Yamaha CP1 first impressions

[timwat]

No, it is largely me being hostile. But I just don't understand how people let DP manufacturers off so easily. If I were at NAMM I'd be holding their feet to the fire over what day of the week it was.

 

I guess my question to you, dude, is "why the hostility?"

[dewster]

I guess my question to you, dude, is "why the hostility?"

No disrespect, but I'm kind of sick of being lied to. Yamaha couldn't even give me a straight answer about note stretching or looping on the P155. First they said every note was sampled (an obvious lie) then someone called me back and said they couldn't tell me anything as it was proprietary. I'm a pretty loyal customer and Yamaha wouldn't give me the time of day.

[madshi]

Unless I misunderstood, the guys from Yamaha said it's real FM. It certainly sounds real.

 

I'm not a big fan of FM DX samples -the don't have the same life as a DX7. This did. It was a ton of fun to play - especially stacked on top of the CFIIIS.

Well, if it really is a sample/model mixture, and not real FM, that would be a good proof that the "SCM" model used by the CP1 works really great. That would also explain why you guys all seem to like the CP1 AP sounds so much!

 

Anyway, the reason why I've asked, is that I'm wondering whether I should go for the CP1 or the CP5. The DX7 sounds in the CP1 being based on SCM and not being purely sampled are the single biggest argument for me to choose the CP1. But then I would miss strings sounds for background layers which the CP5 has. And of course the CP5 is so much cheaper. So I'm all torn up and don't know which one to choose.

 

Maybe I should get a CP5 and add a Yamaha F1SR?

 

Do you think the CP1's DX7 sounds actually sound *better* than the original? Or only just as good? If it's only just as good, I might as well go with CP5 + F1SR.

[timwat]

I guess my question to you, dude, is "why the hostility?"

No disrespect, but I'm kind of sick of being lied to. Yamaha couldn't even give me a straight answer about note stretching or looping on the P155. First they said every note was sampled (an obvious lie) then someone called me back and said they couldn't tell me anything as it was proprietary. I'm a pretty loyal customer and Yamaha wouldn't give me the time of day.

 

No disrespect perceived. I was genuinely curious - thanks for letting me know what your experience has been.

[dewster]

But at the end of the day, none of this mitigates the playing experience of the CP1...whether it's FM, SCM, PCM or black magic, it's going to play like what it plays like. And the only thing I'm interested in (with regard to stage pianos) is how close it comes to giving me that ephemeral "real instrument" experience.

I want a DP to fool me into thinking I am hearing a recording of a real piano under all circumstances. And by that, I mean I won't tolerate note stretching, looping, audible velocity switching, phase issues, etc. To me, these very technical things destroy my suspension of disbelief, and so keep me from getting into the sound. Reviews like the one anchoring this post aren't really helping in that regard, as they throw the technical angle out with the bath water.

[dewster]

Well, if it really is a sample/model mixture, and not real FM, that would be a good proof that the "SCM" model used by the CP1 works really great. That would also explain why you guys all seem to like the CP1 AP sounds so much!

I think it is a spectral combination of samples, which gives you limited control over a few parameters, but in practice is nowhere near the flexibility of a real FM synth.

 

Anyway, the reason why I've asked, is that I'm wondering whether I should go for the CP1 or the CP5. The DX7 sounds in the CP1 being based on SCM and not being purely sampled are the single biggest argument for me to choose the CP1. But then I would miss strings sounds for background layers which the CP5 has. And of course the CP5 is so much cheaper. So I'm all torn up and don't know which one to choose.

 

Maybe I should get a CP5 and add a Yamaha F1SR?

 

Do you think the CP1's DX7 sounds actually sound *better* than the original? Or only just as good? If it's only just as good, I might as well go with CP5 + F1SR.

If you want an FM synth, get an FM synth, preferably the NI FM8. The FS1r is almost impossible to program via the front panel, and you definitely need PC software & MIDI to get at the formant filters.

[madshi]

If you want an FM synth, get an FM synth, preferably the NI FM8. The FS1r is almost impossible to program via the front panel, and you definitely need PC software & MIDI to get at the formant filters.

I don't necessarily "want an FM synth". What I want is many great different EP sounds. And I do seem to like DX7 type EPs. Does that mean that I "want an FM synth"? Well, maybe, I don't know. I guess that's exactly my question!

[Aidan]

Dewster, while many of us here are interested in the technical aspects of keyboards, I think most of us couldn't give a flying proverbial about how something produces the sound it does, if the sound is right.

 

If the P155 you're so upset about had sounded good to you, would you care whether every note was sampled or not?

 

Musical instruments are all about sound and touch. That's why every time someone comes here asking advice about keyboard X, those who really know what they're talking about will tell the person to go and play one and decide for themselves.

