Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Stage piano key action and static touchweights


Recommended Posts



I also included an additional number, the "distance to hinge" that is an estimate of the horizontal distance to the apparent hinge point indicated by the geometry of the key travel distance.

 

It's perhaps worth noting that the Kawai ES8 and MP7SE share the same "Responsive Hammer III" keyboard action, therefore the "distance to hinge" measurement should also be the same.

 

Kind regards,

James

x

Employed by Kawai Japan, however the opinions I express are my own.
Nord Electro 3 & occasional rare groove player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also included an additional number, the "distance to hinge" that is an estimate of the horizontal distance to the apparent hinge point indicated by the geometry of the key travel distance.

 

It's perhaps worth noting that the Kawai ES8 and MP7SE share the same "Responsive Hammer III" keyboard action, therefore the "distance to hinge" measurement should also be the same.

 

Kind regards,

James

x

 

Yes, thanks, and this is the one that's the hardest to measure, since is dependent on the travel distance at the far end of the key, which is only 2 to 4 mm. So I think these numbers have the highest measurement uncertainty, maybe plus or minus a millimeter or two. I tried to cut down on the error for this by measuring it 2-3 times with a stainless steel ruler with cross bar, shown here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/General-Tools-300-Precision-Stainless/dp/B00004T7SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. The Studiologic SL88 uses the same Fatar TP/100LR bed that my Arturia Keylab88 uses. And I do typically hear it described as SUPER HEAVY from first-time testers. However, those that play them know that they loosen up substantially in a fairly short period of time. I had a 2-year-old one that got killed by an ash dump (long story), and when I got a new replacement I was shocked at how much heavier the action was. But 3 months of heavy use, and the action has lightened up a lot. I wonder how much these tests reflect "break in" periods. I suspect acoustic pianos remain pretty much consistent, where-as hammer-action boards break in a bit, and springs likely see MASSIVE loosening over their lifetimes.

Puck Funk! :)

 

Equipment: Laptop running lots of nerdy software, some keyboards, noise makersâ¦yada yada yadaâ¦maybe a cat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell much from that video. But semi-weighted boards do have weights, separately from springs. Unweighted boards have springs without weights (or may not have springs at all, some use just the tension of a plastic hinge). As for hammer action boards, I know Korg's RH3 has springs... they are leaf springs, though, i.e. not the coiled kind illustrated above. Do most or even all hammer actions have such springs as well? I don't know.

 

The vid shows the springs on the hinge of the LK on the left, but not the Fatar on the right.

 

Apparently the Kronos and SV-1 use the RH3. The spring question is very interesting -- springs increase the return speed but also the tightness feel of the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. The Studiologic SL88 uses the same Fatar TP/100LR bed that my Arturia Keylab88 uses. And I do typically hear it described as SUPER HEAVY from first-time testers. However, those that play them know that they loosen up substantially in a fairly short period of time. I had a 2-year-old one that got killed by an ash dump (long story), and when I got a new replacement I was shocked at how much heavier the action was. But 3 months of heavy use, and the action has lightened up a lot. I wonder how much these tests reflect "break in" periods. I suspect acoustic pianos remain pretty much consistent, where-as hammer-action boards break in a bit, and springs likely see MASSIVE loosening over their lifetimes.

 

That would be the Studiologic SL88 Studio version -- the Grand uses the Fatar TP/40 Wood. Do you know if the TP/100LR uses springs? To me the action feels tight, not pleasant to play.

 

Yeah I think springs are not a good design component for that reason. As they wear, the return speed of the key and the upweight should fall, and the board will feel more sluggish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK folks, here it is. I think I've exhausted what boards I can look at for the time being. If I run across any more, I'll add them (no Kurzweils anywhere in Berlin apparently) if I have the time.

 

Let me explain some new numbers included here:

-- Difference between the downweight and upweight at middle C. This varies quite a bit, and a small difference, especially with a high upweight, tends to feel stiff and make dynamic control difficult, while a difference too large can start to feel sluggish and unresponsive. Most boards are somewhere in the middle.

 

-- Time to key rest: this is the time, measured in number of video frames, required for a completely depressed key to return to the resting position, stop bouncing, and come to a complete stop. Some boards are bouncier than others. This is very easy to measure and is repeatable -- for each board I measured this about a half dozen times for middle C, and it does not vary measurably. I also wanted to measure the time to travel from bottom to top, before bouncing started, but it's not possible to see any variability without having a more sophisticated camera -- all boards reach the top in about 3 video frames, and it's not possible to get any more precise than that with a smartphone.

 

-- Escapement: this is the temporary feeling of greater resistance near the bottom of the key travel, as if flipping a lever, which in an acoustic piano allows you to push down again and hit the string without having to completely release the key again. Almost all boards allow you to sound a note repeatedly without bringing the key back more than about 5 millimeters from the bottom, necessary for playing pianissimo lines, but only some have the accompanying feeling of escapement, which adds realism.

