Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards It's time to stop comparing Acoustic with Digital

I've never heard any acoustic piano (in proper working condition) that failed to sound far far far far better than any digital piano (including the Novus and Avant Grand pianos).

Recordings of an acoustic piano are irrelevant. When I sit in front of an acoustic piano I hear the piano, not a recording.

The recording is what diminishes an acoustic piano, making it possible for a digital to approach.
But in live performance the difference is enormous, as Senahoi implied.

Or was he talking about the actions? I still don't know.

And I've never played an upright (and I've played 100+ over the years) that I thought even sounded acceptable in person. But I guess we will agree to disagree, since when it comes to sound it is preference to some degree. But I'd rather listen to a digital piano through a good VST through good speakers or headphones than an upright acoustic any day - hands down.

And of course, the actions are unquestionably superior in a NV10 vs. an upright. Which, I think you are overlooking - the quality of the playing is affected by the action quality when it comes to such a big difference (upright vs. grand). This affects the quality of the performance! You might enjoy the upright sound, but if the performer can't execute what they want on it, all bets are off. I'd rather listen to musical and nuanced performance on a digital hybrid than one that sounds "acoustic" but the performer can't execute on.

I can think of an important one: the sound. Not comparing recordings, but comparing playing the instrument live.

PS: Sorry, commenting to an earlier post and thought I was on the last page, but wasn't. It is clear I independently had the same opinion as MacMacMac.

If the OP’s title had stated its time to stop claiming the apparently-obvious re: the sound quality of APs, this might have been a 1 page thread 😄 .... but then again one must always consider the potential of the PW effect ..... no matter how one chooses to slice ‘N dice ifs, buts, candy, nuts and other piano attributes, despite it all the dialog might go on in relative perpetuity .... ♾

Regarding the action I agree with you, regarding the quality of sound a great upright will be far superior than any digital, and it's not about volume or bass. It's just that most upright pianos are muffled by the panels (up and down), they stay too close to the wall, probably in a small room, and they have rubbish strings. When the upright piano is in great conditions it sounds amazing.
To give you an example, listen to this clip, a Klavins Una Corda, recorded with two mics on the back, as light as a feather, naked, not much volume or bass, and yet it sounds amazing. Can you get this sound from a digital? No way. There is also the NI Una corda vst, which sounds really lifeless compared to the real piano.

The lack of front panels does WONDERS for the sound of an upright ... right?

defo it's a big part in the recipe. In an upright the sound always struggles to come out. And also look at how thin is the rim in the Klavins, the harp is also different, it's made of stainless steel, it's much smaller, and there is not wooden beams in the back, just a vertical stainless steel bar to reinforce it.

Interesting .... the Klavins in the video looks like an open, airy, rail/rack-mounted upright the likes of which ive never seen before.

Honestly, I do not think that sounds good. It has a thin, pop-ish sound to it that works well with the aesthetic of the piece, but I can clearly tell it is an upright. The treble sounds like a xylophone (though some of that is probably a product of over-editing with convolutional reverb that he applied after the fact), some keys are out of tune, and it just sounds like someone took an upright and dumped a bunch of reverb on it. I absolutely prefer how good VSTs sound over that recording, and to be honest it's not really close.

This is kind of the problem with uprights - you chose a piece that is designed to mask the shortcomings of upright sound (midrange/bass) and I can still easily tell. If I played something like a heavy or textural Rachmaninov recording on it, it would just sound muddled and bad.

Two years ago I recorded the 2nd movement of Brahms 2nd Concerto for a festival audition. Where I recorded it, we only had one grand so the accompanist had to play along on an upright. It is painfully obvious it is an upright to anyone who has any experience, and it just sounds bad despite being a Yamaha in perfect tune.

I am absolutely sure everyone in this thread would prefer the sound of my low rent upright live in a room to the sound of any of my VSTs through exceedingly nice speakers in the same room at any possible position. I’m equally sure that anyone participating in this thread would prefer the sound of a few of my VSTs recorded compared to the sound of me recording my piano through microphones and preamps that I own even if I had been given infinite time and patience to set them up to my liking.

