Yamaha CP4 - first impressions

[Dave Bryce]

they might have helped with the overall tone.

I think you'd find that's definitely the case.

 

You should try to use the best monitoring system you can get - especially If you're really picky about tone.

 

dB

[voxpops]

they might have helped with the overall tone.

I think you'd find that's definitely the case.

Yes, if I'd been generally OK with the technical aspects of the piano, I'd have taken it into the studio and listened through the HS80s, which are brutally honest. But I just felt that the implementation was so lackluster, technically, that it wasn't worth it. It went back to the dealer within hours - and that surprised me: I have rarely felt so disinclined to keep a higher end DP for extended evaluation.

 

Other than the new CFX sample, what is the "sonic attraction" of the CP4 when compared with the best DPs (let alone the software pianos)?

[Dave Bryce]

if I'd been generally OK with the technical aspects of the piano, I'd have taken it into the studio and listened through the HS80s, which are brutally honest.

Actually I find those to be a bit bass heavy with a slightly covered top end...but YMMV.

 

But I just felt that the implementation was so lackluster, technically, that it wasn't worth it. It went back to the dealer within hours - and that surprised me: I have rarely felt so disinclined to keep a higher end DP for extended evaluation.

I didn't have anywhere near the problems you had with the CP4...nor, clearly, did the Yamaha engineers, the people who they had beta test it, and more than a few folks on the forum who also pride themselves on their ability to evaluate piano sounds.

 

It just goes to show that everyone is looking for different things, I guess. As a friend of mine says, that's why there are blondes, brunettes and redheads.

 

dB

[AnotherScott]

Live, we tend to put stuff through K10s. Of course, I also used some decent Beyer headphones to check what was actually coming out of the piano, as I wanted to be sure my judgment wasn't being affected by the speakers.

Yeah, quality headphones are best for at least letting you know what the potential is. I haven't played through the K10, but I found piano to sound better from the EV ZXa1 than I did from the QSC K8, less colored in the midrange.

 

It just goes to show that everyone is looking for different things, I guess. As a friend of mine says, that's why there are blondes, brunettes and redheads.

I thought that was so, no matter what we had, we'd always want something else!

 

It reminds me of when I met my girlfriend's family, and someone asked me why I had two cars. I answered that it was because I couldn't have two girlfriends.

[dazzjazz]

Here you go

 

https://soundcloud.com/darren-heinrich/improvisation-1-yamaha-cp4

 

 

[Dave Bryce]

Here you go

 

https://soundcloud.com/darren-heinrich/improvisation-1-yamaha-cp4

Nice playing, brother Dazz!

 

dB

[voxpops]

Here you go

 

https://soundcloud.com/darren-heinrich/improvisation-1-yamaha-cp4

Nice playing, brother Dazz!

 

dB

Yes, very nice!

[Dave Ferris]

they might have helped with the overall tone.

I think you'd find that's definitely the case.

 

You should try to use the best monitoring system you can get - especially If you're really picky about tone.

 

dB

 

Call me crazy...but there's a reason why I spend $3500 on a pair of speakers and a di/preamp. If I would haul the pair of RCF TT22As (12"s) instead of the TT08As (8"s) that number would go up another grand.

 

And at times I think I could do better with speakers then what I have. The L'Acoustics 108P or the new Fulcrum Acoustics FA28ac.

http://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/products/fa-portable.html

 

These both sound as detailed as some of the higher end studio monitors. But where do you stop for basically your own personal satisfaction with something that will never be a real piano anyway...

 

In any case, what I have at half the price of those last two speakers, gives me a very real representation on most gig situations, except when I run into the poorest of acoustical nightmares. Then it wouldn't matter , to a certain extent, what speakers/pre was being used.

 

Yes again, Darren.

[AnotherScott]

none of the pianos allowed me to "suspend disbelief" in the way the Nord did (if I ignored the action)

Have you ever tried playing the Nord Piano from an action that you prefer?

 

I think that a nice combo for a Nord piano-sound fan would be to get an Electro 4D and put it over whatever weighted action you like the feel of (maybe a PX-350 or PX-5S). Use the weighted action to play the Nord's piano sound, and fall back on the weighted action board's lesser piano sound only when you need to simultaneously play organ (since the Nord can't produce both sounds at the same time). It could be a very light rig, weighted and unweighted actions, quality piano, quality organ, still with a variety of other sounds

 

Unfortunately the 4D won't hold much in the way of pianos. I'd wait until Nord adds drawbars to either its Electro 5 or Stage 3 models, and has sufficient memory for a good selection.