 

-- Noise: whether the action is noisy or not. A little subjective, but I think most would agree on these.

 

-- Key material: plastic or wood

 

-- Keybed mechanism on the board's spec page.

 

-- Price advertised by Thomann in euros, and weight of the board.

 

NA means not measured.

 

Comments/corrections/wisdom/data on your own board welcome. Several things here that surprised me and are very interesting, that I'd like to discuss after I have time to mull it over a bit.

 

http://www.stewartschultz.com/Music/Selection_999(535).png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a comment, Stoo â I do know the Studiologic SL88 Studio action is Fatar TP/100LR (not TP40). I had one last year, but now have an Arturia Keylab MKii 88. Same action, but it feels tighter & lighter than the SL88. Both were new from the factory. Perhaps Arturia likes a tweak or two different from Studiologic. Perhaps the SL was thrown together on a Friday (now that's old-school for ya) :laugh:

 

I believe also the Crumar Seven uses TP/100LR and wouldn't be surprised if the Nord Stage 3 has it as well.

 

I'd measure my Keylab but all I have are Canadian nickels and we don't even mint pennies anymore :wink: but at least it might be worth exploring (or I suspect, confirming) identical actions could have very different readings if you had access to them.

____________________________________
Rod

Here for the gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for taking the time to measure and publish all this. It"s an invaluable resource as I try to quantify what I like and look for my next controller. Note that you"ve listed distance to pivot as being measured in mm here when it"s likely cm as before.

 

I'd measure my Keylab but all I have are Canadian nickels and we don't even mint pennies anymore :wink:

 

The weights are in grams so you just need to weigh the stack of nickels, dimes, pfennigs, whatever after the fact. In a truly random coincidence, I only used Canadian nickels in my tests because it"s all I could find on short notice (in the foreign currency jar we keep around.)

Acoustic: Shigeru Kawai SK-7 ~ Breedlove C2/R

MIDI: Kurzweil Forte ~ Sequential Prophet X ~ Yamaha CP88 ~ Expressive E Osmose

Electric: Schecter Solo Custom Exotic ~ Chapman MLB1 Signature Bass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I can certainly add the time to rest information for my two contributions. What frame rate were your video recordings at?

 

EDIT: presuming 30fps, at which point the numbers look comparable to others, the SK-7 grand comes in at 8 frames due to a subtle bounce at the top, and the Forte 8 comes in at 6, as it seems to decelerate just a little at the top before stopping dead in its tracks.

Acoustic: Shigeru Kawai SK-7 ~ Breedlove C2/R

MIDI: Kurzweil Forte ~ Sequential Prophet X ~ Yamaha CP88 ~ Expressive E Osmose

Electric: Schecter Solo Custom Exotic ~ Chapman MLB1 Signature Bass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stoo, this is amazing work, really. I mean, trying to quantify that indescribable "feeling" on a keybed. Maybe your approach isn't perfect, but it's an admirable try. I'm impressed. At least we can debate the numbers, right?

 

I have a few Nord AP actions in my world (NP2, NP4) plus two decent AP instruments, a Yamaha AvantGrand N3 and my bucket-list Bosie 200. Not surprisingly, the Bosie action rules them all in terms of being super fun to play. For me, it's a perfect balance. I sit down, and just don't want to stop. It's like an addictive drug -- just one more song!

 

The Yamaha N3 is like lifting weights at the gym. I keep hoping it'll loosen up, but after many years I don't think that's going to happen. If I can play something on the N3, I can play it on anything. A few weeks on it, and I'm The Destroyer in terms of amazing hand strength.

 

The NP2 is too loose that I get sloppy on it, so not recommended. The NP4 is a bit tighter and crisper, but not a real-deal AP action. At some point, I'll pull the trigger on the Nord Grand.

 

Thanks for all the hard work!!

Want to make your band better?  Check out "A Guide To Starting (Or Improving!) Your Own Local Band"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks, and this is the one that's the hardest to measure, since is dependent on the travel distance at the far end of the key, which is only 2 to 4 mm. So I think these numbers have the highest measurement uncertainty, maybe plus or minus a millimeter or two. I tried to cut down on the error for this by measuring it 2-3 times with a stainless steel ruler with cross bar, shown here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/General-Tools-300-Precision-Stainless/dp/B00004T7SW

 

Thank you for explaining your process.

 

Nice job on compiling all of this data.

Am I correct in thinking that you're supposed to be on holiday? ;)

 

Cheers,

James

x

Employed by Kawai Japan, however the opinions I express are my own.
Nord Electro 3 & occasional rare groove player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe also the Crumar Seven uses TP/100LR and wouldn't be surprised if the Nord Stage 3 has it as well.

