Yamaha CP4 - first impressions

[keyguy]

For Master Mode tips, go to Motifator.com and search "CP4". Also, there are some videos on Yamahasynth.com. These were very helpful to me.

 

Nice! Thanks Jim! on my way there now.

 

FYI, as a lifetime Yamaha user, the CP4 has the best UI on any Yamaha keyboard, bar none.

 

I'm inclined to believe you about this from my short time with the CP4. However, scares me to think of what went before . . .

Trust me. I've had everything from a TX816/DX7/MKS20 forward. As a matter of fact, I still have the TX816, MKS-20 and KX-88...

 

[JeffLearman]

There are other things for the roland:

-for me yamaha made the CP4 for the musician who just want to play and doesn't care about the rest.

Well, it's ideal for that person. It's not a workstation, and doesn't have the ability to dive into voice parameters.

 

But no modelisation:

-The roland has a dedicated engine for pianos and eps,and this is very useful for programming his own piano like a cameleon.

The CP4 pianos and epianos are modeled.

 

-the roland has an organ emulation engine too.

Not a hammond or a nord,but as good to be useful if you don't have a clone.

The CP4 organs are useless, IMHO. I never understand why ROMpler makers don't just sample a good basic Hammond tone such as 88800000 with no chorus or percussion, and have a passable Leslie sim. The CP4's sampled organs all try to do too much and do it poorly (or well in some cases for sounds I'd rarely use, like ball-park organ.) The CP4's rotating speaker is nifty but sounds nothing like a Leslie (and not just due to the lacking amp sim).

 

-EQ for live sets are dedicated for the roland on the panel,and all is recall when you change sounds.

I like that the 5-band EQ is a master control. I use it to compensate for the room, not to tweak a voice. You can use a plugin effect to tweak the tone for a given voice. For example, the piano mic preamp effects all have 3-band EQ. High and low shelving filters have gain and frequence controls, and mid is parametric (Q, frequency, and gain). You can do a lot with that, and shouldn't need to use the master EQ.

 

However, for some sounds we want two insert effects, and while many have some EQ parameters, not all of them do, and we want the EQ whether the FX itself is on or off. So, it'd be nice to have a 3-band EQ similar to those in the preamps as part of the "Play mode" section. That would also mean that we wouldn't have to completely retweak EQ if we change preamps or FX.

[JeffLearman]

What I want to ultimately do is make some performances with Master Mode enabled so I can control/play a 1 to 4-zone setup on the PC3 FROM the CP4.

I fiddled with it a little, and was able to get what I wanted.

 

The first thing to be aware of is that while as a controller it has 4 zones, internally it has two zones and the upper zone can have two voices (main and layer), and THAT IS IT. There is no way to get more than three patches at a time. Also, those three voices are always on MIDI channels 1, 2, and 3 (or three consecutive channels starting at wherever you set it, and I think that's a master control not per performance.) So, it won't necessarily play nice with other keyboards as a slave in a rig.

 

When you turn on master keyboard, it doesn't have any effect on how it plays locally. So, you get 4 independent MIDI zones, but in addition to those zones, it's still playing in local mode irrespective of those zones. You can turn local off, but only for the whole keyboard (for the performance, IIRC.)

 

So, it's hard to have a zone that plays an internal voice and a zone above it that plays an external one, once you've used up the split. That is, it's easy to have two zones, but having three, where the middle or high zone is external only, might be tricky. Maybe there's a way, but I haven't found it yet. Of course, using software, you can set it to local off mode and control what gets echoed back in software, and have full control via the software. Capisce?

 

But maybe I'm missing something.

 

What is nice is that you can assign one of the main/part/split sliders to the zone's volume. That's what I did and it does just what I want (for now, which is simple). For example, I can set up a layer on my computer. I can control the zone for that layer on the CP4 to just the keys I want, but I let it all go. On the CP4 locally I can play say a piano and have my computer layer over it. But I also have the Layer slider assigned to the zone, so I can control the computer's volume from the CP4's slider. Of course, if I'm also using a CP4 layer, that same slider adjusts both the computer and the CP4's layer.

 

The master keyboard setup is part of a performance, which is ideal. So, the only real issue is figuring out how to deal with the local sounds.

[keyguy]

I couldn't find a setting to disable local off, so what I did, after getting the idea from Motifator, was to assign my external module (motif rack that I use for LHB) to channel 3 (the default split channel) and go to the play menu for whatever local voice the split was assigned to and lower the "gain" setting to "0". This allows the split volume slider to control the module volume. Downside is you have to manually select the patch you want on the module (I think). As far as using 4 zones total, I have no clue.

