Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum will you still buy acoustic piano?...

when can't tell the difference anymore between digital ones?

That doesn't happen simply because speaker technology cannot approximate the effect of a fully resonating body. What is realistic is that digital technology will be more pleasing than certain instruments, but to not be able to tell the difference is is a misunderstanding of how the music is produced.

Currently, the actions are getting good, though different, the sound through headphones can be extraordinary, the pedals are still only simplistic in their replication, and regular speakers are just plain different.

this is stereotype - you see classical speakers as we seen them since years, but new technology will be different - I have read about technology already where "speakers" were actually the whole body in this case could be the whole body of the instrument. Just like the real one is.

I doubt it will come even close in terms of realistic sound in context for a long long time. In music that requires subtlety of expression, a digital piano will not suffice. Maybe at some point in the far off future.

With that being said, right now, lots of people don't care about the difference, can't hear the difference, or want a digital piano/keyboard/synthesizer for other reasons such as price, size, headphones, use with computer software, multiple synthesized sounds etc etc. And that will continue and get stronger as digital pianos/synthesizer/keyboards get better, and as less people care about or are interested in what a real piano offers.

Reading about it and experiencing it are two different things.

99.99% of the music I play was written for and on the acoustic piano. My digital is a practice tool that I don't use unless I have to. For certain basic functions/uses it works well enough as a substitute.

Since I have yet to play a digital that is realistic enough to truly imitate a good grand piano, I can't answer your original question. Are you suggesting you've found one?

There are about a zillion acoustic vs digital threads on this forum if you use the search function.

Kawai has a digital that uses a voice coil or something like that and a wooden soundboard. Dunno how it sounds.

I'll play whatever sounds as good as a piano (acoustic). But the cheerleaders for digital instruments are boring -- always talking about digital instruments finally sounding and feeling just like the real thing, and never delivering.

As they say in sports: one should do one's talking on the scoreboard.

>this is stereotype - you see classical speakers as we seen them since years, but new technology will be different

They have been designing radical new designs since the 1970's. I think I heard all types (not all of them obviously) but none of them can match a real piano. And then we're not even considering the room acoustics that greatly deform the sound as well (in a different way than a real instrument would do).

Then there is the question of recording technology. We have many of them, ORTF, NOS, A/B, XY, Blümlein, you name it, and they all have some problems. I like Jecklin best bit it remains an approximation. Then there's the engineer who often thinks he can improve the mics by equalizing etc. We have the difficult art of mic placement. Then there is the compression artefacts of the popular mp3. Combining these all, it's a miracle that not all recordings are crap

I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The digital piano products on the market today are like chalk and cheese compared to acoustic pianos. No reason to believe that will advance to the "can't tell the difference" level in my lifetime (say the next 30-40 years). If it does I'll let you know what I think...

I own one of the best digital pianos at home and really like it for the purpose of sometimes gigging around.

Often I run into other keyboarders and talk about stuff like that.

Interestingly enough the best ones among them all own acoustic pianos and practice on them all the time - exclusively.
[Michael Kaeshammer listening in?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQL1CikygM

You can learn "Mary has a lamb" on just about anything, but when you see these whizards in action, you'd never guess how many hours they have logged in on their acoustic piano at home.

Sorry, no short cut to practicing on acoustic piano - as of yet.

For half-way serious musicians that is....

Norbert

Even if this was available for complex models, the process of creating the same resonating body negates the application of technology as a substitute.

Someone recently posted about their Yamaha Avantgrand being serviced (N2 or N3) and it took 7 hrs to disassemble and adjust. They were happy about the result, but this goes in the face of some of the stated advantages. The closer we make them to the real thing, the smaller the advantages become.

I think we can accept digitals for what they are and appreciate the technology improvements that make them faster, smaller, cheaper and more versatile. That is what technology is particularly good at accomplishing.

I’m with Sam on this… (as usual ). I like a digital piano, especially since they are always in tune.

However, an acoustic piano has a certain character or personality, or whatever you want to call it. Its personality and character ebbs and flows and changes slightly from day to day; and it can be moody at times . Even as some of the unisons start to drift a little, it can produce pleasant nuances that are somewhat unpredictable from one day to the next.

Rick

Who has ever been fooled in a blindfold test of an acoustic and a digital?

I need both in one instrument--no space for 2 pianos but a need to practice sometimes in silence through headphones. What I bought (C2SG Yammy) samples a $100,000 9-footer to play through my headphones, whereas the real piano is only a C series 5'8" Yamaha. If I always had the choice I'd pick the real piano everytime. (In this case, the action feels and indeed is identical.) Unfortunately for me, I don't have the choice, so I still need both.