It's in the Nord Stage 3 76 (and the hammer action Electros), but the 88 has a TP40.

 

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the numbers, can we know which is the best action?

 

"The ideal downweight ranges from about 50 grams in the bass to 46â47 grams in the treble, with 48 grams being a good target for the middle section. A downweight over 55 g (57â58 g in the bass and 54 g in the treble) will be perceived as heavy, especially when combined with high front weight (inertia). A downweight of 45 g or less will feel lightâit is acceptable only if the up

weight is at least 20 g and the front weight (explained below) is under the recommended ceiling. Variations from note to note should be within ±2 g. Upweight is the maximum weight on the front of the key that the key will lift on its own. As stated above, upweight is related to downweight (and balance weight) more or less linearlyâincreasing one increases the other by the same amount. On a piano with fairly new, well-lubricated action parts and a downweight of 48 g, the upweight should be 23â24 g. A high upweight feels springy and responsive, whereas a low upweight makes the action feel sluggish and slows repetition. As with downweight, variations from note to note should not exceed ±2 g."

 

I see Casio PX-S1000 has the lowest difference between down weight (74 at C) and upweight (59 at C), the difference being 16.

Yamaha P-125 (71 down weight) (43 upweight), (difference 27)

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do these numbers lighten up significantly after many hours of play?

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the numbers, can we know which is the best action? /quote]

 

I doubt it, if for no other reason than people don't always agree about which actions are better than which others in the first place (regardless of whether talking digital or acoustic). Some people prefer lighter actions, some prefer heavier, so how do you quantify which is "better"? Though these numbers might help tell you which is better based on your subjective criteria, or which actions might tend to feel more similar to or more different from some other action you're familiar with...? I don't know. I always like having objective criteria, it will be interesting to see how well people can actually correlate this info with their subjective evaluations as to what they like or don't like.

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the numbers, can we know which is the best action? /quote]

 

I doubt it, if for no other reason than people don't always agree about which actions are better than which others in the first place (regardless of whether talking digital or acoustic). Some people prefer lighter actions, some prefer heavier, so how do you quantify which is "better"? Though these numbers might help tell you which is better based on your subjective criteria, or which actions might tend to feel more similar to or more different from some other action you're familiar with...? I don't know. I always like having objective criteria, it will be interesting to see how well people can actually correlate this info with their subjective evaluations as to what they like or don't like.

 

Yeah so much is subjective, it's hard to say what is real and what is imagined ... the power of suggestion. Someone was playing his heart out, a classical piece on the Yamaha NU1X yesterday, the acoustic upright hybrid with the key action in full view under the glass, and I asked him how he liked it and he said he loves the action, it's wonderful, responsive, and he especially likes how solid and heavy the action is. I didn't tell him that the board actually has the lightest action in the entire showroom. Seeing it working though, as you're playing, creates a feeling of power, like you must be putting a lot of energy into it in order to move all that mechanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks, and this is the one that's the hardest to measure, since is dependent on the travel distance at the far end of the key, which is only 2 to 4 mm. So I think these numbers have the highest measurement uncertainty, maybe plus or minus a millimeter or two. I tried to cut down on the error for this by measuring it 2-3 times with a stainless steel ruler with cross bar, shown here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/General-Tools-300-Precision-Stainless/dp/B00004T7SW

 

Thank you for explaining your process.

 

Nice job on compiling all of this data.

Am I correct in thinking that you're supposed to be on holiday? ;)

 

Cheers,

James

x

 

Yeah I'm on holiday visiting my daughter, but she still is full time student so I have free time all day -- didn't mean to put this much time in, but it snowballed :-) Not complaining, a superstore like this is like the ultimate candy store, plus the Steinway outlet is just a few more stops down the tram line, you can't beat it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After spending three days playing and measuring all these boards, I'd like to write a few first thoughts down that I found interesting while they're still fresh.

 

 

At least in terms of down- and upweights, there's no such thing as a "grand hammer action". Individual pianos, even just among Steinways, vary all over the place. Obviously grand actions are horizontal and uprights are vertical, but that difference doesn't translate into a uniform difference in down- or upweight. The word "grand" certainly implies a big sound from big strings and soundboard, in the concert hall, but that has nothing to do with upweight or downweight. So, I have no idea what the "grand" means in much of the board mechanism hype, such as in the "Studiologic SL88 Grand", which is a controller without sound. It seems to be just a word that sounds sexier than "upright". The Studiologic's downweight at mid-C, 106 grams, was 70% higher than the downweight of the Steinway S-155 grand, which was lighter than every digital board except the Yamaha CP-73. Which is more "grand", the ultra light Steinway S-155 or the ultra heavy Studiologic Grand?

