Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards YAMAHA CLP-785 - REVIEW & SAMPLE RECORDINGS

This is gonna be very long, but I like long detailed reviews when I’m interested in buying something that is a substantial investment. If you’re interested in this particular piano, maybe you’ll appreciate it.

I bought my Yamaha CLP-785 in September 2021. My budget was strictly at $7,000, so although I wanted a hybrid (Avant Grand or Novus), I was limited to the flagship digital pianos with emulative actions. I tried the Casio GP-510, the Yamaha CLP-785, and the Kawaii CA-79/99. I loved the look, quasi(faux)-“hybrid” action, & visible faux hammers of the GP-510, but found it’s key bed to be too shallow for my liking, the action a bit too soft, & speaker sound unimpressive. The Kawai’s key bed “mushiness” was a distraction & the samples didn’t really capture me. Overall, the Yamaha’s action was similar enough to the larger acoustic grand pianos I play on & I preferred the distinctiveness of the samples & powerful sound (speakers). I acknowledge potential bias - I previously owned a P-125 and P-515 before upgrading.

After five months, here are my thoughts, pros, & cons, as well as recordings of the main samples & historic pianos. Please keep in mind, I’m a classical pianist, so some of my pros/cons may not matter/apply for non-classical players. Also, some of what I’m saying has already been said or is common knowledge, but bears repeating in a review.



PRO: It’s very large, substantial, & authentic-looking. Looks like a real acoustic upright & doesn’t have that miniature/chopped-off-top look most digitals have. The “soft-close” folding cover adds authenticity, since most acoustics don’t have the sliding lid often used on digitals. It’s a great statement piece in a room also, but make sure you have space, as it’s big!
CON: The polished wood version is better aesthetically than the satin wood version. Whether that’s worth the few extra hundred dollars is up to you.


PRO: It’s fairly easy to assemble. It’s in two main parts. The top section (keyboard, touch panel, action, speakers) is a self contained, already assembled unit. The bottom parts (large speaker unit, peddle unit, legs/sides) have to be assembled. I was able to assemble it alone in an hour.
CON(?): At 84 kilograms/185 pounds, it is NOT a light instrument. While it’s possible to assemble on your own, best practice is to have a second person, especially if you know 84 kilograms/185 pounds will present a challenge.


PRO: Very long, thus lots of freedom to position instrument. In two parts: one cord from the piano to the power brick and another from brick to outlet.
CON: None really. If you don’t like that type of cord, then that’s a con.


PROs:

• Coming from the Yamaha P515, which had NWX action, to this GrandTouch, I instantly felt a marked improvement & much more authentic playability. I almost felt like I was playing a real piano at first. Issues I had with playing certain pieces on the P515 or other digitals I sampled, disappeared. The use of weights, counterweights, & individually linear graded keys really bring the sense of authentic action.
• As many have reported, the action is “heavier” than most, but I don’t find that to be a bad thing. It’s like a practice room piano at a school meets the stage piano at Carnegie Hall. Heavy, but still fluid. It makes switching between digital & acoustic less jarring, develops your technique, & gives more authenticity. I find it comparable to two grands I play on regularly (an older but well-maintained Steinway & a fairly new Fazioli). If you are accustomed to instruments with softer/worn-in action or digital pianos/MIDI controllers with non-weighted action, then this will definitely be noticeably heavy, perhaps even prohibitively so, until you develop the finger strength. Yet, that will only be to your benefit technically.
• You can change the touch sensitivity to your liking: Soft 2/Soft 1/Medium/Hard 1/Hard 2. Soft 2 or Soft 1 provide a great entry point to acclimate to the action, but Hard 1 ultimately provides a better dynamic range.

CONS:

• The action is fairly loud, as if often the case with digital pianos. If you practice with headphones or have the volume at mid level, you’ll be fine. However, if you don’t have headphones and play with volume low, it’s noticeable & perhaps even bothersome.
• Like all emulative actions, it’s not perfect. After the honeymoon period, you’ll notice it’s weaknesses. Since there’s no real damper system, the “heaviness” remains even while using sustain & through the downward key press. That “just-grazing-the-keys” leggierro-playing is near impossible (also due to limited velocity layers) and prestissimo cadenza playing can be more difficult. Due to the heavy action, you will need to acclimate, especially with fast complex passages, trills, repeated notes, & double notes.
• It’s well-built, and if you’re a light to moderate player, it should last years before requiring maintenance. However, if you’re a regular player/hard player, it’ll need maintenance in a year or two. I’m 6’5, 200 pounds, with a preference for Liszt, Rachmaninoff, and Scriabin, & I’ve already noticed some keys getting louder & some contact sounds of the physical parts that are a tell-tale of future required maintenance. This seems obvious, but I didn’t notice this issue on my P515 which I had for over a year also practiced on regularly; BUT it was made of hard plastic & metal, where this has wood, cabinet construction, & more complex action.

