiful Acoustic sound on the es 920. Your playing is awesome too!! Jim from Fort Lauderdale.
Hi Jim! Thank you so much for tuning in! I'm very happy to hear that you found the video helpful in your decision making process! The Kawai ES920 is a truly wonderful all-in portable digital piano and the SKEX samples are some of the warmest and most authentic that you will experience. You will thoroughly enjoy what it offers musically! :)
Excellent video; but what was not discussed here is the difference with the keyboard bed which is very important in making a selection. I went to a local music store and I loved the Roland 90X PHA-50 keys that has wood as part of the material, vs the all plastic Kawai keys. The Roland keys have a more solid feel and more like a real piano feel. This cannot be overlooked. The Kawai keys are a little too light and feels more like a keyboard vs a piano. The Roland feels more like a piano and I like it better. With that being said, I also prefer the sound of the Kawai but a little bit. The 90X has pure acoustic modeling which is better than the older supernatural sounds of the older Roland 90. So they moved up in quality a bit with the 90X. Both the Kawai and Roland are very good and you could be happy with either. But I am going for the Roland due to the key material, feel of the keys and the increased amount of different sounds it has vs the Kawai. The 3 band EQ is also very good to get a warmer or more modern pop sound. In addition, there is more watts on the amp of the Roland with its 4 speakers giving you a more satisfying sound.
Not just Roland, Kawai do all wooden keys on the mp11se, I think it's called the Grand feel action and their top keybed I believe. It sounds great and also feels great I'm told.
I like that Stu detected a characteristic of the acoustic piano that crosses notes; and that the Roland modeler is clean/consistent across the board. Not sure if the firmware of the FP90X could be updated, but it would be nice to update the modelling to include these characteristics of real, acoustic instruments without making the hardware obsolete.
Some companies do offer firmware updates, which may include further updates to refine the core piano sounds. With that said, some of these concerns could be addressed through the FP90X's Piano Designer and ability to change individual note characteristics even. :)
This was incredibly well done. Congratulations. As someone who's used samplers going back to the 80s (my first sampler was a Korg DSS-1 with 256k of memory), I enjoyed your summary of sampling evolution. It was spot on. This is so subjective, but the Roland still has a kind of sheen to it that gives away its modeling approach. But it's so subtle till I don't think I would notice it if I didn't already know it uses modeling.
I would have liked to see the assistant throw in two pieces from the same keyboard at the end to see if Stewart's mind would have forced him to 'hear' a difference that wasn't there (i.e he couldn't lock in to that low octave resonance characteristic to pick which one)
I bought pianoteq in 2009, and I never found that modelled instruments being to perfect annoying. What was a bit annoying though, was a flavour of something synthetic, and sometimes a sense of details missing. It did not stop me from using it. Modartt has over the years done a good job addressing those short-comings. But, when comparing a single pianoteq key to a high quality sample piano, the sample piano wins. Where pianoteq shines, and the reason for buying it or other modelling pianos, is in the interaction between the modelled parts, you can really play it like a real instrument because it has a flexibility and a expressive range of one. I think it means more to pianists than other people in the world. Sometimes people say that modelled is robotic, and rave about 1000 years old pine being used in some sampled piano. But sample doesn't mean you have a real piano, a real piano interacts, it resonates. Sampled piano are bits of recordings, and needs software engineers to come alive. You don't get a recording to resonate sympathetic. If modelled is robotic, then sampled is the Frankenstein version of a piano.
The samples instruments are giant Mellowtones. What seems logically impossible - mimicking a piano - is clearly not. These things just get better. Ive got a late 90s $1500 synth and its not close to Leyscape or Pianotec. Pretty amazing whT thet are doing.
@@lespetitszoiseaux3774 …or just pick the one you prefer. Whatever the technology choose the one that best fits your project. Whatever the underlying principle, in the end it is the way it is put together and how it sounds that matters most
Modelled pianos have some significant advantages. The polyphony can be better (unlimited for some Rolands) and the tone is different at every volume level like a real piano. A sampled piano may have three or even four tones per key, mapped to the 128 MIDI levels of volume, but a modelled piano will literally have 128 or more different tones per each key and be potentially more realistic and expressive. FInally, modelled pianos are much more customizable, with tuning, cabinet, soundboard details and other features highly variable. All that said, many sampled pianos sound excellent, and your choice could easily depend on the action or the way that the piano reacts to your playing style. You really have to try several pianos and choose one that suits you.
I think you fall for the gimmicks and marketing tricks that vendor use . If we are talking about digital pianos reproducing acoustic piano , you have to consider how many simultaneous notes a pianist can play at a given time. If I count correctly my fingers , that’s 10 . Right ? So if you add harmonics let’s say best case you can hear 48 notes ( if you hear them you ear is exceptional ! ) so anything above for piano is useless, for electronic sounds and pads that’s a different ball game , but this not the discussion here .
@@joaoterceira9671 You might think that this would be the case, but if the pedal is down and you play a few chords, than you'll have lots of strings resonating. And in other cases like arpeggios you can use lots of notes in a short time. In fact, in practice, It's not uncommon to hear note stealing, even on high-end sampled pianos. Layering with strings or pads makes this problem even worse.
@@geoffk777 errr don’t get me wrong but if you play chords with different harmonics and if you have studied the piano then I am sure you know that we must release the pedal and repress it when the next chord is played .in other words only a beginner or a non trained pianist is going to press the sustain down when different notes from another tonality are played .
@@joaoterceira9671 Your problem is that you think the polyphony reported for most sampled pianos should be plenty to spare. But you are being misled. For example, I have a Yamaha Montage. It has 128 note polyphony. But the main piano sound uses 4 layers, just for piano. So the actual polyphony is 32,-and string resonance can cut into that as well. By itself, I don't usually hear note stealing, but layered with a pad or strings, than I often do. By contrast, my Roland Fantom, with it's V-Piano engine never has polyphony issues So, believe it or not, It's a real problem.
@@geoffk777 that’s what I mean by the harmonics . Typically you they 2 voices for stereo channel and 2 / 4 voices for harmonics more often 2 than 4 , so if you multiply 10x 4 you get 40 , and the number of occurrences when you play 10 notes at the same is extremely rare , you will never need more than 96 unless you use sustain without releasing it . So in fact you agree with me . Anything above is used for pads or other complex sound banks. But you have to understand that the Yamaha montage is à synthetiser so more polyphony is needed and for a synth 128 is a bit on short size as chords structures with pads consume a lot. But here we are about piano sound . So it’s useless. A piano sound even though complex to reproduce is only 3 strings vibrating at the same time at the same frequency . ( true piano are bit more complex as a good tuner may choose to introduce a very slight change of frequency between the 3 chords) for specific sound .