[DanL]

I'm not sure I understand the issue people have with the CP4's UI.

 

 

Actually, Jeff, as far as you've gone, the way I see it you're bang-on. And that's probably enough for most players.

 

What I want to ultimately do is make some performances with Master Mode enabled so I can control/play a 1 to 4-zone setup on the PC3 FROM the CP4.

 

That is probably going to involve some serious menu diving, guesswork, a pot of coffee and some wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

This is one area where the RD indisputably had the edge in my book. But there isn't any great urgency yet. I'll get to it.

 

Or maybe Yamaha can come up with some kind of CP app for the iPad that would help. . . yeah right. Not holding my breath there.

 

At the end of the day, as you say, if one wants a lot more flexibility, then one probably should consider a workstation . . . oh wait, one already has one

 

The thing is, once you do it one time, you won't need the coffee and gnashing of teeth anymore. Yamaha has a bad rap on their UI, but I always found it easy to do what I needed. Just like any other piece of gear, you get to know it, and things come easy.

 

Congrats on your purchase. I really like the CP4 and if I were in a position where I didn't need the workstation type flexibility that my S70XS had, or my FA08 has, I'd be all over the CP4.

[Dana.]

The CP4 acoustic pianos are NOT modeled. Why do people keep saying this?

[Mickey Keys]

The thing is, once you do it one time, you won't need the coffee and gnashing of teeth anymore.

Agreed on most of this Dan, but let's get one thing straight . . . I will always need the coffee. LOL

 

Congrats on your purchase. I really like the CP4 and if I were in a position where I didn't need the workstation type flexibility that my S70XS had, or my FA08 has, I'd be all over the CP4.

 

Thanks - I can understand your situation too. I considered the FA08 and nearly pulled the trigger about 3 months back, but held off. The moment I touched the CP4 in the store last week, I realized that destiny had taken a hand.

[Mickey Keys]

The CP4 acoustic pianos are NOT modeled. Why do people keep saying this?

 

Yeah, what is up with that?

[lekanout]

mickey keys:

What is this? A contest?

 

You may have noticed that I'm a former owner of TWO iterations of the RD700. I'd been playing Roland (700SX and 700NX) for the last 8 years.

 

I am aware of all those things you enumerated. Still, I went back to Yamaha for a reason.

 

Acoustic pianos and keybeds? Had my fill of Roland's, thanks. I'm finally going back "home". I've always liked Yamaha's AP's and actions better. EP's are a toss-up for me.

 

Synth and organ, etc.? The PC3 covers that nicely for me, thanks.

 

On balance, it all adds up to the fact that I finally have what, for ME, is the perfect rig.

 

It's all subjective. Especially at this price-point, there is no such thing as "A is BETTER than B"; and if someone says that, I'm gonna call them out on it.

 

However, if you say, "I personally LIKE A better than B", that's an acceptable argument.

 

Talk up your choice if you like, but don't slag somebody else's choice like a kid challenging a classmate to a weenie-measuring contest.

 

Yamaha doesn't work for you, Roland no longer works for me.

 

Buy what you like, like what you buy . . . because buyer's remorse really sucks.

 

But you don't have to prove to me that your stage piano's better than mine. Because you won't.

 

Any more than I could prove to you that the CP4 is better.

 

Difference is, I'm not trying to.

Nor will I try. It's just better for me, that's all.

 

 

 

 

 

Well ...honestly i don't understand your lesson

 

remember what i wrote before:

-for me yamaha made the CP4 for the musician who just want to play and doesn't care about the rest.

 

Do you read "For me"?

Other things i wrote before:

In fact it has a very good keybed,good piano and eps...and some good(romper type sounds),effects(especially VCM)are really good to

Even if i had the 2 and choose to keep the roland and sold the yam,they sounds good and have good keybed.

 

A big advantage for the yam is the weigh for sure.

 

Where is the problem Mickey?

i absolutly don't care about trying to convince you made the best choice,but it seems you just have to convince yourself about that more than i want!

 

My posts are not against you..

I'm sincerely happy for you you if made the best choice for your feeling.

That's the most important.

I never said the roland keybed is better or not,or roland piano sounds are better or not for everybody!

No problem,just a personal feeling we agree about that.

So why do you want me to justify?

 

Do you accept sharing contradiction in this topic or just share good things?

That's the question!

