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'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.

 

Wow, that is an amazing controller! Thanks so much for mentioning it. This might be the most useful piece of information in the entire thread ;-) I mentioned at the bottom of the post that the most reasonable course might be to find the best physical controller, and pair it with a good virtual piano, and that's exactly what you've done.

 

Re: "psychoacoustic" -- entirely agree!

 

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?

 

Yes, this could be. It's possible that the geometry of the mechanism obscures this distance. This is why I called it the "apparent distance" rather than the actual distance. Also, to get this number, you have to take a difference and form a ratio and a product, so the final result will have a higher measurement error than any of the others. So perhaps when rating boards, this calculated distance should have a lower information weight than the other direct measures. I think the manufacturers should report this distance in their specs -- it's a crucial piece of information that's hard to get by measuring the key drops.

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.

 

 

Yes, ideally we'd measure the incremental force at every millimeter of key position, as the engineers do when designing these. I think you could actually do that with a higher-end smartphone that has an ultra slow motion mode with 960 frames per second. Would be easy to record in the store, but take a lot of time to analyze back home though :-)

 

On standardized vocabulary: totally agree! At least we should be using terms like downweight, upweight, which should be standard terms when describing any piano action.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I think we need some sort of objective criterion of what that "just right" actually is -- probably a pipe dream though :-)

 

But the existence of those knobs on the Lachnit suggests that there is no single velocity curve that is just right, but that it's going to vary by player, and also vary by the sound you're playing, and maybe also by the sound characteristics of the venue you're performing at. I wonder how much a player is likely to change the velocity curve on the fly? Being able to adjust the curve in a menu might be sufficient for most players, as once they find a curve they like, they're good with it. On the other hand, I think changing the curve would be very useful depending on the type of piece you're playing -- e.g. soft/slow versus hard/fast. It would make some difficult pieces easier to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

Of course the table only measures physical gradedness. All I'm saying here is that you can get a graded effect in two ways: by changing the physical weight of the keys (low/high) or changing the velocity response (low/hi). It's two different kinds of graded response, to be sure, physical versus digital. But it's interesting: I'm thinking that probably the physical gradedness, to be done right, has to be matched with appropriate adjustments in velocity curves across the board, and maybe some boards have only the digital gradedness (perhaps the Nord Grand?). Not sure though.

 

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.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear: the physical escapement provides a guide for your fingers that makes it possible to feel how far up you need to bring the key before pressing down again. Without it, it's harder to guess, and you may misfire. The sensor is a different function, also necessary.

 

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!

 

Yes ... and the differences in bounciness are quite large, and obvious even in real time. The Kawai MP11SE is surprising in that regard for such a flagship board.

 

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

 

Aha, fascinating, there is a leaf spring under each key in the Yamaha CP4! I wonder what its gauge is, and how the board would feel without the springs -- most likely would have slightly lower upweight and downweight. So now, we have the RH3 (Korg) and the NW-GH (Yamaha) as known DP actions with springs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this nice piece of research. I have a P515 and a Nord Grand, and the Nord Grand is definitely lighter than the P515 - as your table cleanly illustrates. I may have to measure my Kawai RX-7 - it feels very close to the Nord Grand to play, and not close to as heavy as the P515 feels. But I will say that the P515 almost seems to change weight depending on what one is playing. I think the turn this thread has taken toward the psychoacoustic is probably accurate. There's a lot going on for "finger-to-sound" connection.

 

I think this is one of the things that happens for me with Fazioli grands. The actions are prepped magnificently, and the pianos are SO responsive. But when you hear them recorded, they can often be quite thin, and there are many situations that I wouldn't pick one. I think that the amazing responsiveness of the actions, tuned to perfection, have a lot to do with the satisfaction derived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to respond to "Stage piano key action and static touch weights".

Although this was an in depth chart and took alot of time to develop - we all appreciate that effort very much!

 

Before i saw this thread, i did my own testing sometime ago. The weights i used were gram/milligram set to be accurate not coins then afterwards i had access to a scientific laser device which measures these kind of things for keyboard and piano manufactures with many many perimeters more than i can mention here (chart will be forth coming later includes tests on Bosendorfer 280VC 2015 & 214VC 2015, Steinway B 2015 & D 2015, along with recently Roland RD2000 & Fantom 8 New ver., Yamaha Montage 8, CP4 & CP88.)

 

You have to keep in mind how to measure these keybeds to get accurate results. First you have to take keyboard units that are brand new out of the box and compare them and for new acoustic pianos new sitting in a showroom that have not been moved since out of the manufacture crate etc.