I hear a difference between both, and I know that I like the Kawai sound more, but I didn't know why - unless you explained how you hear the difference near the end of the video. That's it, thank you!!! The uniformity over the whole musical range that the Roland offers creates an artificial sound experience in my brain. That's not how an analog instrument behaves. Before watching this my path went more in the Roland direction beacuse I am more the "geeky tech stuff guy" and I am fascinated about that modelling system with all its parameters, but the musical guy in me (playing trumpet, flute/recorder, guitar, drums - and learning piano) also needs that analog imperfection. I think Kawai is my way to go. Super interesting video! That's what makes this channel so unique. Subscribed. Greetings from Germany!
I hope you are working on musical repertoire not just pattern exercises. Your improv is pretty good, although somewhat limited to one key the last time I listened.
@@JoeLinux2000 Thank you very much for your kind reply my friend. I did acquire an in-person piano teacher in February and am attending lesson 10 next week. I am focused on learning to read kindergarten level sheet music (Treble & Bass Clef) since lesson 1 and likely continue for 6-9 more months. I am hoping if I’m ever able to play sheet music at an elementary level, I can then move on to being taught techniques, patterns, etc in order to do what I truly wish to do, improvisation. Thank you again for your post, much appreciated. 🙂
Nobody does it better!Stu has made it easier for us to understand the subtleties between each technology and product. Keep up the great work. Thanks. It has made it easier for me to pick my digital piano.
Thanks a million for the incredibly kind words! I know Stu appreciates them as well. We're glad you have been enjoying the videos! Thanks again and happy playing!
Thank you - that was a fascinating comparison and explanation of sampling and modelling. It seems that both approaches are quite mature, both very good and it's a matter of taste as to which the player/listener feels is best.
You're very welcome! I completely agree! Both of these approaches have their place in the market. They are simply different tools for different jobs as far as I am concerned. :)
A similar thing happens with Roland V Drums vs many competitors. I own a Roland 27 KV and on a daily practice basis it’s great, but once you plug in just the most basic GarageBand drum samples, it’s like OMG what a difference. Sound modeling still has a way to go and I wish they do improve. Great video!
There is still something about really high-quality samples that captures a tremendous amount of nuance of authenticity. Thanks so much for tuning in and for the kind words! We appreciate it. :)
I’m a proponent of modeling, want it to succeed, but I think sampling still sounds better. That initial bass hit was just ‘dryer’ less lifelike than my body anticipated. Really tough to explain. But present. In any case, great review. I learned a lot. You packed really good information into here.
kbrizy, I agree with you. Sampling is still ahead, but I believe that modelling will emerge as the more effective way to generate the best tones, given time. But I don't care about simply recreating acoustic piano tones. I want digital technology to improve on them. Why should we get stuck with a 19th/20th century conception of what a piano sounds like? Thanks to innovation, we're not stuck with 18th century fortepianos. Let' s always be innovative.
I am a proponent of the modelling approach and hope that digital pianos not only replicate but improve on acoustic pianos. The key is not to just copy but make something that sounds really really good to the ears.
It is exciting to see what the future holds with this technology! It actually expands the realm of sonic possibilities to musical sounds far outside the scope of a traditional acoustic piano, which could yield some interesting results.
I am not yet a proponent of modelled pianos. I think some modeling has it's place when combined with sampled biased pianos, such as when used for resonance and other extra sounds of a piano, but for the main sound of a piano, good sample based digital pianos with the right amount of velocity layers sounds more true and authentic. With modelled pianos, I find that they have a subtle thinness to them, most notably in the lower mid range when chording. When directly compared to a digital piano like in this video, I could easily hear that the Roland was thinner and less real sounding compared to the Kawai! I mean when you really think about it, the really great sample based digital pianos sound note for note exactly like an actual grand piano, because they use the highest quality specific mics to capture the sound of an actual grand piano... Resonance is very important and some modelling does this quite well. You can't notice the lack of realism because it is blended and layered with the real piano samples. I have found a great sample based resonance in the Epic Grand sample based piano (C7). The piano samples & eq'ing for the main piano sound is actually not super great with that piano, but the sampled resonance that they captured & use is great, as it blends just right for resonance. Hopefully someday they can improve modelling for pianos to where it's impossible to tell the difference with the human ear. They need to figure out why modelled pianos currently have that subtle thinness and don't quite have the authentic realism. They must be able to use spectrum analyzers and other equipment to figure out where the modelled pianos lose their realism and where the thinness is, then reshape the modelling, and keep re-tweaking it until there is no distinguishable difference. Until then, I'll keep playing my sample based VST pianos and my Yamaha Montage CFX pianos!!
I bought a fp-30x and love tweek the sound with the app and pianoteq, but on the evening tired from working day i get a much relaxing effect listening your video :-) is like seeing football from the couch instead of playing it. Cool executions Stu!
Congrats on your new FP-30X! I think you will appreciate it more when you get to play it fully rested and rejuvenated. Thanks for tuning in and supporting our channel! :)
i’d also be very interested in knowing and hearing the differences applied to EP’s, brass, strings, synths etc. Your presentations are well thought out and communicated very well too. Thank you.