 

About realism of the action, there are several interesting differences. First, there is a huge difference between digitals and acoustics in upweights. Acoustic upweights average about 36 grams, and digitals 47 grams. There were 21 digitals (55% of them) that had higher upweights than the highest acoustic upweight, in the Shigeru Kawai. So most of the digitals are way above all the Steinways in upweight. The highest upweight was in the Yamaha P-515, which at 67 grams was almost three times the lowest upweight in a Steinway grand, and 55% higher than the highest upweight in a Steinway. Why should digitals have higher upweights? The Steinways had lead weights in all their keys, in order to reduce the downweight necessary to strike the hammers hard enough -- is this the reason? What does this mean in terms of responsiveness of the keys, if the Steinway keys are all way heavier with more inertia than the digitals? It was easy to play a one-key trill on the P-515, I could do it with my thumb and 4th finger easily.

 

The differences in the downweights was not as great, a mean of 79 g in the acoustics and 82 g in the digitals, and the distributions had about the same spread.

 

On the realism of "graded hammer action": the acoustics had a far higher gradedness (difference between the low and high notes in downweight): the acoustics had double the gradedness (23 versus 11 grams). The highest gradedness was in the Kawai NOVUS and Steinway M-170, while many digitals had no gradedness at all, notably the Nords. The Nord Grand had no difference across the piano, while the Nord Piano and Nord Stage 3 actually had some negative gradedness, with higher downweights at the high notes than at the low end or in the middle. Very strange, maybe partly due to wear in the middle? Not in the case of the Nord Grand, it's brand new. Leads to another question: the digitals can have whatever gradedness the manufacturer wants, so apparently they choose something the market wants. Do people dislike a large difference in downweight between low and high notes? The gradedness thing is fascinating, because presumably you could achieve the same thing digitally by having a different velocity curve for low and high notes, keeping the actual downweights constant across the board. That would allow more flexibility wouldn't it? And if the Nord Grand has no gradedness, does that mean it has the same velocity curve across the entire board too, or is it adjusted across the board?

 

On the realism of escapement: presumably people wanting a realistic action would require escapement, as it allows you to play legato melody lines softly, which you cannot do otherwise, as you would need to lift the key an unknown distance before sounding it again and many times you would miss and get no sound. But the vast majority of digitals have no escapement. The only boards with escapement are the Roland FPs (RHA-4 and RHA-50), the high-end Kawais (RHIII, GF, RM3II), the Kurzweil Forte (Fatar TP/40L), and the Yamaha P-515 (NWX). I was surprised to see that the Yamaha CPs, advertised as uncompromisingly realistic action, have no escapement (I didn't have access to the CP1). Ditto the Fatar TP/100WOOD, which they advertise as "grand", has no escapement, and the Roland RD 2000, also advertised as realistic grand action.

 

On the realism of noisy mechanism: When you hear a noisy mechanism in a digital, it immediately gives it a cheap feel. But ironically the acoustic actions were far noisier than the digitals, which for the most part were very quiet other than a muffled "thump" when the key hits bottom. A few digital actions were noisy, notably all the Casios, and some of the Korgs, and the lowest end Yamahas. All the Korgs also have a slight, high frequency click sound at the top of every key travel, a curious quirk. But the noisiest mechanism actions in the whole showroom were the two hybrid boards, the Yamaha NU1X and the Kawai NOVUS, which you could hear being played (with headphones) from anywhere in the room. The digital with the noisiest keys though was not a Casio, it was the Nord Grand, which did not have a noisy mechanism, rather it gave a loud klonk every time the key hit bottom, that you could hear easily from the other side of the room. Interesting that the Kawais did not have that problem, even though the Nord Grand apparently has a Kawai action.

 

On the realism of a bouncy board: Casios and Kawais had by far the bounciest boards, with Yamahas the lowest. Interestingly, the highest end Kawais were bouncier than the low end ES110. Definitely the acoustics are not as bouncy as most of the digitals, and the least bouncy was the hybrid Yamaha NU1X which went straight to the top position in 4 video frames with no bounce. It also had almost the lowest upweight, so had the lowest bounce-producing force, so this makes sense.

 

On the realism of wooden keys: Key material should have no effect on the feel, as long as the key mass is the same. But a wood key has the right aesthetic. I found it interesting that the CP40 and CP4 actions were indistinguishable, showing that the plastic keys in the CP40 don't affect the feel. I was under the wrong impression that the CP40 was a lighter action -- it definitely feels slightly different, but not lighter, and all the objective measurements are nearly identical. Maybe it's the same action but with added weights to bring the plastic keys up to the wooden weight?

 

On the realism of long distance to pivot: there was a huge difference in distance to pivot between acoustics and digitals, with the digitals having a shorter distance (20 versus 24 centimeters). This means that acoustics generally are easier to play in the middle of the board among the black keys, than are digitals. There is some overlap however.