PROS: They’re beautiful. Both the Yamaha CFX & Bosendorfer are binaural, & the sense of spacing, positioning, clarity, & stereo is noticeably good. Sometimes, when I first turn it on & use headphones, I have to take the headphones off just to confirm the sound isn’t coming from the speakers. The sense of surround & stereophonic positioning is so good.

• The Yamaha CFX sample is stunning. Very rich and substantial in the middle ranges, sparkly & shimmering in the upper ranges, deep & resonant in the bass. Accurate, responsive to dynamics, and the bass gives a good Horowitz-ian metallic ring in your fortissimos.
• The Bosendorfer sample is opaque & colorful, the bass even more realistic than the CFX, and featuring defining elements of the Bosendorfer sound. It’s a new binaural sample (as previously only the CFX was binaural) and it appears to have more velocity layers: thus it offers more sensitivity to touch/dynamics than the CFX. It also has more clarity & a wider soundstage than the CFX, although the CFX is better for overall use for reasons I’ll mention in the cons.
• With their Piano Room function, physical modeling creates an even greater sense of authenticity. Body resonance & string resonance add a bit of character to the tone, but not much. The damper resonance & duplex/aliquot string resonance are the most effective. The damper resonance option increases the sustain level, raises the volume of the sustain pedal sound effect (you get the actual sound of the mechanism raising and the freeing of the strings), and the colorations of the notes the sustain pedal can cause. The duplex string/aliquot string resonance gives that wonderful blended ring you expect from the higher notes. Sympathetic resonance is EXCEPTIONAL, noticeable with or without pedal. Half pedaling is supported, & you can adjust the half pedal point & the intensity of soft pedal. You can also EQ the samples to your liking, adjusting bass, mid-range, & highs.
• Four “historical pianoforte” samples emulate the pianos Mozart, Scarlatti, Beethoven, & Chopin would have used. I imagine some level of scholarly research went into them & they may be of interest to those interested in a more historically accurate sound.
• Dozens of other instruments onboard and over a hundred XG samples accessible from the Smart Pianist app.

CONS:

• While these are among the BEST SAMPLES YOU’LL FIND ON ANY DIGITAL PIANO (Kawai, Casio, Roland, included), they’re *STILL* not better than what you would get with a VST/sampling app, or even Colossus Piano on iOS. This is not a Yamaha thing; it’s an issue on all the major digitals, & it shouldn’t be, especially for instruments over $5000.
• While the Bosendorfer has a bigger soundstage & more responsiveness, & while everything under C3 is pretty authentic…when playing beyond C3 in certain dynamic ranges, things can get oddly muted & only highlight certain frequencies/tones of the note. Around F4, things can get weirdly twangy or synthy-sparkly, & the muting continues through C6-C8, lacking the crystalline aliquot Bosendorfer sound. Worse, from C4 up, the sample seems to max out at forte: ff/fff playing doesn’t register well. It’s not that they couldn’t properly reproduce the Bosendorfer sound, because their CFX sample is fairly accurate. This was an intentional choice: they even pitch the Bosendorfer as the option for softer music. Odd, because while Bosendorfer is known for gorgeous resonance, hue, color, & richness, it’s also produces monstrous fortissimo & fortississimo. It seems they used more velocity layers for the ppp-p & less for anything above f. Was this to make the Bosendorfer super distinct…or guarantee their flagship CFX didn’t get surpassed? Either way, the CFX is the better all-around choice.
• The fortepianos are lower quality, & pretty “meh” unless you care about a historically accurate sound; but, just as piano brands have different sounds nowadays, they were even more wildly divergent then, so this is, at best, a sampling of one sound from that era. They also lack dynamic range, & while older pianofortes weren’t as dynamic as modern instruments, certainly those used during Beethoven & Chopin’s time should support pp through ff.

PRO: Easy to use, well-done, & elegant: a small screen with pressure sensitive backlit buttons under it. Main options have their own buttons: menu, CFX/Bosendorfer/voice/piano room/record/play/pause/metronome. The entire panel goes off after a few seconds, so it’s not distracting while you play and makes it look even more authentic.
CON: Other brands have real touch screens; whether that’s preferable is personal choice. It can also be a bit complicated to navigate into some of the deeper & specific options, since you only have arrows, a menu button, and an exit button to do it.