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it. And thank you for the suggestion. A video series covering the non-piano sounds of these various digital pianos would be quite interesting indeed. :)
Thanks for another interesting video, which motivated me to power up the Roland Fantom 7, which has VPiano (predecessor to the FP-90X Pure Acoustic Piano Modeling) and also sampled instruments. I also had an acoustic (Ritmuller RS122) to compare against. The VPiano on the Fantom has a large number of settings which can be changed , most of which are subtle (e.g. string and damper resonance) and others, such as lid position (grand) and most interestingly, 'character', being more obvious. The latter has a huge effect and whilst some piano 'sounds' have the 'character' set the same for every note, some are different (for example, to change the bass compared to the rest). With 'character' set the same, I could notice some slight note to note differences, with slight ringing/metallic when played hard for the odd lower note, which is what you would expect. With VPiano you can also set the tuning for every single note. I also tried some Roland Supernatural sound samples too, which I understand has samples for every note over multiple amplitudes. I did find something a bit odd here. Playing the lowest G, on one particular piano sound, after a few seconds, had a clear transition whereby the fundamental disappeared leaving just the higher harmonic, but this was not the case for adjacent notes! Was this a true reflection of a real piano? Comparing the two, there was more consistency of tone with the VPiano, note to note (with 'character' for each note set the same), but with both there did seem to be a noticeable transition during the sustain period on a note played hard (though not like the low G mentioned early) which was more obvious on the VPiano. Doing a sense check with the acoustic and no, these transitions were not there. The very top treble sounded more believeable with the Supernatural, but neither had the same level of sustain as my acoustic. Another difference with the acoustic was that when playing lower notes on the acoustic and releasing, you could still hear the note for a short while afterwards (presumably soundboard) which was not the case on the synth for either Vpiano or supernatural. In conclusion, (and note the above was hardly a scientific test), the VPiano gives you many options to find the sound you want (which I believe the FP-90X also provides), but whether it is better than the samples is, as always, down to personal preference and it is important to try them out yourself. For me, I think I would go for the sampling approach, but actually prefer an acoustic!
Hi Mick! Thank you kind for your very insightful post! I certainly agree with your sentiment that the "perfect" tone or musical experience always comes down to the preferences and playing style of the player, but you definitely raise some very interesting points here. One interesting debate when it comes to digital piano sampling is whether or not "corrections", such as eliminating the anomalous response of the low G you mentioned, should be made. Digital recording and post-processing allows one to substantially manipulate the sound and eliminate little organic inconsistencies or nuances of the recorded sound source (a piano in this case). As we know, the notion of a "perfectly" tuned or intonated acoustic piano is somewhat of an impossibility (depending on your definition of the word "perfectly" of course). With that said, I think many instruments will attest to the notion that it is sometimes the inconsistencies, imperfections, and "happy mistakes" that lead to the most exciting moments. From that perspective, when these inconsistencies or "flaws" are retained in the samples, it greatly enhances the authenticity of the experience for some.
I agree with your comment at 28:40, when you said, "The Kawai SK-EX has a particularly resonant LOW MIDRANGE... and they didn't bother to try and eliminate that slight bulge... in fact, they may have embraced it". Kawai did bother to eliminate that bump in their SK-EX Rendering engine. I have played the CA79/99 (which has the SK-EX Rendering engine) side by side with the lesser SK-EX engines (specifically, I have played the models CA49, CN39, CN29, ES920, and KPD75), and the SK-EX Rendering is clean and flat, compared to the low-midrange exaggerated SK-EX sample in the Harmonic Imaging (HI), Progressive Harmonic Imaging (PHI), and Harmonic Imaging Extra Long (HI-XL) engines. Maybe this video does not make this situation apparent, but if you are playing the instruments side by side, you can tell right away. There is this saturation in the sound in the cheaper SK-EX engines. The 250-500 Hz zone makes sounds in general "muddy", "less defined". The ES920 doesn't have a built-in multi-band parametric equalizer that would allow the user to cut those frequencies to provide a cleaner tone. The built-in 3-band equalizer is not as refined as a more surgical equalizer.
I totally agree about this particularity about the low medium of the Kawai : this range of note is more real, vivid and i realise that the sample i prefer in the Nord ' Bank of grand pianos is ...the Silver wich is a Kawai. I listened and re listened the blind test and it is obvious, The kawai flavour is here becaus of this range of notes
Thanks for tuning in and sharing your thoughts! There is definitely a very distinct sound to the Kawai SK-EX samples in that register. And I certainly agree that it has a lot of authenticity and nuance. :)
Thanks for your analysis that shows pretty well the sound's differences btw those 2 models. I've been playing piano for like 20 years. I use to play on an upright piano Zeller during 10 years and after on an upright Kawai. Living in a flat, I decided to buy a digital piano. I tested various digital pianos but nothing looks like the Roland LX 17 : with the modeling sound you really get the impression the piano contains a soundboard it's incredible. Plus the touch technology which is hyper realistic. Definitly I'm a Roland addict.
You're very welcome! Thanks for taking the time to check out the video and write in! We appreciate it. :) The Roland LX line is phenomenal. The current LX708 model is one of my favourite digital pianos on the market right now both in terms of its aesthetics and the musical experience it provides. Thanks again and happy playing!
Comparing to Kawai digital piano’s, I noticed a similar thing with the Roland HP-704. It sounded like you the piano sound came from the instrument itself. The Kawai’s sounded more like a high-quality recording of a real grand, but there was not as much the illusion that the sound was coming from inside the instrument itself.
A mesmerising insightful exposition of a fascinating subject. Which, to me, and I suspect many others was a vague notion of the intricacies of the breathtaking developments in a technology which we tend to take for granted. It would have been interesting, if possible, to have heard some of the earlier attempts of say twenty or thirty years ago and actually hear the difference. I wonder where we will be twenty or thirty years on?
I am listening through just a pair of little desktop speakers, but, I will give the edge to the Roland here. Both are outstanding! I need to face the reality that I may end up in a retirement home, and so my beloved GL-40 will need to go. The idea of digital makes my teeth itch, but at the same time I acknowledge they've gotten very good. I am hardly a Horowitz or Aaberg, but, I AM picky. Stu, if the border ever settles down, I plan on visiting your shop.
Hi there! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks so much for tuning into our channel and for writing in! The Roland tone engines are definitely impressive (as well as flexible!). I am sorry to hear that you may have to part with your GL40. The GL40s are excellent pianos as I know you have discovered! Thankfully, there are some incredible digital pianos out there that, while not being the same as your GL40, should supply you with a satisfying and immersive playing experience. And that'd be great! If you're ever up here in Canada, please stop by! :)
@@MerriamPianos Oh, believe me! Your ship is on my list. I’ll send a few days’ warning so you can lay in a supply of steel belted earplugs for your staff.
To add what I think the process I go through when choosing what to play. 1) Do I like the sound? It doesn't matter where it comes from - sampled, modelled or a mix. 2) How does it feel to play. Is it responsive? Modelled usually feels better to me as a player. This is also related to the keyboard choice, and amplification (through in-built speakers, or separate speakers or even headphones).(Phil Best is very good on this, in explaining - as a very highly skilled musician - intention and response are everything to him) Finally 3) How authentic is it - does it feel and sound like a 'real' piano? For many, this is the least important aspect, as they don't have experience playing a real piano much. It's true for me - I can't remember the last time I got my hand on a well-tuned grand piano, let alone an upright. For most of us, by now, it's just a matter of taste. My limitations as a musician are hugely down to me, as a human, rather than any instrument I play.