 

The spring issue is interesting -- I'm not convinced that a hammer action needs any springs, and acoustics don't have springs in the action. I don't have any info on springs in any of these boards, other than AnotherScott's pointing out that the Korg RH3 has springs, and a video showing springs in the Medeli LK hammer action, used in some Kurzweils.

 

So, if you're looking for the most realistic acoustic piano keyboard which will it be ??? (realistic implying Steinway-like, since I have no other instruments to compare) Well you'd want a board with whatever downweight feels comfortable, but with high gradedness, escapement, not bouncy, a high distance to pivot, no springs, and low upweight. If you're really a purist, you'd want wood keys, and a noisy board (ha ha). But unfortunately there is no noisy board with wood keys and escapement, so you will have to satisfy yourself with a quiet board. So, what boards fill these requirements?

 

Here are the boards with escapement:

Kawai ES8 Kawai MP11SE Kawai MP7SE Kawai VPC-1 Kurzweil Forte 8

Roland FP 10 Roland FP 60 Roland FP 90 Yamaha P-515

 

Here are the boards with higher gradedness:

Casio Privia PX-160 Kawai ES110 Kawai ES8

Kawai MP7SE Kawai VPC-1 Korg Grandstage

Korg Kross Korg SV1 73 Kurzweil Forte 8

Roland FA08 Roland FP 10 Studiologic SL88 Grand

Yamaha CP4 Yamaha CP40 Yamaha P-515

 

Here are the boards with lower bounciness (notice the Kawais drop out!):

Korg D1 Korg Krome Korg Kronos

Korg Kross Korg SV1 73 M-Audio Hammer 88

Nord Piano 4 Nord Stage 3 88 Roland Juno DS

Studiologic SL88 Grand Yamaha CP4 Yamaha CP40

Yamaha CP88 Yamaha Mod X Yamaha Montage 8

Yamaha MX 88 Yamaha P-515 Kurzweil Forte 8

 

Here are the boards with higher distance to pivot:

Korg Kronos Korg Kross Roland Fantom Roland FP 90 Roland RD 2000

Yamaha CP4 Yamaha CP88 Yamaha Montage 8

 

Here are the boards with lower upweight:

Casio Privia PX-160 Kawai MP11SE Korg Krome Korg Kross

Nord Grand Roland FA08 Roland FP 60 Roland Juno DS

Yamaha CP73 Yamaha Montage 8 Yamaha MoxF8

 

No board is in all these lists, unfortunately! But the boards that are in most of the list are the Korg Kross (in four), the Kurzweil Forte 8 (in three), the Yamaha CP4 (in three) and the Yamaha P-515 (in three). The CP-88 has the same key action as the CP4, but its upweight was higher, maybe due to being younger and less broken in? So maybe it should be included here as being in three of the lists, giving us five boards surviving these comparisons. Of the five, the Kurz and 515 have escapement, the Korg has by far the lowest upweight. Also worth noting that there are Roland FPs on four of the lists, though different ones.

 

Surprising that the Korg Kross, a relatively cheap board that has gotten little attention, comes out with such a high rating in this comparison. Otherwise, these results are consistent with many peoples' subjective ratings, as the other four boards are generally highly praised for their action.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't seen all boards out there, notably the Kurz SP6/PC4, the Yamaha CP1, or the Kurzweil Forte 8. If the Kurzweil Forte 8 has a high distance to pivot, then it would also be on four of these lists.

 

Of course, this completely ignores the sounds in these boards. Maybe the likelihood of finding the best sound matched to the best action is a pipe dream -- if so then maybe the best course would be to get the board with the action you prefer, regardless of sound, and just use it to control your favorite virtual pianos.

 

Anyway, these are just some first looks at the data table, any comments are sure welcome!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree strongly with the point that OP stoo schultz makes about the importance of our "subjective" reactions to the feel of a keyboard action. I think a better adjective might be "psychoacoustic," because it's how our brain and muscles adjust to the sound we are producing. We pianists usually adapt pretty easily to the physical action of different pianos, but it's the sound that comes out (dull/bright, in tune/ out of tune, overall timbre, etc) that makes us adjust unconsciously to the action by playing with more or less force, or feel that the action is sluggish or fast.

 

I play Pianoteq virtual pianos with a Lachnit keyboard controller, made by a small company in Vienna that was established by a former Bosendorfer employee. It incorporates a Fatar T40/Wood action that has been enhanced in several ways, including the replacement of the sensors with an optical system. A remarkable feature is that the keyboard includes 3 continuous knob controls that enable you to shape the velocity curve on the fly...while you are playing. By adjusting these, you can easily shift the same virtual piano into feeling sluggish or responsive, and can optimize the keyboard action to any particular acoustic or electric piano model. You can shift the entire curve into brighter timbres of a piano model if you're playing in a pop context, or reshape it to feel like an acoustic grand that requires greater force (velocity) to reach the brightest timbres. It's possible to adjust keyboard velocity curves for most other keyboards, but this usually requires going into a menu on the board or computer. Adjusting this relation of the keyboard action to the sound produced has at least as great an impact on how it feels to you as the differences in up and down static weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite interesting, and kudos on all the work for those who made contributions.

