Most 'Forgiving' Digital Piano Tone ?

[J_tour]

No real comment, just that this has been an awesome thread.

 

FWIW, I find my old Yamaha P80 (hey, man, the thing is held together with duck tape after replacing/repairing the action once, due to the action problem [free factory-replacement from Yamaha] then hand-washing the keys after disassembling a few times -- I think that thing has a drinking problem, one or two glasses of wine [spilled into it, by me!] and it got all sloshy) is very forgiving. Almost too forgiving -- when I get onto a real grand, all the stuff I thought I knew sounds like shit.

 

Now all I need to do is carry around a little 500-type EQ, some headphones, and an SM57+amp whenever I want to play regular piano, and ignore the rustling feet when people leave the room.

 

Pretty sure Liszt did something like that.

[Pa Gherkin]

Allan,if you're really looking for a P50m,PM me

[brenner13]

I'm a total newbie when it comes to digital piano (been a synth and organ guy for nearly three decades), but must say that Kawai digitals are where it's at for me. I may only have the entry level model, but the ability to adjust the tuning as mellow, normal, or bright, and ten degrees of brilliance on either side of the stock sound has allowed me to find my own goldilocks tone that fits in so nicely with the band. A huge dynamic range also helps where once the volume is set, I rarely have to touch it again for the whole gig and allows me to simply "dig in" on my solos for a nice little boost of clarity.

 

After playing a couple of gigs with the new Kawai, I showed up to one without it due to the small stage. The guys threw a fit because they liked the punchy and clear sound of my new 88's and kept reminding me throughout the night how much better we sounded with the other piano. I've not been to a gig with that band without the Kawai since.

[agitato]

Still playing a kawai es4 (10 yrs)for solo and band gigs, feel as you do about it, always plays/sounds great.

[Phil Aiken]

"Not cutting" to me is a result of the opposite of what I usually read. It is due to TOO much treble, so that the notes at a comfortable volume have no heft. For piano sounds that are thin in the high register, I like to CRANK the mids....which makes the rest of the piano sound extremely bad, but gives the upper register some muscle. Then I only use that sound in the necessary register with the "normal" in the lower part of the keyboard range. I used to do that on my Nord Stage, and now I am doing it on both The White Grand in my Forte, and to a much lesser extent on the German grand.

[Tusker]

What a great thread!

 

Like others I have hauled a DP and then "settled' for the imperfect acoustic piano just because I can express myself with it. The difference between DP and Piano is hardly there if you are building tracks for a song, and you have the piano deep in the mix BUT as a player in a live environment, there is no context... the real piano breathes, it pushes back at you in a musical way, you forget to analyze and pretty soon you are making real music. (The exception would be if you are playing 100% pre-prepared lines ... in which case you may have just as much facility on the DP, merely because you have practiced the snot out of the material.)

 

Moving a DP towards "natural' piano ... yes, for me it's about rolling off the highs subtly (1-3 db/octave, not more) to emphasize the mids. The speakers should be clear open big speakers with a flat response. RCF's are as good as I have ever played. As much as I love my QSCs there is such a difference.

 

At the end of the day however, Pianos and DPs are still different animals for playing. With a real piano you can speak without yelling.

[allan_evett]

"Not cutting" to me is a result of the opposite of what I usually read. It is due to TOO much treble, so that the notes at a comfortable volume have no heft. For piano sounds that are thin in the high register, I like to CRANK the mids....which makes the rest of the piano sound extremely bad, but gives the upper register some muscle. Then I only use that sound in the necessary register with the "normal" in the lower part of the keyboard range. I used to do that on my Nord Stage, and now I am doing it on both The White Grand in my Forte, and to a much lesser extent on the German grand.

 

To clarify, Beethree, are you cranking the high mids ? Seems that might be helpful - along with taming the muddy low mids.

[raffkey]

Roland is claiming to address the issue of getting lost in the mix with their 'unique sound focus' feature on the RD300nx (and maybe other models as well.)

 

Anyone have first hand experience with this?

[allan_evett]

Roland is claiming to address the issue of getting lost in the mix with their 'unique sound focus' feature on the RD300nx (and maybe other models as well.)

 

Anyone have first hand experience with this?

 

In 2012, I played out quite a bit with an RD-300NX. The Sound Focus feature was helpful at times - especially in dense stage mixes. And SuperNatural pianos have been very effective for me on stage; along with Yamaha AWM they've been the most dynamic and clear digital piano tones I've played, live.

 

Tying this into the original topic, I had a revealing gigging experience this past weekend. My classic rock / Jimmy Buffett cover band had a quirky but fun job - on a beached, pontoon boat. As it was a very tight stage, I brought one keyboard - my Jupiter 50; and I played a fair amount of piano on the gig. Ended up receiving a few comments from audience members, and every band member, about how great the piano sounded. The bandleader raved about the piano sound, and how well it worked in the mix.

 

While playing piano all night on a synth action gets old, the experience did make me think about what I take out live; though the SN pianos got a great listener response that night, I also played better - due to what I was feeling and hearing on stage. This was similar to what happened when I used a P50m - while playing with country and rock bands between 1996 and 2004. There was a feeling of being able to 'dig in', and a strong sense of dynamic playing capability. While the Forte 7 is an excellent instrument (the electro-mechanical Programs are fantastic to play, live), the pianos - even with 3rd-party additions and edits - get to maybe 75% dynamically of what AWM / SN pianos do for me. Though I prefer the footprint of the Forte 7 for stage work, it's getting very tempting to pull the S90XS from my studio and take it out again..