Fantastic video Stu! I like the film-style camera work during the performances. I highly enjoy playing my Yamaha P-515 which is sample based and augmented with their Virtual Resonance Modeling. It is VERY satisfying to play.
P-515 has the very best e-piano keybed in my personal opinion, and pianoteq the best playing sound experience, match made in heaven, couldn't afford P515 but did pay for pianoteq :D
We'll see. The p515 needs to match the sampling of the CLP745 and its new action. It's now a portable version of the CLP635. However, Yamaha has revised its CFX flagship and just presented it on Memorial Day 2022. So, now they'll have to sample that and it likely will appear on either the Avant Grand series or the CLP800 series. I think Yamaha needs to step up the action. Hopefully the P515 successor will lose 10 pounds weight as well.
@@benjaminsmith2287 Playing on CLP745 I still prefer the NWX of P515 or CSP170, but I am not a pianist, just check where my fingers can play more accurately. Regarding weight, well, I don't foresee actions designed for non-portable pianos getting any lighter, so there must be a new design or lighter peripheral components, no speakers etc :D but looking forward to what's next, maybe I'll be able to afford the next-gen in 5-7 years
Hi Andy McCormick. Which extra effects are you getting with the virtual resonance modelling on your P-515? Its predecessor, the P-255, has adjustable string reasonance, adjustable damper pedal, reverb, and so on. Oh and there are 3 EQ sliders, which I love. But maybe there are new interesting effects equating more to modelling that you get on the P-515. Dunno.
Wow, Stu, you do a magnificent job with all of these videos that you produce. Especially this one on sampling versus modeling, I wish I could be close enough to be one of your students. I just love to learn from you. Do you do online courses? Keep up the great work you’re the best out there. Jim from Fort Lauderdale
Hi Jim! Merriam Music does offer online lessons, but, given Stu's schedule with managing our piano showrooms, RU-vid channel, and a million other things (he is a very busy guy!), unfortunately, he is not currently teaching at the Merriam School of Music at present.
I like these videos. Thanks. They give me a nice direction to go when heading for the piano store. Truth is, I must lay my own fingers on the keyboard to know it it’s right for me. The good news these days is that the industry is highly competitive, meaning I’m going to get my money’s worth whatever brand I choose. Try-before-you-buy is the way to go.
Thanks so much! We're glad you like the videos. I definitely agree with the sentiments. There are a lot of great brands/models on the market these days and, whenever possible, it is always ideal to test them out in person first. :)
I will certainly pass on the kind words to Stu! I think we may need to give Stu the nudge to do some more playing-based educational tutorials in the near future. ;)
It is a tribute to your other (oh so wonderfully many) videos that I am able to begin to grasp what sounds I am hearing here ! And had the temerity to go play both these fine instruments in a store, coincidentally . Next , a pianoteq set up and a Nord maybe .. Thankyou . Btw I guessed each correctly too but the last pair were more ambiguous . Brilliant helpful insightful as ever video from you - a huge thanks .
Great video. Differences in sampling and modeling are quite clear in the sound once you know what you are "looking" for. IMHO, multiple notes in combination affect more one another in the modeling piano, whereas in sampling piano they sound overdubbing each other, similar to what you might hear when playing a chord in one acoustic guitar, compared to the same chord played individually with multiple guitars instead. That effect bothers me a lot in sampling pianos, but up to this point I've never realized what it was. Thank you.
Good to see. But I think quite a few people could hear the difference between the Roland and the Kawai, as they are different instruments. It would be better, I think, to see if you can hear the difference between a real piano and a sample or a modelled instrument. If not, then it just a matter of taste.
Very informative. Thank you. That resonance you mentioned in the Kawai is quite obvious. I'm not sure I like it. Getting a complex, singing tone evenly across 88 keys is an remarkable achievement for any piano maker. I still remember a 5 foot grand in the lobby of a hotel in Nashville way back I played in the early 80s that, while it lacked power and volume, impressed because of this even response.
Awesome video! I've watched tons of videos to find a good piano sound module and find interesting that my perception changes all the time, it's all relative. I may like a certain timbre one day and find it dull and unnatural after comparing it to another. The comparison makes all the difference. It's kind of like when people were amazed at the synth pianos in the 90s and their ears get used to the better quality of today's standards. What sounded real back then now sounds metallic. But just by itself, a certain sound may be pleasing no matter how refined it is. Also, in mix productions with many other instruments involved, the attack phase of the sound becomes more important. That's probably why piano sounds of your typical music workstations such as Fantom or Motif/Montage tend to have brighter patches without a perfectly realistic decay which is mostly required in solo piano scenarios.
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks so much for tuning in and sharing these excellent insights! I totally agree with you regarding the relativity of perception. I often think about things like camera quality or video game graphics. What we once thought looked so life-like in say 1998, looks incredibly dated and unrealistic to us now that we've been exposed to far superior technology. To that point, it is quite exciting to consider where we will be 10 years from now. Those are also excellent points about pianos that are designed to be stage instruments. While some piano players complain about the overly bright piano tones of stage piano models, you are exactly right about the tones being designed for ensemble use. Thanks again and all the best!
The 920 sounds the best imo. Of course those speakers can't deliver that authentic piano 'wow' factor, but they play extremely well to their strength. I'm just a little concerned that the action is too.. 'forgiving', that it'll become really obvious when I'll play on an acoustic. That's why I'm probably getting the FP90x. It sounds a lot less acoustic, but it feels like the key action combined with the higher dynamic control would still make for a better 'acoustic' practice machine.
The ES920 and FP90X are both powerhouse instruments that deliver an amazing musical experience. The FP90X's PHA50 action is definitely heavier and more rigid feeling than the ES920's RHIII. If that type of feel is the preference, the FP90X would be the more appropriate choice. Both pianos sound incredible thanks to the advanced tone engines and powerful speaker systems. :)
Was just about to make a comment about that. Wonder if it was just a video editing error showing the instruments in the wrong order to us viewers or if he made a mistake there guessing which was which.?