 

And that's what Dave was writing about in his post. He went and did exactly that. And he shared that opinion, which I for one welcome. But that's hardly going to make anyone here go out and drop five grand on a stage piano without first checking it over thoroughly for themselves, is it?

 

But thanks for my first Diet Coke Nose Snort of the day - courtesy of your concept that a person who has contributed eight posts, all of them rather bizarrely hostile, is in some sort of position to question dB's credibility.

[Markyboard]

Credibility is putting your reputation behind everything you write.

 

Incredible

[Joe Muscara]

I want a DP to fool me into thinking I am hearing a recording of a real piano

A recording? That's a funny way to put it, at the very least. The first thing this made me think of is that you should get a Kurzweil, because kanker says they sound like a "recording of a piano."

 

As to the rest of your demands,

[Athan Billias]

Hi, we'd like to clear a few things up.

 

Regarding the FM sounds on the CP1, it is real FM technology. It has 4 of the key EP FM alogorithms and you can tweak a few parameters like attack and release , but there is no full on editing. The CP1 one is focused on pianos and piano sounds only.

 

The acoustic pianos are a combination of samples for the core tone generation mixed with some modeled components ( the sound board resonance, the hammer stiffness, etc. ).

 

 

The sounds that are completely modeled with Spectral Component Modeling are the tine and reed electric pianos.

 

We simply selected the best technology available to make that particular sound the best it could be.

 

Hope that helps, but now it's time to run the last day of the show !

[Athan Billias]

By the way some one asked HOW we do the real FM , there is a sample based tone generator chip in the CP1 , but there is also a hefty CPU that can do some serious math (like FM). That's one of the reasons why the CP1 is more expensive and also why the CP5 can not do real FM.

 

The CP1 is just a no compromise instrument. Okay, now we really have to head to the show.

[dewster]

Dewster, while many of us here are interested in the technical aspects of keyboards, I think most of us couldn't give a flying proverbial about how something produces the sound it does, if the sound is right.

Keyboards are strange because they exist in two very different realms - the technical and the aesthetic. I don't even start to care about the aesthetics until I know the DP is technically up to the task. The vast majority aren't, and that's what I was hoping I might learn more about from Dave's review.

 

If the P155 you're so upset about had sounded good to you, would you care whether every note was sampled or not?

That's my point, the P155 sound sucks for technical reasons (looping & stretching). I almost don't care what kind of piano they sampled because the compression artifacting is killing my ears.

[SK]

The acoustic pianos are a combination of samples for the core tone generation mixed with some modeled components ( the sound board resonance, the hammer stiffness, etc.)

Thanks for that info. Good to hear that it utilizes both.

[drawback]

By the way some one asked HOW we do the real FM , there is a sample based tone generator chip in the CP1 , but there is also a hefty CPU that can do some serious math (like FM). That's one of the reasons why the CP1 is more expensive and also why the CP5 can not do real FM.

 

The CP1 is just a no compromise instrument. Okay, now we really have to head to the show.

 

Thus Spake Yamathustra?!

 

 

[dewster]

Regarding the FM sounds on the CP1, it is real FM technology. It has 4 of the key EP FM alogorithms and you can tweak a few parameters like attack and release , but there is no full on editing. The CP1 one is focused on pianos and piano sounds only.

I'm confused. In the Yamaha literature for these new three keyboards, the DX7 is listed under "SCM Piano Block". Do you consider it to be SCM or not? If not, why is that implied by your literature? If so, what the heck is SCM?

[David Loving]

IMO, the DX7 issue is "a distinction without a difference."

[dewster]

A recording? That's a funny way to put it, at the very least.

I want to be able to run a MIDI file through it, record it to CD, put on my headphones, and have it fool me 100% of the time into thinking I'm hearing a real miked piano. Don't we all desire that level of realism in the sound of our DPs? And, outside of DPs that are barely out of the lab, has it ever happened?

 

Doesn't it make you a little mad that you can spend thousands on a shiny new DP that gets it's ass routinely handed to it by $100 PC software? Oh, but it has a glowing logo, I guess that makes up for everything.

[David Loving]

Dewster, just don't buy a cp1; limber up the old DX7.

[Joe Muscara]

I want it to sound and feel like a real piano when I sit down and play it. I think it would be weird to sound like a recording of a piano when I was actually playing it.

[Dana.]

Dewster:

 

It's one thing to seek clarification from Yamaha on their products, but for a newbie to immediately question the credibility of the highly respected moderator of this forum, with no introduction, is, to put it politely, wrongheaded. You won't gain many friends here with that approach.