Just tell me if you don't want me to post like that and i won't post..no problem i don't want to disturb you.

 

 

allan everett:

Comparing digital pianos - especially current and somewhat recent models - is highly subjective.

That's true,totally agree.

 

But there are some objective things:

-modelisation parmeters where on the Cp5/Cp1...and nothing on the CP4.

That´s objective!

-modelisation parameters are available on the Rd800

That's objective.

 

Cp4 interface(90's type) is not on par with the others contenders.

That's objective.

And it doesn't signify you can't do good things with the CP4.

Just accept the UI is the baddest we can find on a stage piano today if you want to do more(external control,programming,scrolling on the menus..doing more than playing some sounds and some layers)(just try to do that on a roland or on a kawai and it's just an evidence)

 

You know guys i've spent 2000 euros for a Cp4,I've spent all my summer to edit all my sounds with it for my september gigs.

I've practised a lot with it for training in august..

I've spent hours to find some good piano sounds and especially my own rhodes sounds with all the MFX(preamps..distortions..etc etc)so when i write some good things about the VCM effects i know why.

I've found some very good sounds.

I'm not as mad to write in forums yamaha has a bad sound..

 

I'made some good gigs with it(little and medium scenes)alternate with my Rd800(big and medium scene/for the roland)because i'm essentially a live player and that's why i always have 2 high level stage pianos in my set.

So i have so many gigs to feel the difference between both.

 

What i just want to say is the fact that i was a little delused by the Cp4 "in use"(not by the sounds..we can stop this comparaisons no problem)

And it was a surprise because i always loved yamaha.

Just an exemple:

I had and mastered all ,the motif series from yamaha,(and i have a MOXF8 i really like):

Well,the motif and MOXF series are really well done,and on the CP4 you can't feel the heritage from the motif series..strange!

On the roland,i feel more the heritage from the old rd and fantom series on the good sense.

 

 

Last thing:

I loose my trust in the Cp4 and sold it because of a reliability problem.

It was the last surprise for me because never had a problem with a yamaha keyboard.

I don't think it's necessary to open a topic about cp4 reliability because i trust in everybody here and noticed nobody speak about a problem like i had.

So i consider it's just an accident..

 

To conclude:

i always thought sharing contradiction is intersesting for everybody who read and wants to make the good choice for him.

Don't let the caricatural fanboy attitude win.

I's better in my opinion to share good and bad things..

Let me know if my attitude isn.t well received for some people here and i won't post about the Cp4 in the future.

No problem my friends.

 

[lekanout]

Yeah, what is up with that?

Nothing if you love yamaha pianos like they are.

 

But if you want more,and trying to find your own personal sound outside of the presets "out of the box",it's good to have the power to edit more..

It depends what you need.

[Jazz+]

I vote CP4 and I am a long time Roland dp fan ( particularly RD-700SX, I think they took a wrong turn with the "Natural Piano" upgrade and the actions have developed too much friction). I was also a 10 year critic of Yamaha digital pianos (P250 etc, had too stiff an action, and too much attack sampling,and boring repetitive note sampling) ... but the CP4 is now the fastest action in town and more and the piano sound is more present...

[kanker.]

Yeah Jazz+. I'd say the Yamaha action is fast, but is also stiff/significant in a way that that makes it extremely playable. For all its speed, and for as easy it seems on the hands, the action still has an extremely agreeable weight or heft to it.

[keyguy]

Yeah Jazz+. I'd say the Yamaha action is fast, but is also stiff/significant in a way that that makes it extremely playable. For all its speed, and for as easy it seems on the hands, the action still has an extremely agreeable weight or heft to it.

 

What Kanker (?) said...

[Dave Ferris]

Yes, the CP4 action works for me...very well. But then so did the CP5- but the CF Grand didn't sit as clear and present, live, in most contexts (except jazz ballads or very soft cocktail swing stuff ) as the CP4 CFX.

 

But still play the CP5 with the drum tracks almost every day (where the CP4 usually sits in its case till gig time)- the modern jazz & afro-cuban grooves. More has a way to blow off steam, and for fun, after the serious practice time is over.

 

Still love the sound of the CP5 by itself (through phones) basically.

[sMatt]

I keep trying to like the CP4 action, but I find it a struggle... the action heavy and weird.

 

 

 

by comparison, I find the RD800 much much easier to play

 

[lekanout]

Learjeff:

Well, it's ideal for that person. It's not a workstation, and doesn't have the ability to dive into voice parameters.