PRO: Very well done. You notice the soundstage, clarity, & stereo. Speakers are powerful enough to fill a home or an auditorium with sound. The system is also powerful enough to drive fairly good volume to high power headphones. I had the 300 ohm Sennheiser 650s initially. You can also adjust the mixer in Smart Piano to raise the volume to max to get even louder (by default, internal volume appears to be set to 80%, independent of the volume slider)
CON: You’re definitely going to need upper tier open-back headphones to get the best, but that’s for anything. And if you’re in a loud environment, and you choose open back headphones, you’re gonna need a headphone amp. I got the Fosi N2 on Amazon for about $60 and thought it did very well in terms of maintaining sound quality, as opposed to the amps that cost hundreds or thousands. Ultimately though, I settled on the Sennheiser 660s instead, which were lower ohm & gave a more round sound.

OTHER: It’s got Bluetooth MIDI which comes in handy, as well as Bluetooth audio. You can connect to MIDI via bluetooth (while still using bluetooth for audio) or with a cord. You can use it as a stereo system to play music as well, and it’s pretty suitable at that. You can use a flash drive (but it can’t be USB 3.0 or above). You can also connect directly to your laptop/tablet to record and to use as a midi controller for VST/piano software/apps. You can record in midi or audio (which maintains the binaural sound & Piano Room features), and you can get binaural/physical modeling through USB host with a cord also instead of just headphone jack. Has two large headphone jacks, aux in & out, & a hook to handle your headphones.

FINAL THOUGHTS
It’s a beautiful, worthy, powerful, extremely functional, upper-tier digital piano. It’s obviously not better than an acoustic piano or even a hybrid digital like the Avant Grand & Novus, but if you have the budget for those, get those. However, as a digital emulator of the piano experience, it’s superb.

Do the lower-model CLP-700 series compete?
Maybe? Obviously, the CLP 725 & 735 are not in the same league. But, the CLP-745 is close and the 765 & 775 are closer. The main thing this has over those is counterweights (785 only), linear graded keys (each key is an individual weight like a real piano - 785 only), and full size Grand Touch (775 is full size, but 765 and 745 aren’t), more built in-voices and access to XG voices, more powerful & authentic speakers, and the more substantial look. Will the differences, in terms of playing between evident: if you’re a super discerning player who wants the absolute most authentic experience in this device & price range: yes. However, if you’re a beginner or intermediate player, an occasional player, or even an advanced player who doesn’t care about utter authenticity, the 745/765/775 may be a great choice for you. And if you can’t afford the 785, I don’t think you should cry yourself to sleep at night if you have to get the 745, or even 723/735. But, if you can afford it, and if you want the most authentic in this device range, you cannot beat the 785 or 795.

Is it better than the Kawai & Casio equivalents.?
To me, yes. But, as is often said, at this level it comes down to individual preference. If you prefer a lighter action & more traditional piano sound, you may want the Kawai CA-79/99 or Casio GP-510. If you prefer a more distinctive sound & a harder action, you’ll want this. If features matter, it’s a tie between Kawai/Yamaha, but Yamaha slightly edges Kawai out for features.

———

Using the two main samples, I recorded a collection of EXCERPTS from pieces of different eras, which highlight different uses of the piano & different elements of piano sound, and how the samples handle that. (I play the entire Chopin prelude, because it’s so short but explores a full dynamic range & repeated chords, which can be an issue with digitals). I also recorded a full performance of Liszt’s Transcendental Etude, No. 3 Paysage, with both the CFX & Bosendorfer, as I felt it demonstrates that the Yamaha can full dynamic range (from pp to ff), half-pedaling, thirds/double notes, & repeated chords, which other digitals have issues with. And, finally, a sample of excerpts using the Historical Pianofortes. I included Youtube videos, and also SoundCloud (because sometimes Youtube degrades audio quality, so soundcloud might be the best indication of actual quality:

***Please don’t judge my recordings too harshly: these are *NOT* performance level in technique or interpretation. I literally just sat down and tossed out a few songs in my repertoire that I thought were good for an informal demonstration; I didn’t care about mistakes or giving a performance-worthy interpretation for this demonstration ***

—


Yamaha CFX Sample:

Yamaha CFX on SoundCloud

Bosendorfer Sample:

Bosendorfer on SoundCloud

—


Yamaha CFX:

Transcendental Etude 3 CFX on SoundCloud

Bosendorfer:

Transcendental Etude 3 Bosendorfer on SoundCloud

—




https://soundcloud.com/user-616498306/historical-pianoforte-samples

The big question:
Are CFX and Bossie samples different from P-515?