 

For example: A brand new out of the box "Roland RD2000" and A brand new out of the box "Roland new Fantom 8" are the (same) weight down/up, same with A brand new out of the box "Yamaha CP4" and A brand new out of the box "Yamaha CP88", The issues are with your measurements(coins) instead of cert. gram set and the fact that the items have to be "brand new out of the box" for the very true fact that brand new out of the box are the same vs. keybeds that are broken in after months of playing as in my case the aforementioned Rolands and Yamahas down/up weights changed from new vs broken in and varied depending how many hours per day per month i practiced and or performed on.

 

Again after measurements with gram set and newer laser device to get even better results (results will be given at later date) bottom line is brand new Roland RD2000 and broken in(several hours/day per months of use) Roland RD2000 - the measurements will vary alot that is because of the combination of springs, multi layer hammer felt and the grease used on the key points/hammer mechanism does change alot. As far as the acoustics piano goes same thing but not as much because these materials that are used in their manufacture are of far greater quality and don't change much in short same time as does the cheaper made Rolands and Yamahas weighted hammer action.

 

Now i will say based upon personal experience i practice and perform on Bosendorfer 214vc 2015 and Steinway B 2105 both quite alot, the Steinway B has a faster touch vs. Bosendorfer 214vc (overall Steinways have faster touch vs. Bosendorfers when comparing new models against each other) and the NW-GH Yamaha CP88 or CP4 has a faster action than pha-50 Roland RD2000 & New Fantom 8's.

 

Lastly, You have to be careful in testing, new out of the box is different than broken in several months of hard use comparing same models or brands etc. In my opinion and professional expertise - the YAMAHA NW-GH is much faster than Roland PHA-50's which most agree that i have heard and again in my professional experience the aforementioned Acoustic Bosendorfers and the Steinways are even faster than the PHA-50 & NW-GH.

 

***It gets down to or matters: You have to ask yourself if you are serious about what you play or perform on especially if you make a living playing; do you want something to wear your fingers/hands, wrists/arms out - painful arthritis to develop and is like running with a 100lb weight or do you want something that gives you just enough resistance to haul a....s on complicated and or 1/64th note passages at 260 metronome? I know i had a Kawai Redwood Super Grand 1976 and it was brand new and like playing wet concrete or molasses vs. Steinways Concert Grands of that era. The newer Acoustic Yamahas S6 and the CFX 9' actions are harder/slower to play than the Bosendorfer/Steinway for sure.

Just my several cents experience......

Good luck ya all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying here is that you can get a graded effect in two ways: by changing the physical weight of the keys (low/high) or changing the velocity response (low/hi).

Ah. I see what you're saying, but I think needing to hit the lower keys harder to get the same response (but without any corresponding physical feedback to prompt it) would be disorienting to play.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear: the physical escapement provides a guide for your fingers that makes it possible to feel how far up you need to bring the key before pressing down again. Without it, it's harder to guess, and you may misfire. The sensor is a different function, also necessary.

I see. Possibly. I'm not sure there is any correlation between the middle sensor trigger point and the escapement letoff simulation point, though. Plus, you don't feel escapement on the way up, right? In the end, I'm not sure it provides any more "location reinforcement" than simply getting a feel for playing your board.

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

But the existence of those knobs on the Lachnit suggests that there is no single velocity curve that is just right, but that it's going to vary by player, and also vary by the sound you're playing, and maybe also by the sound characteristics of the venue you're performing at. I wonder how much a player is likely to change the velocity curve on the fly? Being able to adjust the curve in a menu might be sufficient for most players, as once they find a curve they like, they're good with it. On the other hand, I think changing the curve would be very useful depending on the type of piece you're playing -- e.g. soft/slow versus hard/fast. It would make some difficult pieces easier to play.

 

I gigged with the Lachnit in various jazz groups for a couple years, and found the Velocity Curve Edit and Dynamics knobs to be very useful in a live context. They enable you to adjust to the band and the room as you are playing, without changing your playing attack. For example, I often found it useful to shift the center of my normal playing actions into brighter timbres of the particular Pianoteq model I was playing, if there were a couple horns in the band, or to shift the center to a more mellow area if I was playing in a piano trio. Easy also to dial up the timbres during a solo in a larger group. To me at least, it sounds very different from just tweaking a brightness control, because it accesses the more natural bright timbres that you reach by playing "harder," without playing harder. It's a really nice keyboard, now part of my home studio. I have an acoustic grand with Renner action that I play most of the time, and I have no problem shifting to the Lachnit for late night silent playing on headphones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr. Jazz Man,

 

Great post. What is your opinion of the Casio PX S digital piano actions? I am hoping my PX S3000 will become lighter over time. It's heavier than my previous Casio PX-360 (160 type). How many grams do broken in digital piano actions tend to change compared to when "new out of the box"? I assume they get lighter.