 

That said, some things don't quite add up regarding the pivot lengths of keys that have a class 1 lever (teeter-totter) design, with a good length of key extending beyond the fulcrum point. In particular, the Kawai GF wooden actions are generally measured to be about 24cm from the edge of the key to their fulcrum point, the center of the balance rail, with a total key length of ca. 35cm. I think it's a safe assumption that the Novus and Avantgrand pivot distances are significantly longer.

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2688852/mp11-grand-feel-key-and-pivot-lengths.html

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2852613/1.html

 

I wonder if the different design makes these actions harder to measure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to agree strongly with the point that OP stoo schultz makes about the importance of our "subjective" reactions to the feel of a keyboard action. I think a better adjective might be "psychoacoustic," because it's how our brain and muscles adjust to the sound we are producing. We pianists usually adapt pretty easily to the physical action of different pianos, but it's the sound that comes out (dull/bright, in tune/ out of tune, overall timbre, etc) that makes us adjust unconsciously to the action by playing with more or less force, or feel that the action is sluggish or fast.

 

I play Pianoteq virtual pianos with a Lachnit keyboard controller, made by a small company in Vienna that was established by a former Bosendorfer employee. It incorporates a Fatar T40/Wood action that has been enhanced in several ways, including the replacement of the sensors with an optical system. A remarkable feature is that the keyboard includes 3 continuous knob controls that enable you to shape the velocity curve on the fly...while you are playing. By adjusting these, you can easily shift the same virtual piano into feeling sluggish or responsive, and can optimize the keyboard action to any particular acoustic or electric piano model. You can shift the entire curve into brighter timbres of a piano model if you're playing in a pop context, or reshape it to feel like an acoustic grand that requires greater force (velocity) to reach the brightest timbres. It's possible to adjust keyboard velocity curves for most other keyboards, but this usually requires going into a menu on the board or computer. Adjusting this relation of the keyboard action to the sound produced has at least as great an impact on how it feels to you as the differences in up and down static weight.

Cool, what do the 3 knobs do beyond what a simple adjustment like you make on a Nord Stage (I have the Classic 88 that goes from 0 to 3, 3 being the easiest to trigger full volume). You gave a good description of the end result of the adjustments, but what, specifically, are these 3 individual knobs doing beyond adjusting the velocity curve, making it easier or harder to achieve full volume with the same playing-?

 

And how much did it cost to have the Fatar T40/Wood modified like that? Sounds like something that would clearly distinguish a higher end stage piano from others! Of course if the optical sensors were built into the original keybed, it would be less expensive than having to retrofit an existing keybed with different sensors. Does it have escapement? Stoo Shultz mentioned that the Forte 8 using a TP40 is one of the few having escapement.

Numa Piano X73 /// Kawai ES920 /// Casio CT-X5000 /// Yamaha EW425

Yamaha Melodica and Alto Recorder

QSC K8.2 // JBL Eon One Compact // Soundcore Motion Boom Plus 

Win10 laptop i7 8GB // iPad Pro 9.7" 32GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stoo,

Was curious to not see the Casio PX-S3000, the PX-160 is not the latest generation keybed from them. (oops, I see you did include it, just not in your tallies of a few posts up from this).

 

Also, is there a measurement for the difficulty in playing as you approach the fallboard? Being used to semi-weighted for the last couple of years, I found the adjustment to my NS 88 Classic difficult at first, but within a few weeks I was enjoying playing weighted action again. Then I got a new semi-weighted board, and while I enjoy the lesser resistance that a good semi-weighted action gives you, the substantial and very noticeable increase of pressure needed as I get closer to the fall board really throws me off. My fingers adjust to the semi-weighted action, and then depending on the chords being played, all of a sudden my fingers don't have the required strength as I get closer to the fallboard, having calibrated themselves to the lighter resistance. Hate it, and find the heavier but even resistance of my NS to be much easier to play.

 

I would think that measurement would go something like: determine the percentage of how much harder it is to play near the fallboard (twice as hard? 20% harder?). Then make an approximation of when that percentage is high enough to be noticeable, and when it throws off your playing. Of course that range would be very personal and would be influenced by how your velocities are set. But at least you'd have a range to look at from low to high. So for example the measurement could be 1 1/2" out from the fallboard and you see there's a 20% increase of pressure needed, and at 1/2" there's a 100% increase in effort. This obviously would be a hard one to measure, 'cause you'd need a sampling of a cross section of people playing hammer action boards, and how far up on the keys they play, thereby getting a rough idea of how much of the last 2" most people are playing, so you know where the measurement of this increased force becomes meaningful.