CFX = bright and thin

Thank you for posting this. Do you think the counterweights are worth the upgrade from the 775?

The Bosendorfer sample here is definitely different form the sample used in the P-515. The sample used in the P-515 was not binaural, whereas this one is. There’s a much wider soundstage & clarity, and it feels ever more responsive (perhaps more velocity layers).

As for the CFX, I’m not sure. It *feels* a bit different. Issues I had with Un Sospiro or the Chopin prelude (fast arpeggios and repeated chords) aren’t present with the 785, but that could be owing to the improved action. I can’t say for sure that the sample is different.

I agree that the CFX is on the thin side. I will say theres a bit more roundness, sonority, and timbre when it’s heard through quality headphones or through the onboard speakers, and there’s been some *noticeable* quality loss from the recording process, even though I used the USB host connection to record in GarageBand.

That said, it’s still not better than a good VST or sampling app. I’ve been using Colossus Piano (the $49 with 24 velocity layers) and it’s *miles* above both the samples Yamaha provided. I only have a iPad currently, so I’m saving up for a new laptop to get some better VSTs (or hoping desperately that Pianoteq comes to iOS soon)

Honestly…probably not.

The store I was at had the 785, 775, & 745, but they had a 30-minute limit for testing the instruments due to the pandemic. So the bulk of my time was spent on the 785, which was already on my shortlist. I only spent about two minutes altogether on the 775 & 745, to see if they’d wow me more. I’d already pretty much made up my mind. So, I didn’t really give the 775 a true test.

I will say that while I certainly noticed a difference between the 745 and 785, there wasn’t much difference between the 775 and 785. And I suspect it’s probably one of those extremely fine differences you wouldn’t really notice unless you were accustomed to one or the other.

Wow! Now, that is what I call a review. I think it's the most comprehensive one I've ever read or heard on Piano World.

Nice playing, too. You really give a sense for the piano with the excerpts you've chosen.

I'm not in the market for another piano, but your review made great reading and listening. Well done, Taushi!
Best regards,
Lotus
_____________________________________
Having fun with: Tema con Variazioni from
Mozart: Sonata in D, K. 284, "Durnitz" on
Kawai GM-10 grand / Yamaha DGX-660 digital

Yamaha CLP 785 is trash, that's my review. There's almost nothing to like about it... They made better pianos with the CLP300-400 series. They lost their way at grandtouch, the worst possible action you can find on a dp in today's market. I've never played any acoustic piano (and I've played on hundreds) that have the overly resistant and uncomfortable action/touch the 785 has.

Did this post make you feel good? Is this really the kind of person you want to be on this forum?

To the OP - many thanks for taking the time to review this instrument so comprehensively and for sharing your recordings.

Taushi, welcome to the forum!

Thank you very much for your detailed post, and for sharing your recordings.

It's clear that a lot of time and effort went into writing your post and preparing the recordings, and I'm sure many visitors considering a high-end digital piano will appreciate your contribution.

Kind regards,
James
x

mwf, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, however perhaps you could be a little less agressive with your wording?

Cheers,
James
x

Ok.

I’d like to join EssBrace and James in calling for a friendlier and less-aggressive environment.

Now, that being said, I’ve always wondered if it would not be better to simply get an NU1X; since the price between the NU1X and the CLP-785 is very close?

Of course, there’s the specs, and on paper the 785 seems superior (action aside), but that was also the case with the 685, and the consensus was -mostly- that the NU1X sounded better despite only four puny speakers.

I don’t know how Yamaha achieved this, NU1X, with only 4 speakers tucked into an upright cabinet, but my guess is that it all has to do with the speaker quality/phasing, overall positioning within the cabinet, and the cabinet itself.

Still, the 785 makes me curious enough, that I’d give it a try before committing to an NU1X (hypothetically).

The ‘cabinets’ between the NU1X and 785 look similar, but perhaps there is more than meets the eye?


P.S.

Yamaha never reveals info on cabinet composition, make-up, design, and/or overall quality, other than ‘polished upright’, so it could very well be that NU1X’s cabinet is better -in every way- than that of the 785, and this is what ultimately gives it an edge sound-wise (in addition to some special speaker-sauce)?

Thank you all so much. I’ve been a lurker here for a few months, and these forums and various reviews from users helped me identify the pianos in my budget & feature range that I wanted to test when I was upgrading to my current piano. This was an invaluable resource. Just trying to give back in the same way to others who may now be on the same journey! Thanks again!