 

There are a few things to consider " outside"the sounds:

These stage piano are not made only to play keyboards sounds,they are made to control on stage external instruments for exemple.

You wrote a lot about that and it was useful to read.

 

In my vision,if you have to control external instruments,sending program changes,programming your perfs..the roland is just so pleasant to program when the yam is..the opposite with the little screen.

The way you control and view all the layers parameters is more efficient on the Rd800 panel because you have the direct vision of multiple parameters for your layers.and it's easy to scroll between the pages.

And when you push the "midi control" button,you switch very easily between the internal engine and the external parts.

 

Other things:

The way you select your perfs live:

-on the CP4 it's quite good you have a mode where you scroll between 16 (direct acces with the sound selection button)and after that you have to push to access to 16-32,once again to 32-48...etc etc.

The bad thing is if you are on the perf 9 and you want to select the perf 122...it's a problem because more complicated with multiple push.

-On the roland,selection between live sets is more efficient because you can access from the number A03 to H16 without scrolling from 16 to 16..

You push directly H-1-6 and it's ok.

 

That's why these kind of things makes me tell you the RD is more a good master controller outside the sounds,and the CP4 more a "simple"stage piano just to play for the good sounds.(even if you can do some other things,that's not the problem,i'm speaking about "in use"orientation)

 

The big question for me too is the marketing yamaha:

Yamaha is very strong to sell their products.

They called the CP4"the best stage piano yamaha ever produced"

But the CP1/CP5 allow the user to go inside the modelisation engine to edit precisely your pianos and eps sounds.

On the CP4,nothing..so why?

On the other side the Cp4 has the grand CFX.

So exept the grand CFX,what is better on the CP4 than the old CP5 for exemple?

(it's a real question..if anybody can explain to me)

 

My vision about the CP4 advantage is simple:

I've always considered the big yamaha performance is to produce with the CP4 the best keybed/sound ratio ever made in 17,5 kg.

That's the perf.

I never saw before the CP4 a keybed like this at this weight.

[JB Sherry]

A Kwai MP7 is supplied for my weekly church gig; it's a solid stage piano, and one I'd definitely recommend trying out. But if I was rebuilding a stage rig, I'd choose the CP4 again; simply a personal preference.

 

Allan,

Would you mind elaborating on your impressions of the MP7 versus the CP4? I've tried and loved the CP4 (who wouldn't trade one of the 3 Yammy pianos for a Steinway? But we know that won't happen). I'm starting to form some impressions of the Kawai from the online demos but would love to hear some notes from someone who's had plenty of hands-on experience, and has some cons to relate. Seems the smattering of online reviews I've found are from those who've kept and love their MP7/11, but there's more to the story, I'm sure.

[16251]

The CP4 acoustic pianos are NOT modeled. Why do people keep saying this?

Not me Mr D.

[Theo Verelst]

From the Yamaha product page , specs sub-page: Tone Generating Technology: SCM (Spectral Component Modeling) + AWM2

 

Examples: Fortner at AVNetwork with Avery Burdette and the CP1

 

Also, from the features sub-page: electric pianos,...,enhanced by Yamahas renowned Virtual Circuitry Modeling technology

 

T.

[voxpops]

I'm starting to form some impressions of the Kawai from the online demos but would love to hear some notes from someone who's had plenty of hands-on experience, and has some cons to relate. Seems the smattering of online reviews I've found are from those who've kept and love their MP7/11, but there's more to the story, I'm sure.

The MP7 is a very good stage piano. I've had mine for a little while now and have formed a fairly clear impression of its strengths and weaknesses. I won't dwell on the pros as they're well documented: aesthetics, build quality, action, logical layout, high quality samples and effects.

 

The cons, in most cases, are less objectively obvious, except for the over-sensitive pots causing parameters to jump in value from time to time (annoying but easy to work around).

 

Out of the box, the acoustic piano sound can seem slightly harsh, particularly in the upper mids. However, there's a lot of control available in terms of both EQ and "under the hood" adjustment. Also, perhaps because it doesn't have the very pronounced attack that some DPs (frequently Yamaha) exhibit, dissonant chords can seem just a tad "smeared" or indistinct. In addition, the claim of 88-note sampling only applies to the main grand piano sound (and its derivatives). However, this makes a huge difference when compared to the CP4, which employs stretched samples for all its acoustic pianos. Play a fast chromatic scale at the bass end of the CP4 and it sounds like you're using pitch bend! The MP7 is much more realistic in this regard. I've grown used to the AP sounds of the MP7 and find much to admire about the way they've been implemented, but I can't say that I "love" them yet - just that they do the job really well. That said, the upright sample is excellent and full of character.