 

And of course, besides the unknown factor of a keybed 'breaking in', there's also the same for the player. I personally find it very difficult to make a meaningful evaluation of a keybed while playing it in the store, unless of course it's love at first play. It takes me awhile, usually weeks, to calibrate myself to the action, and then I know better what my considered reaction is.

 

I appreciate your efforts to objectify an endlessly subjective field! I've often thought that a big help in this way would be to develop a standardized vocabulary that could be used to describe a persons reaction to a given keybed, so that the subjective becomes at least a little more relatable. At this point each of us has to try to evoke what it's like, when in fact there are many good examples of excellent descriptions of how an action feels that could be learned from. But once again, the waters are muddied by the many settings that influence how the action feels, as well as our personal playing styles.

Numa Piano X73 /// Kawai ES920 /// Casio CT-X5000 /// Yamaha EW425

Yamaha Melodica and Alto Recorder

QSC K8.2 // JBL Eon One Compact // Soundcore Motion Boom Plus 

Win10 laptop i7 8GB // iPad Pro 9.7" 32GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, what do the 3 knobs do beyond what a simple adjustment like you make on a Nord Stage (I have the Classic 88 that goes from 0 to 3, 3 being the easiest to trigger full volume). You gave a good description of the end result of the adjustments, but what, specifically, are these 3 individual knobs doing beyond adjusting the velocity curve, making it easier or harder to achieve full volume with the same playing-?

 

And how much did it cost to have the Fatar T40/Wood modified like that? Sounds like something that would clearly distinguish a higher end stage piano from others! Of course if the optical sensors were built into the original keybed, it would be less expensive than having to retrofit an existing keybed with different sensors. Does it have escapement? Stoo Shultz mentioned that the Forte 8 using a TP40 is one of the few having escapement.

 

The Lachnit is a commercial product with specs you can find on their website http://www.flkeys.at/home.html. I didn't have it modified. The knobs enable you to continuously modify the slope and curvature of the velocity map as you listen to the result. You can produce theoretically infinite number of curves that still span the full MIDI range of velocities from minimum to maximum value. Yes, it has escapement. I described it only to emphasize how completely you can change the feel of the same sound module (Pianoteq in my case) connected to the same mechanical keyboard by altering the velocity curve. For electronic keyboards that trigger virtual instruments, I suspect that this effect is far greater that differences of grams and geometry in the keyboard action. Playing our digital pianos and keyboard controllers without any sound as feedback usually feels pretty bad, doesn't it? The sound feedback is essential for us to "feel" how a keyboard plays, IMO.

 

I think one reason that the new Casio PX-S1000 and s3000 digital pianos feel so "right" to many pianists (me included) is that they got the keyboard velocity-to-sound output (timbre and volume) just right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. On their website they make it sound like a controller that a serious pianist could use for at least practicing at home, they have a lot of respect for the demands a serious pianist (probably classical) has for their instrument. But as you said, these knobs allow you to adjust for different instruments.

 

So, besides the Casio PX-S1000, what other keybeds have you played that you really liked? Are you mainly a classical player with great APs as your reference?

Numa Piano X73 /// Kawai ES920 /// Casio CT-X5000 /// Yamaha EW425

Yamaha Melodica and Alto Recorder

QSC K8.2 // JBL Eon One Compact // Soundcore Motion Boom Plus 

Win10 laptop i7 8GB // iPad Pro 9.7" 32GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AThe Studiologic's downweight at mid-C, 106 grams, was 70% higher than the downweight of the Steinway S-155 grand, which was lighter than every digital board except the Yamaha CP-73. Which is more "grand", the ultra light Steinway S-155 or the ultra heavy Studiologic Grand?

I have found that most digital piano hammer actions feel heavier than my Yamaha grand, and the Steinway and Bluthner grands I've played.

 

there is a huge difference between digitals and acoustics in upweights.

That may be the biggest difference... digitals often feel like depressed notes are pushing up against my fingers, a sensation I never have on an acoustic piano. Subjectively, I think that may be what makes them feel heavy to me at least as much as actual required downweight does... without micro-analyzing it, in the end, it is requiring more exertion of force from my fingers either way.

 

The gradedness thing is fascinating, because presumably you could achieve the same thing digitally by having a different velocity curve for low and high notes, keeping the actual downweights constant across the board.

Not at all. Gradedness is largely about the actual physical attributes, not merely that you have to play more forcefully to get the same sound out of a heavier key. If you play a graded action with the power off, no sound at all, you'll still be able to sense keys being heavier or lighter, and that's part of the tactile feedback that informs your playing.