 

PS. I played a 1900 seven foot Mason and Hamlin BB grand recently and it was the most comfortable and divine action I have ever played in my life. It was quite shallow, very fast and light: totally effortless! Then last night I had to play a Yamaha CLP 280 (CP-300 type?, circa 2006) action and it was absolute misery, heavy and sluggish ... What did they do in the old Mason and Hamlin BB, how is that possible? I like it more than any Steinway or Fazioli I have ever played.

 

Thanks

J+

 

 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

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?

 

Hi tfort, while I was back at the showroom today I made 14 measurements of middle-C for the Kawai MP11SE, instead of three, to see if this would give a different distance to pivot, but it did not, the second measure was nearly the same as the first.

 

Here's a plot of the numbers:

 

http://www.stewartschultz.com/Music/Selection_999(548).png

 

The horizontal axis is the horizontal distance in centimeters along the top of the key, zero for the front edge. The vertical is the distance in millimeters the key moved when pressed down at that horizontal distance from the key edge. Each red point is a measurement I made along the key, so the red points indicate the position of the top of the key as it was pressed down. If you draw the best fit straight line through the points, and extrapolate till it hits 0 vertical movement (the point of the pivot), you see that you have to move a little over 20 cm from the front edge of the key to reach that pivot point.

 

So, the original measures appear to be an accurate representation of the geometry as defined by the behavior of the key. I'm thinking that this behavior is the most real measure of the feel of the key -- that's what your fingers are experiencing. So although the real distance to pivot may be 24 cm, what your fingers are feeling is 20-21 cm. So I think that regardless of the actual distance, the numbers in the table are OK for at least assessing the rank order of the boards on this measure. Your thoughts on this welcome.

 

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.

 

Today I spent a lot of time with the Korg Kross (a fun board) and compared it to the Krome. Although they both are listed as having the Korg NH action, they felt different (one of the Krosses was set up next to the Krome). There were two Kross boards in the store, apparently of different ages, but their action felt identical, quiet, solid, no bounce at all, a low comfortable upweight, very pleasant and playable, easy to do one-key trills anywhere on the keyboard. So the subjective feel was consistent with the numbers in the table. The Krome had similar down- and upweights, but was load and clacky sounding on most of the keys, with a less responsive action. So either the actions were different, or the Krome was very old and worn. It did not look old, in fact one of the Krosses looked oldest of the three. So, I don't know what to say, but the numbers in the table do indicate real differences between the Kross and the Krome that were there in the showroom.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another note on the "bounciness" of these boards:

 

There are two types of bounciness: the keys bouncing when they return to their top position, and the internal bounce when the hammer hits the felt. In an acoustic action, the hammer bounces back and is immediately caught in a felted piece of the mechanism, but apparently in at least many of the digitals, there is no catch, and the hammer just bounces a couple times, or more, against the felt it hits. In many of the boards, this internal bounce was very obvious and potentially distracting. Psychologically, you connect the hammer hit with the sound, but if there are two (or more) hammer hits, it creates a slightly distracting disconnect between the hit and the sound. Also, in boards with a pronounced internal bounce, they subjectively felt like the entire key action was vibrating as you play. The bounce is greatest with a medium force on the key. I think I'll add another column for internal bounce -- although it can't be objectively measured, it still is obvious and the differences among boards is great and I think of interest to players for comparing boards.

 

The boards with the most pronounced internal bounce, or vibration, are all the Casios, the Kawai ES110, the Roland FP 10/30/60 (but not the FP 90), the Korg D1, the Nord Stage 88, and the controllers Studiologic SL88 Studio and M-Audio Hammer 88. The highest was probably the Studiologic Studio, and the least internal bounce was in the Korg Kross, which also had no key bounce at all. All the other boards had a slight or moderate internal bounce/vibration feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be careful in testing, new out of the box is different than broken in several months of hard use comparing same models or brands etc.
I have some skepticism about an action changing substantially after being "broken in" or more heavily played. If it's true, one would expect much more of a change in the more frequently played middle octaves than at the top or bottom ends of the 88, and I'm not sure we've seen any evidence of keyboard "middles" changing/breaking in more than the extremes.