 

There isn't the range of adjustment for EPs that many modeled electric pianos allow but, with judicious use of effects (including a great amp sim) you can dial in just about any Rhodes type, and you also have a really good Wurlitzer (way better than Yamaha's IMO). The CP4 EPs have quite a different character from those in the Kawai, and here it really is a matter of preference. I'd have to give the edge to Yamaha for their Rhodes "vibe", but the MP7 is a very solid alternative.

 

The supporting cast of sounds ranges from very good to pretty poor - as with most stage pianos. But for me, there's a solid core of usable stuff. You can coax a reasonable Hammondish sound out of the drawbar emulator and, with a little tweaking, the Leslie sim is acceptable. This won't win any clone awards, but it's more advanced than anything the CP range has to offer. The addition of portamento also makes synth lead sounds usable.

 

Really, there are not many negatives to report when it comes to the MP7. I returned a CP4 after only a few hours - perhaps I was over-hasty - because I found the compromises in samples and construction too much for a high-end stage piano. I think the Yamaha has a slightly richer piano sound with a more distinctive attack, but it also seemed more processed than the Kawai. I enjoy owning the MP7 - it's probably the best-looking slab I've ever possessed - and it does a lot of things really well. Could it be improved? Certainly, but as it stands now, it's well able to give the CP4, RD800 and Nord Piano some stiff competition - despite being significantly less expensive.

[burningbusch]

The CP1/5/4 Rhodes and Wurlies use samples for the base tone. This is very easy to hear if you play chromatically. You should hear clumps of 3-4 notes that sound identical save the difference in pitch. Like traditional sampling, the samples are looped and a decay envelope applied. The one real advantage of the Yamaha approach is that the tonal variations, from lightest touch to heaviest is very nearly linear. This is critical in the upped playability of these EPs vs. something like the Motif. Also, Korg with the EP-1, Roland SN and Air Velvet (software) take a similar approach (at least the results are similar). All of these quasi-modeled EPs are based on samples, have linear tonal range and include other elements such as release elements. They all have their +/- and all would be VASTLY improved if they used unique samples for each note vs. the current, very audible, compromise.

 

One area where I don't think these quasi-modeled EPs do a great job is in the release sample/tone. If you've ever looked at an actual Rhodes release in something like Melodyne, you'll see a clear rise in pitch as the note is stopped down by the damper. The Scarbee Rhodes captures this perfectly as does at least one of the Nord Rhodes. With Yamaha, Korg, Roland I hear release elements but not this distinctive rise in pitch nor anyway to control intensity.

 

With the Yamaha APs, while the underlying technology might be different from the EPs, the results are similar. You have a linear tonal range (key for playability) but otherwise the issues of compromised sampling remain. In comparison to the EPs, Yamaha (to my ear) uses unique samples per note in the high traffic area surrounding middle C. It's only when I play chromatically outside of this area (bass especially) can I hear samples stretched across multiple notes. NOTE: I'm basing this on the two original APs as I had a CP-1 for the better part of a year. Don't know about the new AP in the CP-4. This mapping of the sample tones so that the high traffic area is less affected is a smart approach. The EPs would have certainly benefitted from it.

 

As a side note, Native Instruments Kontakt 4+, allows you to create linear tonal variations using "Authentic Expression Technology." Here's a paragraph from an SOS review that explains it. "Kontakt 4's big new feature is designed to aid the authentic reproduction of acoustic instruments. AET works by introducing gradual timbral transitions between one set of samples and another, allowing you to 'morph' smoothly between them in real time. This concept might initially be open to misinterpretation: one sample doesn't literally morph to become another. This is because AET (which is inserted as an effect at the sampler's Group level) is actually a sophisticated Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) filter which acts upon groups of samples. In essence, what happens is that the AET filter analyses the spectral content of one group of samples and applies it to another in continuously variable amounts. The degree of morphing is determined using one of two methods: a Velocity Morph (via key velocity), or an Articulation Morph (via a continuous controller such as the mod wheel)." I have found it works quite well if you have enough sample layers but if you expect it to morph between a very soft tone and the loudest one, it simply doesn't sound real.

 

Busch.

 

 

[Mickey Keys]

I vote CP4 and I am a long time Roland dp fan ( particularly RD-700SX, I think they took a wrong turn with the "Natural Piano" upgrade and the actions have developed too much friction). I was also a 10 year critic of Yamaha digital pianos (P250 etc, had too stiff an action, and too much attack sampling,and boring repetitive note sampling) ... but the CP4 is now the fastest action in town and more and the piano sound is more present...

