Well, up to this bombshell, you were...

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but REAL pianos get inconsistent from note to note. Listen carefully from time to time. 'Wolf' notes, soundboard resonant frequencies, changes from different sections of the harp...

I don't know where anyone gets the impression that a piano is smooth from top to bottom. There are at least three distinct sections on the harp (and noticeable transitions from one to the other). Add in the fact that all arranger pianos use stretched samples (not every note is sampled) and I can't understand why anyone expects smoothness who plays a REAL piano.

All we can expect is that the performance be predictable, and responsive. I find this in Roland pianos. As do a very large percentage of pro piano players (look at how many RD series sampled pianos you see in the hands of real pianists.

Thing is, iof Yamaha sampled pianos in arrangers sounded anything like Yamaha's REAL pianos, I would be agreeing with everything that Ian says. But sadly, they DON'T. Listen to all the Tyros and PSR demos at P.Creek. That don't sound like ANY Yamaha piano I ever played... well except for that CP70 I used to play!

We've got Ivory at the studio (check the demos). My producer and I both prefer the G70 to it for many tracks, and it is FAR more responsive to play (virtually ZERO latency). Yes, my tastes are more towards Steinway's than Yamaha's in respect to real pianos. But I'll take a REAL Yamaha over any Yamaha arranger piano. But we HAVE a real Steinway at the studio. On many tracks, we STILL prefer the G70!

You can EQ warmth OUT of a warm real piano (it's what Yamaha must have done with their arranger piano samples!), but you can't EQ warmth INTO a brittle sample. If it's not there, no amount of EQ can bring something in a sample that ain't there in the first place.

The Yamaha Live Grand is consistent from top to bottom...that's what make it my "go to" piano.

I don't like surprises from note to note, one of the reasons I don't have an acoustic....besides the tuning and maintenance issues like regulation etc.

On a digital(or even an arranger), I'd at least like the notes to sound like they came from the same piano...I don't feel that Roland has quite achieved this yet, but they are getting closer.

If having "inconsistent notes" is more "real" to some one's ears, that's their personal perception.

It sure isn't mine.

Sit at Tyros2 or S900 and play the Live Grand...it is wonderfully balanced, consistent and bright and punchy.

I roll off a bit of the brightness for jazz tunes, but otherwise it works perfect for any genre.

Lots of warmth for my needs, yet the right harmonic content to sit well in a mix, or along with a style or SMF.

I always found Roland pianos a little tubby, but you can EQ that out of them fairly easy.

Warm? Not really, but they do have a distinctive tone that some people find pleasing, where others may find it lacks punch and definition, especially in the middle and upper ranges...the lower tones are very nice and broad with lots of clank..they just seem to lose it at the middle, where the inconsistency is most noticable as well.

I'm very impressed with the Yamaha CP-300...very well balanced piano sound in all ranges....terrific action to go with it....but, a little too "unportable" for me....I'm going to get another P85.

Ian

To me a certain degree or (as odd as it sounds) lack of "minute inconsistency" translates into a dull piano patch IMO. Yammie's pianos IMO are an excellent example of "cheating" in terms of the piano sounds. If you find EVERY note to be dead on consistent from step to step that tells you they cheated a bit.., and perhaps that consistency means each note is nothing more than the note you just previously played, but digitally "stretched" and enhanced.

I want the sound to be as natural as possible... Diki's right in that a real acoustic piano is inconsistent too. That's why you can easily tell the difference of a digital and real live acoustic grand. In fairness to Yamaha.., they're not the only ones cheating.. They're all doing it. Some however may be better cheaters

Diki..., on the subject of Steinway pianos I want to share a story with you. It was many moons ago that on a regular basis I played the most beautiful sounding piano in my LIFE and to date have NEVER found another acoustic piano that outperformed this one.

When I was in highschool our school piano was a Steinway. It was an older Steinway too, and if memory serves me correctly it was a donated piano (and in all honesty.., what public school can afford to put a Steinway on their stage). Again, this piano was an older one (can't remember the model number or year it was produced.., but I think it was just around the turn of the 20th century). Man was this thing perfectly AGED too. The sound from this piano was like the finest bottle of wine..., BUT a bottle so perfect where each individual grape was hand selected and went through a strick inspection before being juiced.

I can't even tell you how many times people who played on this piano and even piano tuners who were the one's lucky enough to do the job turned around and wrote letters to the schoolboard in an attempt to buy that piano. People would request special permission to use the schools audit. just to get access to that piano.