The store I got my 785 from actually had a NU1X also, but I skipped right past it because I don’t like upright actions. I felt I’d prefer a folded-emulative grand piano action versus a true upright. LOL. In hindsight, I have wondered a few times if I should’ve tested that out to see if I would’ve liked it, but once I saw upright, I was kinda just over it automatically, lol. It’s possible that that action may have been better even for an upright hater like myself, especially with optical sensors. And the NU1X was actually $200 cheaper at the store!

Since I didn’t test the NU1X, I can’t comment on the sound. Maybe I’ll pop back by the store one of these days and see if they have it in stock to compare the sounds. It would definitely be interesting if the NU1X has better sound than the 785 since the specs definitely lean in favor of the latter. But, as you said, speaker quality & positive play a big role.

I enjoyed reading the review, and listening to the samples. O'm not too enamoured over heavy keys on a digital, particularly. Hand problems can ensue, but you'll know sufficient as you play grands regularly.
TBH I feel the same way as you about my ES110. It looks little, costs even less and performs like a giant; I'm still blown away with it.
But y'all know that now dontcha?

I also own the Yamaha clp-785 and can find myself in many of what you're written. Have you also tried the Ballad grand piano sample? It is less bright than the CFX but brighter than the Bosendorfer and is closer to i think the kawai sound signature. I like the high's definitely more on the ballad grand than the bosendorfer, much more spacious and more versatile and also suited for classical music.

Very cool review, thanks!
I also tested the 785 but in the store I always found myself going back to the NU1X in the end... something about it... playability and speaker quality was more present and round for me. The action is also fantastic so I went for the NU1X.
Either way, both are great instruments. But go check out the NU1X and let us know here what you think about it compared to owing your 785 for a while now

Excellent review, thanks.

I may have questions ?

1) The recordings are directly on USB ?

2) Is it factory settings - or some different settings ?

3) Can you tell what to set definitely different from factory settings ?

Thanks,

Josef

Thank you very much!

For me, I like a heavier action on my practice piano because it prepares me for acoustics. I do occasional performances, and while sometimes I get a good piano, other times I get a bad one with action too light or too hard. I’ve found digitals with lighter actions cause me to have a more difficult adjustment period to acoustics with more troublesome action. Also, the emulative actions are just inherently different from the real thing. For me, the harder actions build finger strength to a point I don’t recognize the action differences anymore.

But, I definitely agree you have to acclimate & play properly to avoid hand problems. I can play on it for hours now, but initially, there was a bit of fatigue after about 45 minutes, which required me to take a brief break. I’ve also found that heavy actions make me avoid any of the bad technical practices I may sometimes fall into; if you don’t play it right, your fingers will tell you.


I haven’t yet, but I will try your suggestions. I’d been sticking primarily to the CFX & Bosendorfer because of the binaural sampling and all the extra sound modeling, but I sometimes get fatigued of the CFX sound & annoyed with the alterations they made to the Bosendorfer.

I will definitely try the Ballad today. I would welcome another great piano sound, and I like the Kawai sound also.


It’s definitely on my list. The store that has it is about 1 hour & 45 minutes away from me & none of the local stores have it yet. So, I plan to take a weekend visit over there soon.


Thank you.

1. Yes, the recordings are directly from the USB host plug to my iPad, and recorded with GarageBand. I have GarageBand at 24-bit, highest recording settings.

2. Yes, I recorded with factory setting. Medium touch setting & all the piano room features & pedal settings at their default medium setting.

3. When recording, I usually use factory settings to get the more pure sound of the sample.

When I play though, I set the touch setting to Hard 1 because I found it gives a wider dynamic range since digitals can sometimes read one’s playing as louder than one is actually playing. I typically set the Duplex Scale/Aliquot to 7 and the other piano room setting to 6 (5 is their default), half pedal point to -2, and I lower the soft pedal effect a bit because all it does is muffle the regular sound as it doesn’t appear they have any real Una Corda samples.

In another thread I propose which piano to choose between the Yamaha CLP-785, the Casio GP-510 and the Dexibel H10, my intention is to replace my good quality Hifi equipment with one of these pianos, my main question now is between the Dexibel and the Yamaha, some answers tell me that it would be a failure to try this substitution, that the Yamaha, despite its power and quality of the sound system, will not go well to reproduce music with quality, have you tried to reproduce music from sources of a certain quality, CD, spotify or digital files FLAC, WAW, etc.? If you have, what is your opinion?