 

to this - for me in any case. I can't speak to your Yamaha comments, but my old 700SX, especially coupled with the SRX07 Ultimate Keys expansion card, was one sweet gigging piano. And looking back, I also found the SX action more playable for me; although I do not for a moment pretend it's necessarily so for others.

 

Then it seemed they took a step backwards in some ways. Some MIDI functionality was sacrificed in the GX and NX; and while the vast majority wouldn't have missed it, I did. It annoyed me to have to revamp my setups to compensate, but I got past it.

 

Some of you may think "OK, if he liked the SX so much, why change in the first place?"

 

Brain cloud? :idk To this day I honest to God don't really know.

 

In retrospect, I was certainly seduced by a variety of factors:

 

First, some of the SuperNatural pianos on the NX. No denying they sounded great in the store and at home, but I was always trying different ways to get them to sound good in a live mix at rehearsals and gigs. Never quite got there.

 

OTOH, at my first rehearsal with the CP4 the other night there would've been no hiding the piano since we were polishing up a couple of Billy Joel numbers. My band mates immediately noticed the difference and said it was a big improvement. And that was basically "out of the box", no tweaking at all.

 

Also,there were the additions of the data wheel on the NX and the ability to use a thumb drive to back up different sets of settings and to play/load mp3s, and no denying I put all of that to good use.

 

At the end of the day, was it worth it? I'll say yes. I learned a lot on the journey, and now I finally have a rig that fits ME like a glove.

 

I still have some of the "beumps" to work out, you know . . .

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff247/amvee_2007/Forums1/inspector.jpg

But it's ALL good, and this is the first time since the P200 fourteen years ago that I haven't been plagued by even the smallest twinge of buyers' remorse over a stage piano.

[voxpops]

One area where I don't think these quasi-modeled EPs do a great job is in the release sample/tone. If you've ever looked at an actual Rhodes release in something like Melodyne, you'll see a clear rise in pitch as the note is stopped down by the damper. The Scarbee Rhodes captures this perfectly as does at least one of the Nord Rhodes. With Yamaha, Korg, Roland I hear release elements but not this distinctive rise in pitch nor anyway to control intensity.

Funnily enough, the latest OS for the Roland VR-09 demonstrated this pitch rise clearly in a few of the new EP patches. If the release time was increased, you could clearly hear the pitch change. I assume this was intentional and not just sloppy programming.

[Theo Verelst]

Please, even in the 80s the FFT interpolator was known to have serious issues...

 

What is in the components that are modeled with the Yamaha's is that the result works for forming chords. It doesn't sound like samples that much as soon as you do not try to recognize certain tonal properties per note. It's still hard to understand the sort of belittling attention for the samples only, and apparently here leads to certain people coming across to me as having serious mental issues with the course their web presence has taken. I still do not like a fully sampled instrument, even if it has samples for each velocity level (even if that were per enhanced MIDI) and each note of a (e-) piano, simply because no piano in the world works that way, and the result is boring me soon, and usually makes devastating sounds when asked upon the play chords. Maybe if you play some really simple things, and the "maker" of the samples made you C major samples such that they sound nice with each other, it is bearable.

 

That *also* has to do with the problem I never heard anyone mention properly: the sample playing back errors. They are there, really they are, except in pro cases where there is some form of serious work done on the subject. Yamaha can, because I can put effects in a row which makes especially the higher note ranges free from certain for my standards horrible forms of distortion as a result from DA converter limitations (specifically, EE undergrad theory says that even if your samples are perfectly made and not messed with, somehow when you go from digital to the analog output of your synthesizer, there's an error made, unless there is a very long (I mean large latency, up to seconds (!) or so) reconstruction filter).

 

So to capture the sound of tones sounding together on a piano properly isn't as simple as presuming a "linear" and "time invariant" system with perfect samples, and to me that soon is clear when I use a high quality sample player and nice samples and good DA converter (after normal norms): two or more tones resounding together become a mess, somehow. So to actually *play* a piano sounds, Yamaha succeeded in making chords, also big ones, playable, and dynamically usable, which I think is great, and part of the whole design path.

 

T.

 

[burningbusch]

Please, even in the 80s the FFT interpolator was known to have serious issues...