I'm not thrilled by that Klavins. But any "real" upright (in proper condition) sounds good. I used to play my Kawai upright with the top panel removed. Heavenly.

You are the first person that tells me a vst sounds better than an acoustic upright in good conditions. We don't hear the Klavins Una Corda in classical repertoire , but at the same time we don't see pianists recording with something different from Steinway , marketing affects our stinky traditions.

If I could play Brahms Concerto #2, I'm sure owning an acoustic grand would be non-negotiable. When I was studying with a piano performance professor at a university, I primarily was limited to practice rooms with uprights. One room had an old grand, I think Ivers & Pond if memory serves. Eventually, I purchased a rebuilt M. Schulz 52" upright from 1912 and then mostly used that. The piano in my teacher's studio was a Steinway either A or B model, don't remember which.

Without access to an NV10 or acoustic grand, I was stuck in the dregs, limited to learning repertoire like:

Chopin:
Polonaise in F#m Op 44
Polonaise in Ab Op 53
Polonaise in A Op 40 #1
Scherzo in Bbm
Etudes 10/3 & 25/9

Brahms:
Intermezzo in A Op 118 #2
Capricio in Gm Op 116 #3

Scriabin: Etude in C#m Op 2 #1

I ultimately played all of these (and other pieces) to my teacher's satisfaction, despite almost all practice being on uprights.

Anyone want to hazard a guess which of the above required the most mindfulness about the fact that an upright was being played to avoid a mistake?

It's funny but I'm going to disagree with you slightly, not because I'm an absolutist like at least one person here is, but because I'm the opposite. I'm saying that we don't need to compare DPs to acoustic pianos all the time.

Three points: 1. Acoustic pianos differ a lot from each other. 2. The default acoustic piano type (used in comparisons) is always "grand piano" yet most acoustic pianists are practising or even performing on uprights. 3. Unless you are taking exams or performing in big classical concerts, the only thing that matters is whether you can express yourself adequately on your piano.

If you need a "typical" grand piano sound and feel to express yourself, well we should feel sorry for generations of pianists who never got to play a grand piano as we know them today, such as J S Bach and Mozart. Even Beethoven seldom had 88 keys. I'm just saying that we don't need to compare everything to some "ideal" concert grand piano which would actually sound horrible in a small room. Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved upon. And there are always valid alternatives. Maybe there will be new piano sounds which will become mainstream, even in classical music. So let's be a bit open minded and enjoy the piano, no matter whether it is made of wood, metal or plastic, and let's stop fretting over "realism" and focus more on abstract timbre, sonority and simple enjoyment while playing.

Is that so?

in my ignorance, I would have thought that:

1) The action of the NV10 is taken, more or less straight, from an entry-level Kawai grand action, like a GL10.
2) The action of the Shigeru Kawai SK2 is better, and more expensive to make, than the action of the GL10.

Unless I am mistaken, Computerpro3 has not been corrected by anyone, so I might be wrong on this. If the latter is the case, it would help to make the price of the NV10 more digestible.

Oh how COULD you?
Here, on this strange world of ours, we fondly think all sorts of stuff about our digitals, most of which are economical with the truth.
A shiny cabinet completes the mirage nicely. and since we all need a healthy dose of fantasy and unrealistic expectations, don't you go destroying anymore of our delusions!
We love 'em!

@peterws: Have you ever considered becoming a poet?

Perhaps you should devote your time to practicing more so one day you'll be good enough to tell the difference between what is and isn't true regarding these pianos, instead of incorrectly sniping at people who have more knowledge and experience than you. I own an acoustic grand, a NV10, and a CA57. I have no delusions. I have performed on Steinway Ds, Shigeru Kawais, Bosendorfer Imperials, etc.

The Millennium III action is indeed in the SK2. Not to mention the SK-EX, and the GX series as well.



https://www.kawaipianosdallas.com/product/sk-2/

Like not things, the devil is in the details. I believe the NV-10 action (including the keystick length) is taken out of a GL-30 or GX-2. But Kawai does advertise that the SK line uses the same Millennium III action as all their other grands. There are differences in the keys, hammers, and other parts not part of the actual core action, and the action itself is probably assembled and regulated to different standards. But the specific details are known only to Kawai.