Then how about the Casio 88 and a Nord Stage 2-73, with Ocean Beach drawbars? Not cheap, but you might actually get everything you want out of that lightweight combo. Think of all the money you'll save from the end of all the buying, selling, and re-buying! ;-)

 

This is very much the setup I described thinking about in a recent thread, except also adding a MOXF6 up top. I just really want the Yamaha sounds and functionality in my rig. Which means I could kinda do it with a MOXF8 and a NS2-73, except I prefer the feel of the Casio action, and also, I like my bottom board to have minimal depth so the 2nd board's keys don't have to be so far from the first. But as a bonus, when you go that way, you get the Casio's sounds/functionality as well.

 

 

 

[voxpops]

You know, I'm not too far from coming to that conclusion myself! I daren't think too hard about all the boards I've bought and sold in the last few years (even less about the money).

 

At least the Casio provides a super-lightweight bottom board with some very usable sounds of its own. The Kronos 61 is another possibility for the top.

[drpopper]

The problem the CP4 has is exactly as Voxy has said. The AP's are rubbish TECHNICALLY ( not 88 key sampled, stretched, looped ) and you can hear it which turns you off the board even though it's quite a pleasing tonality. Yamaha is technically years behind .... Dinosaur ?

[Dana.]

The problem the CP4 has is exactly as Voxy has said. The AP's are rubbish TECHNICALLY ( not 88 key sampled, stretched, looped ) and you can hear it which turns you off the board even though it's quite a pleasing tonality. Yamaha is technically years behind .... Dinosaur ?

Outdated? Yes? "Rubbish"? Hardly.

[LX88]

The sound that Darren Heinrich got from the CFX sample certainly doesn't sound like rubbish. The CP4 records very well.

 

I still don't find a hell of a lot not to like about the Yamaha Nocturne I have, which is now around 4 or 5 years old. It's the same sample as the CP33 ( I think ).

 

I always used the CP33 as sort of a standard to compare other digital pianos to in the stores, and I generally walked away as being under impressed by most of them.

 

I am very curious to demo a CP4 but they haven't hit stores near me yet.

 

 

[Jazzed]

The problem the CP4 has is exactly as Voxy has said. The AP's are rubbish TECHNICALLY ( not 88 key sampled, stretched, looped ) and you can hear it which turns you off the board even though it's quite a pleasing tonality. Yamaha is technically years behind .... Dinosaur ?

Wasn't the whole big new thing with the CP1 when it was released that a lot of its sound was based on physical models and not samples? What exactly is SCM?

[orangefunk]

Yeah I agree.. its confusing. I too thought the CP1 was supposed to be a combination of samples and modelling to sort out the velocity switches. I also thought soundboard resonance and all the other stuff was the norm but if that is missing from the CP4 it seems quite an omission..

 

 

[16251]

Yeah I agree.. its confusing. I too thought the CP1 was supposed to be a combination of samples and modelling to sort out the velocity switches. I also thought soundboard resonance and all the other stuff was the norm but if that is missing from the CP4 it seems quite an omission..

 

I'm kind of repeating myself from the other DP blog but it seems relevant.

 

It appears the CP4 has more in common with the CP33 then the C1/5. It would seem Yamaha dropped the interface from the CP1/5, loosing the lid, sympathetic voices, hammer, hard to understand, etc. in favor of a modified CP33 interface, along with better action, more samples. This probably took less R&D money, but maybe they didn't move the bar that forward, but will make more money.

[Al Coda]

Yeah I agree.. its confusing. I too thought the CP1 was supposed to be a combination of samples and modelling to sort out the velocity switches. I also thought soundboard resonance and all the other stuff was the norm but if that is missing from the CP4 it seems quite an omission..

 

From Motifator.com:

http://www.motifator.com/index.php/support/view/cp4_stage

"You are basically provided complete multi-samples of three very expensive Yamaha acoustic pianos: the CFX, the CFIIIS and the S6. You are also given actual physical models of the classic Tine pianos (FenderRhodes/Rhodes), the reed pianos (Wurlitzer), and the electro acoustic pianos (CP80). Meticulous samples of the classic FM electric piano sounds (Yamaha DX7).

...

Also included are a variety of Voices (deemed useful for the gigging piano player on the job) based on AWM2 sample-playback engine."

 

So,- the acoustic pianos are MULTI-SAMPLED, the electric pianos are PHYSICALLY MODELLED, Yamaha DX7 is also SAMPLED and there´s the Motif-type AWM section for the additional sounds which I assume is shorter loops, lower sampling rate, more compressed or such.