I have a few of the big VST pianos, hundreds of gigabytes and 3 microphone positions. They're very different. Some of the pianos sampled seem a bit too real. A sampled Yamaha could be tuned better with couple notes that buzz unpleasantly. But a result is that all of these instruments sound very real. Other problems are that the far microphone level is pretty low and they didn't have a quiet enough studio, so if you're listening to that concert sound far mike, there are notes that capture trucks driving by or airplanes flying over. I wish they'd re-recorded those samples.
Times have changed, and digital pianos are even expected to surpass the sound quality of traditional pianos. Roland's new digital pianos are not based on pre-recorded samples (you can compare the playback of segmented recordings to a zombie), but on a set of algorithms to generate unique sounds (like robots of video games created in real time), instead of just simulating traditional acoustic pianos. For the piano player, interacting with the mechanics of a acoustic piano is essentially the same as interacting with the real-time modeling synthesizer of a digital piano.
It is quite exciting to see what the future holds for the digital piano industry! Modelling technology is very impressive and offers players a whole new spectrum of sounds and possibilities to experiment with. In addition to simulating real acoustic pianos, modelling engines have the capabilities to create entirely new "piano" sounds. :)
Good explanation. I think you should say the pitch of a sample is "shifted" rather than "bent." Your team is very good at recording these various pianos. They all sound excellent. I guess in some respects I have the best of both worlds, as I play a piano setup that combines a sampled piano voice, (Yamaha DGX/CGX) with a modeled piano voice (Painoteq Hamburg Classical Recording D). Presently I'm piping the Pianoteq into the Yamaha's internal amplification system, but in turn piping the output of the Yamaha into an additional relatively cheap Logitec computer speaker system. The Yamaha's internal speakers are used as well. I didn't care for the sound of the Roland 90x when I played it at the piano store. It was sort of there, but never satisfied my tonal tastes. I was always trying to find a really satisfying voice from the instrument. On the other hand, I did like the sound of Roland's top line digital upright, the LX-708. I personally don't care for the sound of the DGX's CGX when played alone. It's much more realistic when Pianoteq is added to it. In turn the Pianoteq voices have more body when a voice from the DGX is added to them. Essentially at the present time I have two hybrid piano voices I use regularly. One is what I call the "CGX" which is as mentioned a combination of the Pianoteq Hamburg and the Yamaha CGX. The other one which is actually thicker is the Hamburg combined with with "Warm Piano" from the DGX. I switch between the two depending on the piece. If I want a cleaner sound with complex classical music, I use the CGX, but if I'm playing something more sparce I like the richness and presence of the "Warm Piano." Personally I think almost any digital that doesn't suffer latency could be combined with Pianoteq Pro to get a really great sounding digital. I also think you are going to see digital pianos in the future that are marketed with two or more sound engines that can be blended into a single unified voice.
Can I trouble you to provide a detailed description of your setup? I am interested in trying out the Pianoteq VST but I'm not sure what kind of setup I need. One concern I've always had with VSTs is latency. I play a Yamaha Gran Touch vintage mid-90s. It has served me well all these years, obviously has no latency issues, but I have always wondered if I could improve its sound.
@@longhaulblue Pianteq resides on a computer. It has a small foot print and boots more or less instantly, I have to have at least an I5 processor. It won't work well with an under powered computer. Other than the computer. You need a USB printer cable that connects to the computer. I wouldn't be so certain about the latency of the instrument you have now. You can always play Pianoteq by itself, but to combine two voices you need a fast piano. The Casio PX-150 I was using before had noticable latency if I tried to combine the two, You always heard a double strike. With the DGX, you do not. Stu never tests the latency of any of the instruments he demonstrates which is regrettable. A slower computer might make a difference too. I'm using a Dell i5 that is several years old at this point in time. I only recommend buying the Pro version of Pianoteq as that is the only one that allows for the adjustment of every parameter on every individual note which at times can be important.
@@JoeLinux2000 I presume the USB cable connects the computer to the keyboard. My piano has no USB output; it predates USB. It only has a MIDI output. So a MIDI to USB adapter?
@@longhaulblue I guess. My original synths were all MIDI. I used the Roland MC-500 sequencer at the time. Honestly, it may be time to upgrade your piano. You could go to the Pianoteq forum and ask there on the best approach.
Hi Mike! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thank you kindly for the suggestion. I can certainly understand how that would be helpful in comparing between different tones. I will pass on the feedback to Stu and our production team. Thanks for tuning in and all the best! :)
Sampling = is something like an Audio Player / What do you play you will hear..... In short high quality but boring! Physical modeling In short = Expressive!! Sound reacts due to many variables, So you'll never get bored, even if the sound doesn't mimic the real instrument, you'll still have fun playing for hours. As a keyboard player who has spent more than 20 years experimenting with different keyboards and tried many VSTI's to get the best sounds with physical modeling technology, I can play Korg MOSS / Swam VSTi's / Pianoteq sounds for hours and hours and I won't get bored What's interesting about the physical modeling technologies is that If you have experience in programming and sound design, you can make an instrument that doesn't exist in our world.
That is a very good point! The potential for a brand new and unique "piano-like" sound is quite exciting. We are seeing these types of sounds more and more in the EDM and pop music genres in particular. With that said, for some, the preference will still be a sampling-based engine. It all comes down to the tastes and intended use of the player. :)
I think the attractive feature of modelling technology is as you rightly point out the fact to create a unique piano sound that becomes your signature. When it comes to expressiveness, I think there is general misunderstanding . Let me explain , if you hit single note or single chords with sample data , you are going to hear the entirety of the frequencies that were recorded during the sample process whereby in modelling the best you can do is approach it . One could say that because there is some loss in the microphones in the sampling recording session compared to the real sound , but then you can argue that similar loss is going to happen when you transform your modelled sound to analog via a sound card . So on the pure sound quality , I still think that the top Sample VST cannot be beaten today . When it comes to being expressive with your piano touch , top sample VST are in the 20 or more velocity layers zone which mean they have recorded 20 differents velocity levels ; it is obviously done via special robots system that hit the keys on the acoustic grand as it’s basically impossible for any human to generate intentionally 20 levels of velocity . Modelling of course wins on that front , from a mathematically standpoint , BUT at the end of the day , the pianist behind the keyboard is a human being and as such has capabilities we’ll blow the capacity of the robot that did hit the keys with 20 different speeds in sampling . When it comes to transitioning from one sound to another which really corresponds to the expressiveness of the pianist , one has to realise that both type of VST ( modelling and sampling) use modelling therefore present the same level of realism but it is still of the main gap between digital and human given the very complexity of a transition.