 

Today I spent a lot of time with the Korg Kross (a fun board) and compared it to the Krome. Although they both are listed as having the Korg NH action, they felt different (one of the Krosses was set up next to the Krome).

Yes, there is a bit of mystery here. They are both NH action, so presumably the same fundamental design, yet people have mentioned differences, with I believe the Kross generally being considered a bit better than the Krome. Possibilities include that it could be the same action behaving differently due to difference in physical mounting, or different velocity curves (though the latter wouldn't impact your kind of soundless measurements), or the actions being manufactured by different suppliers (which can lead to differences even if they all meet Korg's specifications)... If there are physical variations, we can't be sure that they are global to all Krosses vs. all Kromes, or if either action could ultimately find its way into either board. It is possible that it isn't strictly a Kross to Krome difference, but manufacturing batch to manufacturing batch, or even unit to unit variation The same question has come up when comparing Yamaha GHS actions.

 

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 have some skepticism about an action changing substantially after being "broken in" or more heavily played. If it's true, one would expect much more of a change in the more frequently played middle octaves than at the top or bottom ends of the 88, and I'm not sure we've seen any evidence of keyboard "middles" changing/breaking in more than the extremes.

 

This is consistent with my experience -- I've had an RD 700 for going on 20 years now, and the wear is not noticeable until the point of breakage. Four times the subchassis has broken, all near the middle of the board, requiring replacement of the middle sections of the subchassis. Other than breakage, I haven't noticed any wear in the middle of the board.

 

This is in great contrast to my acoustic pianos, also played for decades, which do wear in the middle and have needed some regulation over the years. Digitals don't go out of "regulation," rather the keys or (sub)chassis just break over time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some thoughts about how to best test the action of boards -- I'm struck now about how little information there is available on the internet about key action, for weighted-hammer digitals. YouTube demos are virtually useless, and people testing boards in the showroom do nothing useful -- no exaggeration, I think I must have heard the first 4 bars of Fuer Elise and River Flows Through You hundreds of times in the last week.

 

If you want to demo the action of the board (hint for YouTubers!) here's how:

1. give the board a workout. You don't have to play a Mozart sonata, but at the very least you can do one-key drumming (also called one-key trills): with the L/R index fingers, alternate hitting a single key as fast as you can and see how easy it is to execute. Do this for both black and white keys, at the low/middle/high end of the board, and at the end of the white keys and in the middle of the white keys adjacent to the black keys. If the board is responsive this should be executable in all these locations. If the length to pivot is too short, it will be difficult or impossible to drum on the black keys or in the middle of the white keys.

 

2. demonstrate the key bounce: look close (or bring your camera close!) hold the key all the way down, and release and let it return and watch it bounce. Show the bounce in slow motion so we can see how many times it bounces.

 

3. turn the sound off, bring your ear (or microphone!) close to the keys and listen how the action sounds. Play at moderate force a single key several times and hear how many times the hammer bounces against the chassis. Slow down the recording so we can hear it more clearly.

 

4. why not bring a stack of nickels and compare down- and upweights? For YouTubers, this is a lot less effort than practicing pieces to perform for the camera, and just as useful to the audience.

 

5. one measure I haven't considered yet that is also important is how "hard" the bottom of the key drop is -- some boards are more cushioned at the bottom than others, presumably to lower the risk of tendon injuries for people who play at high energy for several hours a day. The best way to demo this is by putting a microphone close and listening to how loud the bottom is when you hit a key hard. Boards with cushioning have little sound at all, otherwise this can be quite loud.

 

6. other tips welcome.

 

Would sure be great if there were demos like this routinely online. Lots of folks are not able to demo boards first hand, so all we can do is buy a couple boards and send one back. The more boards we can rule out, the easier this becomes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stoo,

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 wanted to respond in more detail to this .... yes the farther up the key you play, the more force you need. The shorter the distance to the pivot, the harder it is to play in the middle of the key. That's why I included distance to pivot as one of the measures. Boards with longer pivot distance are necessary for playing the full range of pieces in all keys -- as for example when you need to play with fingers 2-5 while your thumb is on a black key. Playing up tempo for such passages may not be possible if the pivot length is too short.

 

For this reason it's useful to test a board with one-key drumming, starting at the end of a white key, and move slowly up the key to see how harder it gets, and how far up the key you can go until it's not possible anymore. It should be harder but still possible on the black keys and in the middle of the white keys. If you can't do it in the middle of a white key, then the board is physically limiting.