 

presumably people wanting a realistic action would require escapement, as it allows you to play legato melody lines softly, which you cannot do otherwise, as you would need to lift the key an unknown distance before sounding it again and many times you would miss and get no sound.

On a digital piano, that ability (to play legato melody lines softly, i.e. without having to lift fingers so high between soundings of the same key) is facilitated by the presence of a third sensor, not escapement simulation. The two have nothing to do with each other (in theory, you can have either one without the other). Escapement on a DP is an emulation of a physical sensation. The actual musical expression you're talking about is the job of the third sensor.

 

Casios and Kawais had by far the bounciest boards, with Yamahas the lowest. Interestingly, the highest end Kawais were bouncier than the low end ES110. Definitely the acoustics are not as bouncy as most of the digitals

I think bounciness may be a significant part of why people feel some actions are "sluggish." If you need to hit the key again and it has not yet reached its *final* return point, you may be striking it at a point that is lower than what you had anticipated (or a key that is still in some kind of unexpected motion) and it would feel like the key didn't return in time, even if, in fact, it might have returned in time but bounced away!

 

The spring issue is interesting -- I'm not convinced that a hammer action needs any springs, and acoustics don't have springs in the action. I don't have any info on springs in any of these boards, other than AnotherScott's pointing out that the Korg RH3 has springs, and a video showing springs in the Medeli LK hammer action, used in some Kurzweils.

Apparently at least some Yamahas do as well. Check the thread at http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2658936/playing-in-a-weighted-action-such-a-thing.html

 

No board is in all these lists, unfortunately! But the three boards that occur three times are the Kurzweil Forte 8, Yamaha CP4 and the Yamaha P-515.

Korg Kross made the list for FOUR of your categories (everything but escapement). Krome made three... I'm surprised it didn't make the fourth which was distance to pivot, since AFAIK, the Kross and Krome use the same basic design. Whatever differences there may be, distance to pivot should have been the same, I think. Anyway, the ironic thing is, based on your survey, this Korg action tests well, yet people's real-world experiences tells us this is one of the lesser actions. Go figure.

 

 

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it"s known that when down weight is measured on an acoustic piano the key is first depressed 4 mm m, the damper pedal is depressed, and the piano is tapped to coax the key to drop. Otherwise the initial friction is too great to get an accurate reading . Therefore I tend to have reservations about the methods being used in this study.

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the numbers , I see why I find it much more fatiguing to play the PXS1000 then the P160.

 Find 660 of my jazz piano arrangements of standards for educational purposes and tutorials at www.Patreon.com/HarryLikas Harry was the Technical Editor of Mark Levine's "The Jazz Theory Book" and helped develop "The Jazz Piano Book."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korg Kross made the list for FOUR of your categories (everything but escapement). Krome made three... I'm surprised it didn't make the fourth which was distance to pivot, since AFAIK, the Kross and Krome use the same basic design. Whatever differences there may be, distance to pivot should have been the same, I think. Anyway, the ironic thing is, based on your survey, this Korg action tests well, yet people's real-world experiences tells us this is one of the lesser actions. Go figure.

 

 

Ha! Thanks, the more eyes the better, I'll correct the post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it"s known that when down weight is measured on an acoustic piano the key is first depressed 4 mm m, the damper pedal is depressed, and the piano is tapped to coax the key to drop. Otherwise the initial friction is too great to get an accurate reading . Therefore I tend to have reservations about the methods being used in this study.

 

Yeah, I take your point, but the reasons I decided that this is not the best method are:

1. that method is used mainly to diagnose problems in an acoustic piano that require regulation, and we're not doing that here, we're comparing many different boards

2. when comparing many different boards, what happens at the top of the key is important in how it feels, and it differs among boards, and so I think should be included when making comparisons

3. the method I'm using responds both to what happens at the top of the board and what happens 4mm down -- both positions are passed before the key sounds so the downweight is affected by the force at both positions, so it is not insensitive the the forces at 4 mm

4. pressing the damper has no effect on key force in digital boards, does it? And pressing the damper reduces the weights in acoustics, but people generally don't want to know the reduced weight, they want to know the maximum weight necessary, it has more information value I think

5. the slope of the force/distance function is the highest just a few millimeters from the top, which means that small differences in the position of the key will result in large differences in the force measurement -- therefore this method should produce results that are more variable and less repeatable, there will be more noise in the measurement

6. the need to tap the piano to coax the key to drop also adds noise to the measurement and makes it less repeatable

7. the methods that the technicians use take more time, requiring more tools. Ideally there would be several measurements of downweight at different positions, but this just takes too much time and effort

8. the most important thing is consistency -- we want to use the same method on all boards being compared -- as long as we're consistent, the result is meaningful for comparisions. I think if we used the technicians' method we'd have similar comparative results (but without information about what happens at the top of the key), only we'd have more noise in the measurements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...