 

What is in the components that are modeled with the Yamaha's is that the result works for forming chords. It doesn't sound like samples that much as soon as you do not try to recognize certain tonal properties per note. It's still hard to understand the sort of belittling attention for the samples only, and apparently here leads to certain people coming across to me as having serious mental issues with the course their web presence has taken. I still do not like a fully sampled instrument, even if it has samples for each velocity level (even if that were per enhanced MIDI) and each note of a (e-) piano, simply because no piano in the world works that way, and the result is boring me soon, and usually makes devastating sounds when asked upon the play chords. Maybe if you play some really simple things, and the "maker" of the samples made you C major samples such that they sound nice with each other, it is bearable.

 

That *also* has to do with the problem I never heard anyone mention properly: the sample playing back errors. They are there, really they are, except in pro cases where there is some form of serious work done on the subject. Yamaha can, because I can put effects in a row which makes especially the higher note ranges free from certain for my standards horrible forms of distortion as a result from DA converter limitations (specifically, EE undergrad theory says that even if your samples are perfectly made and not messed with, somehow when you go from digital to the analog output of your synthesizer, there's an error made, unless there is a very long (I mean large latency, up to seconds (!) or so) reconstruction filter).

 

So to capture the sound of tones sounding together on a piano properly isn't as simple as presuming a "linear" and "time invariant" system with perfect samples, and to me that soon is clear when I use a high quality sample player and nice samples and good DA converter (after normal norms): two or more tones resounding together become a mess, somehow. So to actually *play* a piano sounds, Yamaha succeeded in making chords, also big ones, playable, and dynamically usable, which I think is great, and part of the whole design path.

 

T.

 

Theo, do you even own sample libraries from True Keys, Galaxy, Synthogy or East West? If you did, and played them next the the Yamaha pianos, you would clearly hear the realism of the software pianos is in another league all together. You would also know that the engines powering these go beyond far beyond basic sample playback and mimic aspects of the acoustic piano that Yamaha doesn't touch.

 

If you can't hear the issues I pointed out above in your CP4, so be it. I can and so could anyone with half an ear. I continually measure EP emulations against the real Rhodes and Wurly sitting next to me, not some fairy tale idea of what these instruments have become over the years compromised to death because they had to fit into a minuscule amount of ROM in some hardware instrument.

 

Busch.

 

 

[burningbusch]

One area where I don't think these quasi-modeled EPs do a great job is in the release sample/tone. If you've ever looked at an actual Rhodes release in something like Melodyne, you'll see a clear rise in pitch as the note is stopped down by the damper. The Scarbee Rhodes captures this perfectly as does at least one of the Nord Rhodes. With Yamaha, Korg, Roland I hear release elements but not this distinctive rise in pitch nor anyway to control intensity.

 

Funnily enough, the latest OS for the Roland VR-09 demonstrated this pitch rise clearly in a few of the new EP patches. If the release time was increased, you could clearly hear the pitch change. I assume this was intentional and not just sloppy programming.

 

It's tough to do right with a simple pitch envelope on the release, which it sounds like Roland is doing. That can easily come off as phony.

 

Busch.

[JeffLearman]

Kanker (?)

"Kevin Anker". Plus, he's a pox on the face of the planet. But we love him anyway (and he's a KILLER piano player.)

 

In my vision,if you have to control external instruments,sending program changes,programming your perfs..the roland is just so pleasant to program when the yam is..the opposite with the little screen.

The CP4 can do it, but it's not the best tool for the job, not by a long shot. I expect to be using controller aspects eventually, but in fairly limited ways and with complex setups for only a few songs (since I play mostly soul and blues.) For anyone who plays 80's music with a laptop, I'd suggest to keep looking. The RD would probably be a much better fit for many reasons, along with other options like MOXF8.

 

The way you select your perfs live

Yup, the RD is better for that. But I suspect that for the CP4, they limited it to a narrow control bad, which I specifically want because I can keep my NE2 much closer. It's a tradeoff. There are clear benefits to either arrangement, and the lovely bit is, we get to choose!

 

That's why these kind of things makes me tell you the RD is more a good master controller outside the sounds,and the CP4 more a "simple"stage piano just to play for the good sounds.(even if you can do some other things,that's not the problem,i'm speaking about "in use"orientation)

I agree.

 

The CP4 acoustic pianos are NOT modeled. Why do people keep saying this?

My bad, and thanks for calling me on it! But it kinda *sounds* modeled to my ear.