 

This difficulty is hard to measure objectively, you just have to play the boards. But I think the numbers we have for distance to pivot are a good first approximation. I wish this info were publicized for every board.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before i saw this thread, i did my own testing sometime ago. The weights i used were gram/milligram set to be accurate not coins then afterwards i had access to a scientific laser device which measures these kind of things for keyboard and piano manufactures with many many perimeters more than i can mention here (chart will be forth coming later includes tests on Bosendorfer 280VC 2015 & 214VC 2015, Steinway B 2015 & D 2015, along with recently Roland RD2000 & Fantom 8 New ver., Yamaha Montage 8, CP4 & CP88.)

 

Thanks for "weighing in" Mr. Jazz Man, will love to see that chart, I hope you can post it here soon!

 

You have to keep in mind how to measure these keybeds to get accurate results. First you have to take keyboard units that are brand new out of the box and compare them and for new acoustic pianos new sitting in a showroom that have not been moved since out of the manufacture crate etc.

 

I think there's also a case to be made that, to the extent that boards are broken in by use, it's better to wait until they're broken in to gather these data -- after all, the vast majority of their working life will be broken in. If weights do change from wear, then this would be good information to have, and the only way you could see this is by measuring boards that have been used for some time, as might be the case in showroom models.

 

The issues are with your measurements(coins) instead of cert. gram set

 

I think coins are more than enough to see differences among boards -- you don't need to measure down to the milligram to see the broad differences we see among the brands and models and key actions. Also, we can't really feel differences on the order of fractions of a gram, and those small differences probably are within the normal range of variability due to temperature and humidity, and how level you have the instrument. I'm sure the differences among models in your chart are on the order of a few grams or larger (the weight of one nickel), rather than in fractions of a gram.

 

I think the info we have gotten is fine as a first approximation of diffs among the brands and models, hope you agree.

 

Good luck ya all.

 

Same to you, thanks again!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gigged with the Lachnit in various jazz groups for a couple years, and found the Velocity Curve Edit and Dynamics knobs to be very useful in a live context. They enable you to adjust to the band and the room as you are playing, without changing your playing attack. For example, I often found it useful to shift the center of my normal playing actions into brighter timbres of the particular Pianoteq model I was playing, if there were a couple horns in the band, or to shift the center to a more mellow area if I was playing in a piano trio. Easy also to dial up the timbres during a solo in a larger group. To me at least, it sounds very different from just tweaking a brightness control, because it accesses the more natural bright timbres that you reach by playing "harder," without playing harder. It's a really nice keyboard, now part of my home studio. I have an acoustic grand with Renner action that I play most of the time, and I have no problem shifting to the Lachnit for late night silent playing on headphones.

 

Sounds like a great setup. Just thinking out loud: I wonder if you could get close to that level of real-time control by saving a couple dozen setups on a conventional controller, each setup with a different velocity curve, with many gradations between mellow and bright. Then just scroll through the setups until you find the one that works best. Not the same but maybe close? Also -- using a virtual piano, might it be possible to program a couple virtual knobs that do something similar to the Velocity Curve Edit and Dynamics knobs on the Lachnit? Certainly possible in theory, but I don't know if such a thing exists or how hard it would be to implement in current software.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any new measurements?

 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

Any new measurements?

Yes I got the Medeli S4000 (Medeli K6 mechanism) and a Yamaha hybrid, and a Roland RD-700, will enter them in soon and comment.

 

I was waiting for K6 measurements when I read this thread first time. I hope Medeli SP4000 action is identical to Kurzweil SP6 action.

Yamaha P-515, Korg SV-2 73, Kurzweil PC4-7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple test to determine whether a keyboard has springs (without disassembling the board) is simply to stand the board on end, press a key, and notice whether it returns to the starting position or remains depressed. Off the keyboards i own, i've noticed that while the GH action in my Yamaha S08 has springs, my Roland F08 and Casio PX3 do not.

 

One thing that measuring static touch weights doesn't tell us is how damped the mechanism is - this i think is perhaps the major part of what makes a keyboard feel sluggish. Playing the Casio always felt like swimming through mud; disassembly reveals that the pivot ends of the keys are embedded in a ball of grease, which would explain the sluggishness. (On the other hand, this can make the action more comfortable to play, as the resistance to acceleration is spread out over the travel of the key, rather than all on the hard stop at the bottom of the GH action, for instance). This sort of dynamic testing might be done by measuring the time it takes for the key to travel its full distance with different weights applied.