 

As a result,- it might be you really get rid from velocity jumps w/ the electric pianos only and depending on how well the acoustic pianos are been sampled.

Maybe I´m wrong but I´ve read nowhere the acoustic pianos are physical models too using samples just only as a reference.

 

A.C.

[Jazzed]

I'm kind of repeating myself from the other DP blog but it seems relevant.

 

It appears the CP4 has more in common with the CP33 then the C1/5. It would seem Yamaha dropped the interface from the CP1/5, loosing the lid, sympathetic voices, hammer, hard to understand, etc. in favor of a modified CP33 interface, along with better action, more samples. This probably took less R&D money, but maybe they didn't move the bar that forward, but will make more money.

(what other DP blog are you referring to?)

 

But why wouldn't they have kept the modelling technology if it produced a more playable instrument (velocity layer switching, resonance etc) and just set many of the parameters that were previously adjustable in the presets? Like the different Pianoteq products...same instrument model, less access to that model's parameters in the Stage version.

 

Is it possible they did basically that? That wouldn't have required very much new R&D since the model was been done for the CP1 and CP5. I'm not sure why they wouldn't use the newest technology they developed in favour of older (CP33) technology with the newer samples unless they thought that sounded better for some reason.

 

Most people seem to find the CP4 very playable and responsive, which is often suggestive of physical modelling. I really really need to go to a store and sit down with this keyboard for a couple hours and see how I feel about it.

 

Edit

 

From the original CP4 thread

 

Sorry if we were unclear. The CP 4 and 40 uses the same SCM technology that was in the previous models. "Based on" in this case means that all the sounds were redone to match the new Graded NW so they weren't simply ported , but improved from the previous models,but use the same technology. The user interface is slightly different, but you can still control the preamp modeling, mic modeling , tine position , key off volume, etc.

Do the acoustic pianos on the CP4 employ SCM (as on the CP1/5/50), or only the electric pianos?

Yes, the basic technology is the same, but of course the sounds are either completely new (CFX) or tweaked for the new GH3 action.

[drpopper]

The problem the CP4 has is exactly as Voxy has said. The AP's are rubbish TECHNICALLY ( not 88 key sampled, stretched, looped ) and you can hear it which turns you off the board even though it's quite a pleasing tonality. Yamaha is technically years behind .... Dinosaur ?

Outdated? Yes? "Rubbish"? Hardly.

 

Nope technically they are rubbish completely outdated compared to their competitors ... they sound fine, good even... until you pick up on the stretching and looping decay.

[drpopper]

Yeah I agree.. its confusing. I too thought the CP1 was supposed to be a combination of samples and modelling to sort out the velocity switches. I also thought soundboard resonance and all the other stuff was the norm but if that is missing from the CP4 it seems quite an omission..

 

 

SCM was Yamaha marketing speak for some amp modelling on their AP's and their modeled EP's. It meant something on their EP's but the actual AP samples on the CP1/5/50 (and the CP4 in CF111s and S6 patches) are the same old stretched, looped partially sampled stuff that's on ever other Yamaha from their Clavinova's down to the P105 in various guises. Their new CFX sample (which they could have made great) is still stretched and looped like all other Yamahas except the AG.With Yamaha you have to separate the marketing speak from the facts. It's almost like they deliberately write their marketing materials to cover up their glaring deficiencies in modern DP technology. It's a real shame because the CFX is a totally fabulously sounding instrument and properly processed it should be very good indeed. But Yamaha just cut too many corners and once you hear a decaying loop or a stretched group on a Yamaha you always hear it everytime. It really is 10 year old technology being repackaged as new. One thing I'll say for Roland is that no matter how metallic their mid range can sound you will never hear a looping decay or a stretched group of notes on a Roland SN piano ...because it is genuine new technology that eliminates those things.

[Dana.]

Nope technically they are rubbish completely outdated compared to their competitors ... they sound fine, good even... until you pick up on the stretching and looping decay.

You know what's rubbish, drpooper? Towing the line that newer means better. Doesn't seem to be an issue for Chuck Leavell or some of the highly discerning pianists on this forum.

 

One thing I'll say for Roland is that no matter how metallic their mid range can sound you will never hear a looping decay or a stretched group of notes on a Roland SN piano ...because it is genuine new technology that eliminates those things.

Too bad they haven't been able to use that "genuine new technology" to get the basic tone of a piano right.

[timwat]

I've been gigging mine 3-4 times a week, every week, since it arrived. All I can say is the technical objections above are irrelevant to me, as it's the best stage piano I've owned.