Hi Stu & Crew. Seriously? Stu, are you gonna listen to YOUR playing and GUESS? 😁😆🤣 I'll take it, it's fun 😉 (...) Lively - shows a collaborative vibe, variety of shots woven with stock materials (the shot of PCI-e port 6:07 on the old computer motherboard slowly becomes a meme here :-) Hi Lee (is that right?) Hand-held shots are the way to go, maybe a bit too excitable at first, then very stable (the rhythm of slow breathing feels proper in this scenario). May I suggest an experiment with the optic stabilization ON? Try to disturb it slightly and make it work a bit, it may result in more "natural" reception (people are accustomed to the effects of optical stabilization therefore it may feel more "natural"). When the movement is too direct it suits "Jason Bourne" ;-) Anyway, you guys need to collaborate like this more often, to catch the feel and flow. It's gonna be awesome.
At this point in time I would have to say that I like the Roland's sound better. The Kawai was also great, but the Roland just sounded more real to me. Great job! 👍
Thanks for this presentation. I scored 3/3 too! The Kawai is tinny and bright and the Roland is 'even' as you say, and mellower; and it evokes more of an emotional reaction. In the decay tests, you could hear the beating between the chord notes on the Roland, not so much on the Kawai. I think I prefer modeling and am looking at the GP607 whose action I really like.
Congrats! You have an excellent ear! The Roland tone engines are quite impressive to say the least. They have a wonderful evenness and transparency across all registers. Furthermore, some of the more advanced modelling engines give you unparalleled control over every parameter of the sound. That combined with excellent action offerings such as the PHA50, which is featured in the Roland GP607 and GP609, make their digital pianos quite the powerhouses. The GP607 is a wonderful digital piano on all fronts (and looks quite beautiful too). I know you would thoroughly enjoy the musical experience it provides. Thanks so much for tuning and sharing your insights! :)
I also scored 3/3 but for the opposite reason that you did. I could tell that the Roland was thinner and didn't have authentic realism of a real grand piano in the mid-low range, especially when playing chords, whereas the Kawai, had that realism without the thinness in the mid-lower range when chording, and there were a few instances where a mid-lower note was played with a bit more attack and I could easily tell it was an authentic real sounding grand with the bell like overtone without the thinness that takes away the realism.
Good video! I'm listening on a mediocre sound system so bear over with me, if I'm completely wrong: The Roland might have a softer attach, perhaps due to more calculations when the tone starts. It sounds like each tones volume is programmed to be slower building up, until the sound is fully calculated?
That was very interesting and very well done. I found that I moved a little further in the direction of the Roland than I had been. I'm still waiting to see what might be coming from NAMM, especially from Yamaha. The P515 is now 4 years old and in need of a refresh. Maybe we'll see an MP8 from Kawai? That would be sweet.
I aways love your reviews of new digital piano's. Personally, I have noticed my tendency to adapt to current tech (sampled piano sounds of my Roland.. My first digital piano was a used Roland FP4, when I upgraded to a Roland FP7F I was upset, however, I soon adapted to the new piano and still use (and love) to this day.
Thanks so much Brian! We're happy to hear that you enjoy our reviews! :) There is definitely a certain amount of time that it takes to adapt to a new instrument. Thanks again and happy playing!
Great Video. Wished you would have also included the difference in Polyphony Capacity in them, as with the Piano Modeling, there's no contest here. It is a big difference between the two technologies at this point in time.
Thanks for the kind words! The vast majority of modelling engines have limitless polyphony as far as I know. But, I do agree that it is an important consideration for some contexts of use. Thanks for the suggestion!
Stu, can you do a review of the Numa X piano with the new110 action. It does not sound as good as the Roland FP90 Xor the Kawai ES 920 but the pianos have a nice sound as do the electric pianos. I think they are Modeled and sampled.
why lx706 betterthan 708? Tony , Stu counterpart in England pointed out, the control panels can be hidden (706 not 708) when the key cover is halfway covered ,Tony said i hope Roland will never change the design, (it makes the piano traditional looking and not digital🎉🎉🎉
Interesting, I got them all correct as well, and my ear leaves a lot to be desired. The only thing that helped me tell them apart is that the Kawai is a bit warmer, perhaps rolled off, than the Roland. In contrast, the Roland sounded a bit more edgy or sharp than the Kawai. Loved them both, but the Kawai appeals to my ears better.
That is awesome! Well done! Every player will have a different preference, but there is no denying that the warmth of the Kawai sound is one that is quite beautiful. :)
Hi, Stu! Perhaps you can shed some light on my conundrum. I have a Kawai ES520 with beautiful sampled voice of Shigeru grand. Finally, I connected it to my (very decent) sound system and realized that the "hammer noise" (the wooden knocking sounds that I originally thought to be the mechanical noise of the keyboard itself) which is distinctly audible even through the built-in speakers and headphones, becomes deafening when coming out of the subwoofer. Kawai support suggested turning off the "fallback noise" (which didn't help), and then to filter out the noise using EQ (which I don't want to do because I love the punch and rumbling of the bass notes). Further research, indicated that this is a common problem with all sampled libraries (even the high-end ones like Vienna and Ivory Keys). However, the Pianoteq demo did allow me to turn down the hammer noise and even to eliminate it completely! All of this does make sense: sampled sounds are audio recordings of a real piano and it comes with all its attributes whether I like them or not, and modelled sound is one big "effect" that can be modified to anybody's liking. So now my choices are: to trade in my Kawai for a Roland (that's close to $2000 extra for an FP90X) or to simply buy the $300 version of Pianoteq in which case I would also keep the Shigeru sound for practice and subwoofer-less performance. What do you recommend?
Hi Alex! Brent from Merriam Music here! The Kawai ES520 is a wonderful digital piano with some of the warmest and most authentic sounding piano samples on the market right now as you've come to experience. In terms of the taming the hammer noise through your sound system, my recommendation would also be to do this via equalization. To ensure you do not remove any of the other tonal colour and nuance, you will want to find the resonant frequency of the hammer noise and notch that frequency band very narrowly. A simply 1-band EQ can be used to both find the resonant frequency and notch it out. If you make a very narrow spike and boost its gain, you can sweep through the frequency using the EQ to find the resonant frequency. You will know you've hit it when it gets obnoxiously loud and very boomy/resonant. From this point, you will want to reduce the gain/volume of that specific narrow frequency band to your tastes. Hopefully, this helps solve the issue for you as the SKEX samples are truly wonderful piano sounds! :)
Hi, Brent! Thanks for the detailed response. I guess what I was hinting at is that it could be an interesting topic for a video to compare the two biggest names in modelled piano sound technology...