 

- Jimbo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking up from something I said earlier, this weekend I was at a store where I played their DGX660 and P45 (both GHS) side by side... they felt very different. I can't say whether this was unit-to-unit variation or true to all DGX660s and P45s, but the DGX keys felt much lighter than the P45. I really liked that DGX, I did not like the P45.

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

This thread has been of great interest to me lately as my tendinitis has been flaring up again.

I remember that the action on my old silver Roland FP3 seemed to be the least stressful digital piano action I have ever owned. It was a very light, bouncy, and noisy action with a very soft spongy bottom. It didn"t sound so great but it was very nice on the hands. It took very little effort to play and was unusually well cushioned. I wonder what light measurements it would reveal? Is there anything in the market under 30 lbs these days with such a light action?

 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

dbl post

 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

A simple test to determine whether a keyboard has springs (without disassembling the board) is simply to stand the board on end, press a key, and notice whether it returns to the starting position or remains depressed. Off the keyboards i own, i've noticed that while the GH action in my Yamaha S08 has springs, my Roland F08 and Casio PX3 do not.

 

One thing that measuring static touch weights doesn't tell us is how damped the mechanism is - this i think is perhaps the major part of what makes a keyboard feel sluggish. Playing the Casio always felt like swimming through mud; disassembly reveals that the pivot ends of the keys are embedded in a ball of grease, which would explain the sluggishness. (On the other hand, this can make the action more comfortable to play, as the resistance to acceleration is spread out over the travel of the key, rather than all on the hard stop at the bottom of the GH action, for instance). This sort of dynamic testing might be done by measuring the time it takes for the key to travel its full distance with different weights applied.

 

- Jimbo

 

Good points -- I'll add a springs column to the table, that would be something forum members can easily report on themselves.

 

I agree that the force required all along key travel is an important measure, that contributes to a subjective sluggishness feel. After doing this exercise, a lot of things became clearer that also suggested much better ways that I could have done the exercise :-)

 

It turns out that many smartphones have a super slo-mo function that allows video recording at very high frame rates -- up to 960 fps. One could very easily plot the entire force vs. key travel distance curve by putting a fixed weight on top of a key, with a millimeter rule next to it, and videotaping the key as it drops. Then you would watch it in slo-mo and record the video time as the key drops to 9mm, 8mm, 7mm, ... 1mm from the bottom. This plot would then give a proxy for the force required at every millimeter of position. It would take a half hour to record all 30+ keyboards in the store, and another 2 hours to plot the data at home, a nice Saturday project.

 

Unfortunately I don't have a super smart phone, and I'm no longer in Berlin :-( But I'm putting the idea out there -- I'll try and do it myself if nobody else wants to give it a go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any new measurements?

Yes I got the Medeli S4000 (Medeli K6 mechanism) and a Yamaha hybrid, and a Roland RD-700, will enter them in soon and comment.

 

I was waiting for K6 measurements when I read this thread first time. I hope Medeli SP4000 action is identical to Kurzweil SP6 action.

 

I'm hoping to get the Kurz measurements today in Zagreb -- stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking up from something I said earlier, this weekend I was at a store where I played their DGX660 and P45 (both GHS) side by side... they felt very different. I can't say whether this was unit-to-unit variation or true to all DGX660s and P45s, but the DGX keys felt much lighter than the P45. I really liked that DGX, I did not like the P45.

 

This is one of the surprising things to me after making these measurements -- the many examples where the supposedly identical key mechanism is obviously very different. For many of these boards the manufacturer says "specifications subject to change without notice" so apparently mechanisms can be altered, while keeping the same name. You really have to get the numbers to compare, or try them out yourself, you can't trust the specs tables.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been of great interest to me lately as my tendinitis has been flaring up again.

I remember that the action on my old silver Roland FP3 seemed to be the least stressful digital piano action I have ever owned. It was a very light, bouncy, and noisy action with a very soft spongy bottom. It didn"t sound so great but it was very nice on the hands. It took very little effort to play and was unusually well cushioned. I wonder what light measurements it would reveal? Is there anything in the market under 30 lbs these days with such a light action?

 

Yes -- the Kawai ES110 is 26 pounds and has a light action, probably as light or even a bit lighter than the FP3, plus keys have a soft stop at the bottom. It has the same fully sampled EX piano as the MP11SE, plus 5-pin midi ports and bluetooth. I'd strongly recommend this board if you have problems with tendinitis.

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...