 

The finger-to-sound connection (the action is a big part of that, and the CFX sample another) stands head and shoulders above any of the other boards I own. I feel like it allows me to play as a pianist, not as a keyboard player approaching a digital instrument trying to approximate a piano.

 

When I also consider the wide range of house pianos I encounter in my normal gig life, the CP4 really is a superior solution - outdated rubbish stretching, looping and all.

 

 

[drpopper]

 

 

Too bad they haven't been able to use that "genuine new technology" to get the basic tone of a piano right.

 

They have done so.. their Studio Grand patch (based on the Yamaha C7) on the RD700NX is the finest digital piano patch ever made. But their Concert Grand patches based on the Steinway's do leave a lot to be desired.

[ITGITC]

 

KLONK

 

OK. So let me get this straight:

 

As of - RIGHT NOW - For best hardware stage pianos the ranking goes something like this:

 

#1. Nord Piano 2 HA88 $3,000

#2. Yamaha CP4 $2,200

#3. Casio PX-5S $1,000

#4. Roland RD-700NX $2,700

#5. Kurzweil Artis $2,200

 

Everybody agrees on this, right?

 

 

[AnotherScott]

Well, I think you've accurately identified the generally most desirable pianos from Nord, Yamaha, Casio, Roland, and Kurzweil, however people may rank them. But there are also people who put the Kronos in there... not marketed as a "stage piano" but the only way to get Korg's best piano.

 

As for ranking... I'd probably pick the Roland for action, the Casio for size/weight/price, the Nord for sound, and the Yamaha perhaps for the best balance of everything. (I haven't played the Artis.)

[Dave Ferris]

 

 

Too bad they haven't been able to use that "genuine new technology" to get the basic tone of a piano right.

 

They have done so.. their Studio Grand patch (based on the Yamaha C7) on the RD700NX is the finest digital piano patch ever made. But their Concert Grand patches based on the Steinway's do leave a lot to be desired.

 

Hey Doc, how's it going man ? Yeah I agree that Studio Grand sample is quite good and doesn't have those weird, distorted characteristics, related to touch/velocity, that the Concert & bright Grand do on the A & Ab just above middle C. From a jazz perspective that was always a deal breaker for me on an otherwise fine instrument--although I always did still prefer the CP5 to it- both action and sound.

[Dave Ferris]

KLONK

 

OK. So let me get this straight:

 

As of - RIGHT NOW - For best hardware stage pianos the ranking goes something like this:

 

#1. Nord Piano 2 HA88 $3,000

#2. Yamaha CP4 $2,200

#3. Casio PX-5S $1,000

#4. Roland RD-700NX $2,700

#5. Kurzweil Artis $2,200

 

Everybody agrees on this, right?

 

 

I'd still put both the CP1 & 5 in there.

 

But there are also people who put the Kronos in there... not marketed as a "stage piano" but the only way to get Korg's best piano.

 

This is my viewpoint of course, but I don't think Korg will ever be a first choice when it comes to piano. At least, for people like myself, that are more jazz /classical acoustic bred types.

[Aidan]

DPs are always about compromise. Fact. I've said it before and I'll say it again, stats mean very little when it comes to playability and overall musical experience.

 

In theory, the Kronos pianos should rule the roost very recent recordings, every key sampled, no looping whatsoever. But playing them proved to be a less than satisfying experience for me.

 

The one piano of many bought and sold which I still look back on with fondness is the CP33. There was just something about the combination of touch and tone which I connected with.

 

Yes, it was stretched and looped but I didn't really notice it very much and I'm damn sure my audiences never did. When we did an OB recording with the BBC with it, the engineer described it as "superb - the best digital piano I ever heard".

 

[dazzjazz]

 

The one piano of many bought and sold which I still look back on with fondness is the CP33. There was just something about the combination of touch and tone which I connected with.

 

Yes, it was stretched and looped but I didn't really notice it very much and I'm damn sure my audiences never did. When we did an OB recording with the BBC with it, the engineer described it as "superb - the best digital piano I ever heard".

 

I used the CP33 on a few albums, one of which was mixed at Yamaha Studios in Japan by a guy who OWNS a CFIII. Even he didn't realise it was a digital piano.

 

I'm really happy with the CP4 and couldn't care less about how the sound is produced. It simply works for me and sounds great.

[Dana.]

their Studio Grand patch (based on the Yamaha C7) on the RD700NX is the finest digital piano patch ever made.

I cannot agree.