I can deffo tell the modelling, as a ca99 owner and an upright owner I just can't get used to modeling yet on the 99 I have adjusted it to make it as bright as a yamaha but not as straining to the ear and it has took a while to get that setting. It's in the lower tones I can tell the difference didn't sound as genuine as a lower sampling tone. The higher the keyboard you go the the harder it is to distinguish. Excellent in depth talk about the decay and how large a file would be if it was really that long.
@@Researcher30473 all Kawai pianos are sampled. There are two brands who have full physical modelling and these are Roland and Viscount. Did you even bothered yourself to read ca99 technical description?
I just bought a Roland. IMO, it doesn't sound like a real piano. But... I love the way it sounds. It's like a Fender Rhodes doesn't sound like a piano, either, but that doesn't mean it sounds *bad.* Roland's modelling has its own sound and it's very enjoyable to play. The dynamics are fantastic.
With Roland, Pianoteq, and Piano V all using modeling, do they all use the same base algorithm, or do they have their own exclusive take on modeling? What do they do, i.e., record a sound and convert it into algorithms? Or completely ground up?
Each has their own. The model the sounds from the ground up, from modelling resonators, string behavior, the interplay between strings resonating, etc with math. But on top of that, they can also layered sampled piano sounds or parts of sampled piano sounds, and mix it approprialy. Usually they don't though, it's all modelled.
BEST REVIEW YET ON RU-vid!!! You are still playing too fast, slow way down, lets hear how notes of an arpeggio blend with full sustain. Let's hear some chords ring out and blend in different octaves across the keyboard octaves. (just about all Dpinao's sound the same when played fast). I play the finest piano's in the world on stage...imagine my disappointment when I come home to my little apartment and have to play today's digital piano's! I play 100% through high quality headphones, but the Dpiano's for the last 40 years have been sterile sound with decay rates of note sound from full to no sound is 2x to 5x too fast, making blending notes are not possible with the note dropping to near zero volume before I can slowly blend 4 note arpeggio's. One of the problems of note decay is how fast the initial strike falls in volume, then a long decay with only 25% volume fading to zero. The note decay should be more even from full strike volume (whatever velocity was played) to zero. Back in 2005 every reviewer agreed that the high end Kawai Dpiano was the best action and sound...it was NOT! I sold it a few years later and replaced it with just a cheap Yamaha P95 which was much better in sound. Here we are again in 2022 with everyone saying how great Kawais piano is again....I don't believe you this time. Again in your video the note decay is way to fast 2x faster than a Steinway Concert D 9 foot. This fast decay makes playing slow songs and slow passages very choppy with full sustain pedal to the floor wishing I had more. All Dpianos in this price range are now using some kind of sympathetic resonance in string and pedal, hopefully this will solve the sterile sound problem. The next problem is half pedaling in a smooth range instead of a tiny notch with on or off, we need degree's of sustain, just like a real piano. I would like to upgrade my now 9 year old Yamaha P95 with todays technology, but afraid it will be $1800 to $2400 waste of money. Software pianos running through a computer are extremely expensive once you have to upgrade computer/OS/App/interfaces/ and are not dependable or fun to troubleshoot when I am scheduled to practice. I need a hardware piano dependability of turn it on and go, I don't have time to troubleshoot computer problems. Then the final problem... Dpiano's are played through near field monitor speakers or studio headphones, never through built speakers if you are a true pianist. These speakers or headphones all sound different and we need an adjustment for tone (compensation for the manufacturers monitors used by the engineer). Roland provides a tone (voicing) on every key individually, this should accomplish our idea of what the piano should sound like. But should also have simple and complex EQ included as well as Binaural versions of recording for headphone play. EQ should be a carefully selected 3 band..AND...a complete stereo 31 band graphic EQ included with every piano. Tone of the piano MUST be user defined because of playback devices used, room environments and our individual need for sound such as classically voiced for solo performances or a brighter jazz version for a band, for example. At this time my first choice for upgrading is the Yamaha P515, but I am worried...I owned a Yamaha P120 in the late 90s and though it was a very good sounding piano...ONE...key out of 88 had a digital ring, and after hearing that ring for years, it drove me crazy and I sold it. NOW...I hear from from one YT reviewer who is a pro classical musician that there is again one key out of 88 on the P515 that has a digital ring. (This is a sample problem on all 515s, not a repair problem) My first digital piano was a Roland U220 sound module over 33 years ago, why are we still dealing with piano problems that can be easily solved with memory and CPU/ROM OS power in 2022??????? So many manufacturers of Dpiano's today, and they all sound the same....digital, sterile, or have manufacturing defects, difficult half pedals, note decay problems, voicing/tone control/evenness problems. Funny....when testing the performance of the piano I am given for a concert it will take me hours to overcome problem piano's and find work arounds and velocities to even out bad pianos. Then in performance I will have to be continually adjusting my playing style and velocities to compensate, as well as key action compensation. But when I am given a Baldwin, Steinway, Yamaha, Kawai, and more... well cared for and classically voiced and well tuned...it takes just a few minutes to adapt to this individual strange piano, and for the concert all I have to play is my emotion, these good pianos mean I don't have to think about the defects of the piano and can play as a free musician separated from the instrument. With Dpiano's, we should have all the control devices to tune and voice our Dpiano's. 3 band EQ can even out a small unevenness and 31 band graphic EQ can work to save more serious tone problems, but Roland seems to have nailed it with the ability to adjust every note, just as we would voice an acoustic. Preferences can then be employed where a musician may prefer the softer voicing across all octaves but would like a more brighter last octave...this is now possible. I don't trust Kawai anymore, so it will be a Vpiano or a P515, hoping for a miracle where I can truly play my Dpiano in my apartment with headphones and not cringe at the sound, or have to compensate with velocity for too bright or dark tone that can't be adjusted correctly. We have the technology, wish they would use it.