The idea that the best digitals (e.g., AvantGrand) are now so good as to fool the ear through headphones, let alone speakers, is just not so--at least not yet, though with good headphones the distance is beginning to shrink IMO.

These threads always amusing.. To me, these are different musical instruments. I have both and I play both. All of my practice time is on an acoustic grand. But when I just want to play for enjoyment, I usually move over to a digital keyboard. There I can layer in pads or strings, split the keyboard and play chords on the left with a flute or sax on the right. The options are limited only by the creativity of the keyboardist. The acoustic piano starts to seem very one dimensional as a musical instrument. In the hands of a professional a grand piano is a wonder. For those with lesser skills, there is a lot to be said for a digital keyboard.

To the digital fan these are different though related instruments with the features found on digitals (as SoundThumb discussed in his thread) unquestionably not available on acoustics. To the acoustic fans, one is a toy and the other the most serious of all instruments.

The fact that the experts split both ways means it may not be a matter of right vs. wrong, or good vs. bad. Chick Corea continues to sometimes play digital piano. Can his genius be questioned? That said, however, most great players have focused on the acoustic. For example, after a time of experiment, Bill Evans abandoned the digital, returning to the acoustic exclusively. I've been told (but cannot confirm) that Keith Jarret also eventually decided to go 100% acoustic. McCoy never, to my knowledge, logged much time on a digital.

That said, in the end, the digital is more "3-dimensional" in the sense that it can sound like anything. The acoustic is arguably more "3-dimenional" in the sense that it has a soul. For me, that's the final argument that can't be proven, and yet . . . for many of us, a digital piano is devoid of any soul--a position that can easily be attacked because it can't be supported except from the ear and the heart.

I wonder whether analogous threads about violins ask about digital violins, or drums, or whatever. Are we heading for a world in which there are no books, or pianos, or drums, or flutes, or violins? Where statues are replaced by three-dimensional laser reproductions, and the wind with fans? Why don't we replace pianists entirely, and just rely on computers to produce the sounds we want to hear? After all, a digital piano can produce Mozart to perfection, with or without a human to push the notes.

If I sound like a Luddite, that's probably because I am. It's not that I object to digital pianos, or to computers for that matter. But I prefer a world with both digital and acoustic pianos. I hope I do not live to see a world devoid of real musical instruments. Someone will have to put me in a museum to keep my beloved piano company. . . .

this is stereotype - you see classical speakers as we seen them since years, but new technology will be different - I have read about technology already where "speakers" were actually the whole body in this case could be the whole body of the instrument. Just like the real one is. [/quote]

This is sheer rubbish, almost trolling. The speakers can be just as large but you still have to go through a digital to analog converter, meaning you still lose something. Direct to analog is always the best way to go. I can't imagine how much these speakers would cost -- probably more than a regular analog piano to begin with.

For those who think digital technology won't challenge acoustic, consider a company in a different industry, who thought the same thing.

Kodak - banked on continued film sales, which dried up. They were late to the digital camera parade and got eaten up by competitors. They laid off tens of thousands of employees and closed millions of feet of buildings. They just filed bankruptcy and they have one more chance (IMHO) to make the company work.

I know a 25 year Kodak employee. He saved his job by switching from film to digital years ago, only to "make" it though 1-2 layoffs per year, watching his comrades lose their jobs one by one. This month, he gets to find out, once again if his job is gone.

No one at Kodak could have predicted this 20 years ago. In the same light, we can't predict the future for digital, but.....if someone comes up with a realistic digital piano at the right price, be prepared for a big squeeze in acoustic. And it could happen almost overnight. Don't believe me? Find an Ex-Kodak employee and ask them.

Uhh, no, this is not correct. Speaking as an electrical engineer, I can tell you that DAC converters are far more accurate in tonal reproduction than any human ear, even somebody's golden ears, can distinguish. Some of the earlier responders are correct, the problem is primarily in the speakers, we cannot model the extremely complex air compression wave patterns that come from a large soundboard and enclosure of a piano with the moving cones of a speaker, soundboard sized or not. The other part of the problem is in recording the tones--trying to capture this complex air compression wave pattern with point recording sources (microphones) is another significant source of variation. Another part of the problem is that the whole sound reproduction chain can never exceed clipping ranges. There are noise issues in every electronic component. The more speakers and the more microphones you have, the closer you get to the real thing--but then there are plenty of second order problems electronically reproducing the sound wave pattern such as phasing and coupling and intermodulation distortion where the paper cone tries to produce both a low and a high tone and on and on.

But the one place we don't have a problem is the output digital to analog converters themselves.

Bob

I think the better analogy would be digital artwork compared with oil painting or charcoal drawing or sculpture.