I have many fond memories playing on that Steinway. Many skipped classes, missed lunches, missed hallway smooches with girlfriends, all because of that piano. Hell I even made love to a language teacher on that piano my senior year!

Like I said.., to date I have never found another piano like that one. I often wonder if the school still has it and what condition it's in today.

Thankfully I don't consider myself an expert player. I am spared from the frustration of those with "super ears" agonizing over the intricacies of "wolf" notes.

Take a hop over to Pianoworld.com. You won;t find many at all who respects any player who even would hint any digital piano is remotely close to real for serious players. It's all relative how seriously people take themselves and their knowledge based on their "training". And sometimes humorous.

Actually I am thankful I have the ears of Avg Joe. He is the guy who writes the checks. A piano has to be way off not to be a piano,,,,,,,Then to him its just a CP 70 or Wurlitzer 200, Fender Rhodes, DX7......The point is you don't have to be a 50 year classically trained player to enjoy music made with any keyboard. Thats why there is Steinway and Yamaha ,Baldwin, and Pearl River, Dongbei......Everyone has an opinion regardless of their backgrounds and they are all relevant,whether a singer, songwriter or pianist. Success in music has no rules or sound. Even You should know that by now.


[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-08-2009).]

Acoustic are inconsistent, to be sure, but they still manage to have the same overall tone(that is if they have been voiced properly).

Yamaha manages consistency without sterility, in my opinion, and every note sounds like was sampled from the same instrument.

We all have a sound in our head that we call "the piano sound" and it surely will differ from one to the other.

That's why these types of discussions rarely solve anything, but they are always interesting, informative and even entertaining, if we don't take them TOO seriously.

The 'average Joe' can't tell a T3 from a Casio, either (or doesn't care that there is one). Doesn't stop YOU from caring about the difference.

That's all I'm saying. You have YOUR set of priorities, and will argue them with anyone. I have mine. And they are no less important to ME, and of no concern to the Average Joe.

As are yours, too.

To be honest, I think the Average Joe DOES care. He just can't articulate WHY... Otherwise EVERYBODY and everything would have an equal value. And we all know it doesn't.

The average Joe buys records you HATE! Still REALLY give a toss what he thinks?

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 01-08-2009).]

you are not "getting it."

The Avg Joe doesn't know or even care if its Steinway or Kawai...A Motif or a Roland. If he likes the music thts all that matters, Thats the point you consistantly fail to understand. I Understand that he doesn't vare about the hardware. Therefore I don't get all wrapped up in the minutea of differences and argue about spliting hair difference in a single keyboard sound. Jpe doesn't care. The big picture is what Joe hears. Either he likes it or he doesn't. Does't matter wht its played on.
He certainly doesn't care if its a Korg or a Yamaha. He doesn't even care if the performer isn't playing all or any of the parts. If he did many OMBs would be out of business.

And he doesn't care if it's a T3 or a G70...

But YOU care...

Why, if he doesn't?

No great music was ever made with any concern of whether Average Joe liked it or not. But an AWFUL lot of pure drivel WAS.

I guess I'm glad I DON'T 'get it'...

Really? I don't think the greatest of living artists created for Joe at all. They wrote and played long before Joe knew who they were and it wasn't until AFTER Joe accepted them did they have to keep the flame burning. Many could not. I believe a lot of great artists even left behind great works that were not studied and/or appreciated until long after their death.

Yes!!! I care about the T3 vs the G70 in the example you mention.......But only because the T3 offers me more "inspiration". More styles = more choices = more inspiration. If the G70 or PA2x had as many or more i would have one. Nothing to do with "joe".

I guess the difference here is I am about the craft and less about the profit. I write,play and record for me first. I enjoy the process regardless of the result. When the song is finished (or I'm just over it) I move on to the next one. Many people in the arts enjoy the process and are not focused on the acceptance of the result.

Now if art is ones sole source of income , then they have no choice but to follow trends,play the popular songs and succumb to "Joe and Joans's" needs...... Sing Margaritaville for the 1000th time...without being Jimmy Buffet. Push CD's at gigs for extra income.


The focus always has to be on the public acceptance. Mine really never has been. I made my bones doing 15 minutes a night of someone else's music as they did it as exactly as possible. The rest of the time it was all about me what I wanted to do without regard to the audience. I guess it's just a different perspective. I'm a studio rat. I really don't enjoy public performance as much...and would not enjoy being a living jukebox. Thats just not me. Thats the wife. She loves it.







[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-08-2009).]