 

Oddly, the EPs are modeled, but as Busch points out, there are clear divisions between samples. I complained about an aspect of the samples at yamahasynth.com and Bad Mister (very politely) jumped all over me for assuming they're samples, when they're modeled. LOL. I can't get it right!

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that perhaps the pianos are samples of a model. In any case, I don't like the mic they seem to have used for the S6, but I do really like the CFX and for certain applications the CF. And I don't like how they seem to have voiced ALL the Rhodes. That is, I like that voicing, but I'd prefer more variety in voicing. All the EPs sound to me like the same tech voiced them for the same customer, who was going for the same tone, on four different pianos. It's nice that we have the variety of four different pianos, but I'd prefer more variety in voicing. None of the sample sets does a great job of Rhodes bass. On my Rhodes, the bass really thumps; I have to turn it down, not up!

[allan_evett]

Wow, this thread has been lively today. I was out this morning, playing a church gig with an MP7. I've been able to dig into the keyboard a bit more, recently; and it's quite the well-designed instrument.

 

Voxpops' observations about the MP7 are very similar to what I'd say. True, the acoustic piano Performances seem slightly less polished than those on the RD800 or CP4, but I wonder if that's partly due to the individual note sampling in the MP7 ? The MP7 does have a character that presents more like my Kawai upright; it possesses less digital piano slickness, and has a more genuine 'acoustic' vibe. What's cool is that with judicious use of EQ, effects, and other DSP goodies the MP7 can be dialed-in to fit player preference. I don't have my core piano sounds fully set, yet; but the MP7 sounds much closer to being my 'piano' than when I first opened the box. For my gig rig, I'm planning to stick with the CP4 - for which there is plenty o' love here; but for someone considering a stage piano purchase, I think comparison playing the MP7 would be a good idea. It's equal competition to the CP4 and RD800.

 

A few features that I feel are outstanding about the MP7: Effects, Wurli sound, and tonewheel organ user interface. The amp sim, as voxpops pointed out, is great; and the core effects seem well tailored to fit with the samples. The Wurli wins the 'most authentic, live' award in my book. OTOH, I still give the CP4's Rhodes a solid edge. Compared to the MP7, tonewheel organ is where Yamaha stage pianos need to come up to speed; a capable TW engine onboard a stage DP has become an expectation for performers. Having individual drawbars, and the capability to utilize a separate, hardware controller was thoughtful on Kawai's part. While not quite at the level of a dedicated clone, the MP7's TW engine and rotary effect sounds plenty capable. I've done plenty of tweaking to get my CP4's organ sounds to sound barely capable for those extra, but important B&B gigging sounds; and still no individual drawbar control. For the love o' pete Yamaha, please let a little love from the Tyros tonewheel model trickle-down; this NAMM, maybe ? Those Motif-based organ samples are starting to slide into the same bin as the Roland JV/XV organs

 

 

 

[keyguy]

Kanker (?)

"Kevin Anker". Plus, he's a pox on the face of the planet. But we love him anyway (and he's a KILLER piano player.)

I was trying to be funny. Kevin is a friend of mine and we visit every time he comes to Florida. And, you're right with all of the accolades...

[AnotherScott]

What's cool is that with judicious use of EQ, effects, and other DSP goodies the MP7 can be dialed-in to fit player preference. I don't have my core piano sounds fully set, yet; but the MP7 sounds much closer to being my 'piano' than when I first opened the box. For my gig rig, I'm planning to stick with the CP4 - for which there is plenty o' love here; but for someone considering a stage piano purchase, I think comparison playing the MP7 would be a good idea. It's equal competition to the CP4 and RD800.

...

The Wurli wins the 'most authentic, live' award in my book. OTOH, I still give the CP4's Rhodes a solid edge.

As you learned with the AP sounds, one of the nice things about the Kawai is how tweakable the sounds are, and how well implemented the tweaking interface is. If you apply the same effort to the Rhodes, you might find the competition gets closer... though I know by reputation the CP4 Rhodes is indeed quite good (I haven't had a chance to play it myself). But I wanted to get a ballsier Rhodes sound out of the MP7, and I had an SV1 nearby which had a sound I liked, so using that for reference, I dialed in an MP7 Rhodes sound that had much the same character as the SV1 Rhodes I was playing, and for me, it was a nice improvement. If you want to try it, here's my MP7 Rhodes sound:

Choose EP 1A. Turn off EFX. Set Amp type to J Combo, increase drive to 70. Go to the Amo EQ and change Lo to -4 dB, Mid to +10 dB, and set the Mid Freq to 1900 Hz. Lower the Key Off noise to 34.