[madshi]

By the way some one asked HOW we do the real FM , there is a sample based tone generator chip in the CP1 , but there is also a hefty CPU that can do some serious math (like FM). That's one of the reasons why the CP1 is more expensive and also why the CP5 can not do real FM.

Cool - thanks! I've two questions, if you don't mind:

 

(1) Would you say that the DX7 sounds in the CP1 are better, same or worse compared to old DX7 hardware (e.g. TX802 or F1SR)? Theoretically they should be about equal quality, but with higher polyphony?

 

(2) Judging by other people's first impressions it seems that the CP1 sounds are really good. But *WHY* the heck did you not add some nice background layer sounds like strings etc? I might have bought a CP1, but now I guess I'll have to get a CP5 instead, cause the CP1 is not feature complete (for my needs)...

 

I've a hard time understanding how a top model can have less features than a lower end model. This weird concept simply does not work for me.

[mate stubb]

Doesn't it make you a little mad that you can spend thousands on a shiny new DP that gets it's ass routinely handed to it by $100 PC software? Oh, but it has a glowing logo, I guess that makes up for everything.

 

I'm going to reveal something to you. It's a conspiracy. Against you. That's right, a conspiracy. True piano reproduction and touch has been available for years, but only to the initiates. There is a secret keystroke combination on every digital piano that unlocks this, but unfortunately, the manufacturers have not deemed you worthy yet. So they are holding out on you.

 

 

Grow up. Man up. The world is what it is. Play a real piano and be happy or find a substitute like the rest of us that you can live with.

 

Or, go put that $100 software in a hardware box and manufacture it, and watch the world beat a path to your door.

 

 

[Floyd Tatum]

The sounds that are completely modeled with Spectral Component Modeling are the tine and reed electric pianos.

 

Hi, Athan

 

I'm a little confused by that. I thought I read in the Yamaha info, or maybe I saw it in the Keyboard video interview, that the Rhodes sounds were using some new technology where you couldn't hear the velocity switches. That implies that it uses samples. What you said above implies that it's totally modelled. If you have time, could you elaborate? Thanks

 

Richard

 

[Aidan]

Richard, I interpreted that at the time as meaning that you couldn't hear the velocity switches for the very reason there were none, i.e. because it was modelled - I may be wrong.

 

Steve - very good to see you back

 

Madshi, I believe Dave Bryce has extensive experience of the "real thing" as far as DX sounds go, so if he's impressed I'm sure there's a good chance you will be too.

 

[Dave Bryce]

So you don't care if Yamaha is possibly feeding you a line?

If I thought that there was any possibility they were...then yes, of course I would. But since I've known the Yamaha guys for more than a little while and tend to think they have more respect for me (and their customers) than to "blow smoke", I tend to actually...you know...trust them when they tell me something.

 

Since all I've done is repeat what I was told, I'm kinda not so worried about my credibility

Credibility is putting your reputation behind everything you write.

Actually, credibility is just being believable or trustworthy. It seems to me that there are many ways of achieving that (how one chooses to conduct oneself in public comes to mind as one contributing aspect), but thanks for clearing up for us what your definition is.

 

As you can now clearly see, the Yamaha guys did in fact tell me that it was real FM. Apology accepted.

 

dB

 

 

[Dave Bryce]

(1) Would you say that the DX7 sounds in the CP1 are better, same or worse compared to old DX7 hardware (e.g. TX802 or F1SR)? Theoretically they should be about equal quality, but with higher polyphony?

Hard to say without having the two essentially next to each other...but what I can say was there was a familiar playability and sonic quality to the CP1's FM that certainly felt to me like I was playing that DX7 I had for so many years

 

dB

[dewster]

Or, go put that $100 software in a hardware box and manufacture it, and watch the world beat a path to your door.

No, that's Yamaha's job. And why we don't have anything like that yet completely baffles me.

[dewster]

The acoustic pianos are a combination of samples for the core tone generation mixed with some modeled components ( the sound board resonance, the hammer stiffness, etc. ).

Can Yamaha tell us if the CFIII sample is the same across all three keyboards? Cause I really don't want to try and determine that in our local noisy Sam Ash.

 

Can someone who can get close enough to one of these things to play it please report back on whether there is any detectable looping (or any other strangeness in the decay of single notes) on the CFIII? Turning off the reverb might help reveal it. That's the main thing I'm interested in. Any looping and these get scratched from my list.

[dewster]

It's one thing to seek clarification from Yamaha on their products, but for a newbie to immediately question the credibility of the highly respected moderator of this forum, with no introduction, is, to put it politely, wrongheaded. You won't gain many friends here with that approach.

You're right, I've been overly gruff. Sincere apologies all around.