Weight. That’s a big deciding factor in shlubbing a keyboard to 4 or so gigs a week. Modeling sure is attractive. I’m happy with my Casios S3100 and S1100, but I still watch your reviews because they are great! Your ability on the keyboard makes me feel like a tiny loser. You are gifted. Keyboards in the 40 lb range are difficult for a solo performer at small gigs. I always look at weight in the specs of a keyboard. 🙂
Absolutely! The size and portability of gear for any touring/gigging musician will always be a large factor in the decision process. With that said, I definitely agree that it is hard to compete with the Casio PXS1100 and PXS3100 in terms of portability. Their lightweight, streamlined design makes them an excellent option for gigging. Thank you for checking out our review videos! I will pass along the kind words to Stu. I know he will appreciate them! :)
I've only just come across this video which I found extremely interesting and instructive, thank you. It does rather look as if modelling is the way to go. I have a very old Roland digital piano, and am looking to replace it with something more modern. Being in UK sadly I suppose there's no realistic possibility of buying an instrument from your company. I want my new piano to be portable, and I'm aware there are some quite cheap portables which are pretty good. I currently use Pianotec which literally transforms the quality of the sound from my old Roland. I wonder if a cheap portable can achieve the same result using Pianotec? It may be of interest to mention that despite my piano being old, the amplifier and speakers are pretty good, so after I connect up my piano to Pianotec I re-route the signal back through the Roland rather than using a separate amplification system.
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks for tuning in! We're happy to hear that you enjoyed the video and found it helpful. In terms of a replacement for your Roland, most current digital piano models will have the capacity to be used in conjunction with Pianoteq via MIDI connectivity. The Roland options, particularly those with the modelling engines, are excellent instruments and definitely worth exploring as you look for a replacement. It ultimately comes down to your budget as different price points will offer different features and quality of components (e.g. action, speakers, etc.).
The blind test was easy and I didn't need the Kawai's distinct lower resonance to tell the difference. Interestingly enough, it's the mid to lower-mid range where the Roland and other modeling based pianos lose their authentic/realism sound & are subtly thin when playing chords in particular. Whereas the Kawai and other great sample based pianos don't have that subtle thinness in the mid-lower range when chording. It would have been harder to tell if you didn't chord as much and just played notes on the Roland, but there were a few choice notes on the Kawai that I could tell sounded more like an authentic grand. The second comparison he did was the easiest of the 3 because the chording on the Roland gave it away often as that subtle thinness was there, where as the Kawai didn't have that thinness in the chording and had several choice notes that distinguish it as authentic sounding. As examples the Kawai shows some of it's authenticity in these notes, such as just when it gets to 27.16 & he plays the middle E note, and then the double hit B notes as it goes from 27.17 to 27.18, the mid D then C notes at 27.21, the lower-mid G at 27.22, and then the lower-mid F then up to C at 27.25 The Roland shows it's subtle thinness at 27.29 with the lower-mid C with mid chord A#, D#, G, then at 27.36 the A# & F in the lower section is a dead give away for that subtle thinness. Also at 27.38 the staccato C minor chording in the mid/mid-lower chording notes also gave it away. And the lower-mid to mid C minor chord with an A# that is played several times throughout (C, G, A#, D#) at 27.32 & 27.41 as examples. In contrast, this is one example of what authentic, real sounding chording sounds like when he plays the G# bass note with the E major chord on the Kawai at 28.20, which sounds like a true grand, whereas the Roland would sound subtly thin and not quite as authentic/real sounding. So as a quick comparison between the chording line up this video on two different tabs, one stopped at 27.37 (Roland) & the other stopped at 28.20 (Kawai), as you can play the Roland chording, then quickly switch to the 2nd tab and play the Kawai chording. You should be able to hear the subtle thinness & less authentic sounding chords in the Roland, and then the contrast with the realness sound in the Kawai chord...
Thanks for tuning in and sharing your insights and analysis! At the end of the day, tonal preference is very personal and subjective. With that said, the most important thing is to find a piano tone that you connect with personally. Thanks again and happy playing!
Stu, you're absoloutly amazing...I feel more natural resonance from new roland i mean x series, the other ones so shiny and how can i say...mmm, they looks like more sentetic, more digital for me...especially, x series bass tones are perfect, balanced and natural. but you are the boss ı'm just user :) I'm grateful for your opinions. and thank you merriam of course. cheers !
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks a million for tuning in and sharing your thoughts! We appreciate it. I'll be happy to pass along your kind words to Stu. The FPX series from Roland offers an amazing combination of touch and tone. They are quite rewarding to play! Thanks again and happy playing! :)
How many sample layers are there in the SK-EX sampling on the ES920? Also was it deliberate to use ‘Modelling’ (non-US spelling) throughout the video itself, and ‘Modeling’ (US spelling) in the title and hashtag?
I don't know if that is always true. Some digital pianos have impressive sounding speaker systems. With that said, to ensure optimal transparency of the piano sound, we take direct line out feeds to capture the audio from the pianos we are showcasing in our videos.
I have a Yamaha professional level Clavinova from 1994, and to this day I haven't heard a digital piano that sounds better overall. It's rich and has unbelievable presence that most of today's stage pianos lack. I still get comments from people about how great it sounds when I'm performing (yes, I still use it). That said, sampling technology back then was still in its infancy and a lot of dynamic and resonant characteristics on that keyboard are simply lacking, not to mention a paltry 32-note polyphony.
It is awesome that you have found a sound and piano that you truly connect with. That is always the most important thing! :) With that said, other aspects of the technology have certainly improved (such as max polyphony) in a meaningful way. Thanks so much for tuning in and happy playing! :)
@@MerriamPianos Thanks :) Although I still use that Clavinova, I'm actually looking real hard at the CP88 (Yamaha). The biggest con for my Clavinova is that it weighs 77lbs(!!!)
This and other of your clips are extremely interesting, but it would be helpful if in addition to improvisation you could play excerpts from the “classical” piano repertoire, including some from the Baroque period (e.g. J.S. Bach) but also and in particular from the Classical (Mozart, Beethoven) and Romantic periods onward (Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Rachmaninov). Somewhat more modern composers (Scriabin, Hindemith, Shostakovich, etc.) would also reveal more clearly the qualities of the instruments and technologies you are discussing. Today’s piano was essentially born during the 19th century - particularly the late 19th century - and thus many of its unique features matured in this era and were exploited fully by the artists who lived and composed for it at that time.