 

[niacin]

I think that's why the Kawai's shine. You don't just select a velocity curve, you get a user-defined curve where it analyses your playing and it really nails the finger-sound connection. I don't play much piano any more, but when I did, while my MP9500 was somewhat harsh/digital played in isolation, at a jazz gig I could really dig in or lay back and the piano responded and I think this is a big part of why I felt the sound really worked in a trio context. My 2c (currently worth about US$0.015)

[allan_evett]

I think that's why the Kawai's shine. You don't just select a velocity curve, you get a user-defined curve where it analyses your playing and it really nails the finger-sound connection. I don't play much piano any more, but when I did, while my MP9500 was somewhat harsh/digital played in isolation, at a jazz gig I could really dig in or lay back and the piano responded and I think this is a big part of why I felt the sound really worked in a trio context. My 2c (currently worth about US$0.015)

 

I feel that Kawai stage pianos are highly underrated. I use a house MP7 on a church gig, and love it. The core piano tones, plus capable tonal shaping and FX, allows for convincing solo pianos - that have a richer tone, rock / country pianos that have a more 'open' clarity, and shades in between. The only thing that's kept me from going with an MP7 for my own stage 88 is the lack of comprehensive bread n' butter tone coverage - compared to the robust sound sets in the S90XS, RD-800, Forte, etc.. The raw building blocks appear to be there though, so a 3rd-party sound developer offered a serious collection of sounds for the MP7 would get my attention.

I have a Roland FP50 for solo gigs, and stuff where a small slab w/built-in speakers is needed. But there are times that I wonder if a Kawai ES-100 could've done the job more effectively - at much less $$.

[analogman1]

Still love my Korg SV1. There may be "more authentic" sounding digital pianos but this one is still the most playable, IMHO. There is just a certain connection with the instrument that a lot of the higher end pianos are lacking...just my .02.

[AnotherScott]

The only thing that's kept me from going with an MP7 for my own stage 88 is the lack of comprehensive bread n' butter tone coverage - compared to the robust sound sets in the S90XS, RD-800, Forte, etc.. The raw building blocks appear to be there though, so a 3rd-party sound developer offered a serious collection of sounds for the MP7 would get my attention.

The big limitation of the MP7 in that respect is that, assuming you don't want to overwrite the original sound that you are modifying to get your new sound, the only way to save it is in a Setup location. The problem is that sounds stored in Setup locations cannot be split/layered with other sounds. The Setup itself can include splits and layers of course, but you can't simply (for example) save your own modified Rhodes sound and then mix and match it at will the way you can the stock sounds (unless, as I said, you save your modified Rhodes sound *over* the stock Rhodes sound you started with). So a 3rd-party developer could send you a bank of new sounds as Setups, but you wouldn't be able to mix and match them with each other or with other existing sounds. At least that's what it looks like to me. The MP7 is still a great board, though... probably my favorite piano sound/action in any board under 50 lbs or under $2k, and strong as a MIDI controller, and even a half-decent clonewheel built-in. I usually gig with Casio for the weight, but other than that, the Kawai generally aces it (well, as it should, for the price difference, I guess).

 

I have a Roland FP50 for solo gigs, and stuff where a small slab w/built-in speakers is needed. But there are times that I wonder if a Kawai ES-100 could've done the job more effectively - at much less $$.

I like the ES100 too, but it is not as loud as the Rolands (and neither are the Casios). The new FP30 looks tempting... action is supposed to be improved and it's actually both louder and lighter than the FP50, but the panel features are really minimal, it really just wants to be a piano, you have to use awkward button-and-key combinations for anything else. No display, no MIDI jack, no balance knob, no registrations... like I said, minimal. I'm also curious about the Kurzweil KA90, also kind of minimal (though it does have patch select buttons, a basic display, and a MIDI Out)... lighter then the Roland and also spec'd with some decently powerful speakers for built-ins, though I expect that it will fall short of the Roland in action, and it's the old triple strike as opposed to Roland's SN.

[allan_evett]

An update and some reflection on what's been said so far..

 

Have tried several things, including many suggestions from this thread. Still wrestling with my stage sound, especially as it relates to the Forte 7. The ongoing challenge is how the Forte 7 sounds to me on stage - through both the PA speakers, and monitors (including my own mixer / powered keyboard cabinet - Yamaha MG-10D mixer, and DXR 12). Despite various suggested EQ and effects adjustments ( and sometimes no effects), both within the Forte 7 and in the PA, the stage sound of the instrument still renders as if there's a damp blanket overlaying it. And the acoustic piano Programs are still the most challenging part of this. The sound seems to fall off quickly, and gets lost easily in my monitor mix. Recently I've had to adjust the Forte 7's level and EQ in my mixer / DXR12 about 40 times a night on gigs. The sound 'dies' too quickly - the pianos don't sustain in the mix well, and there's still a noticeable lack of clarity and 'open-ness' to the overall tone.

 

It may be that Yamaha AWM is the stage piano tone that fits me best. There is a clarity and strong sustain, a very 'open' sound - one that I can hear well on stage, with minimal adjustment. Perhaps it's just my ears, or what I've gotten used to; certainly a very large group of folks love their PC3s and Fortes (and in a lot of different music settings). As the Forte 7 is the 'goldilocks' size for my current stage work, I'll likely look into duplicating my well-loved (but much too large) S90XS with a MOXF8 for that, and possibly semi-retire the Forte 7 to my home studio, or for particular live gigs.

[Chris Link]

Any suggestions for which piano to use with a Kurz PC3LE7 for a country band and a blues/R&B group? I can't recall ever having anyone sit in so that I could hear the FOH sound. The "studio grand" sounds pretty okay through my monitoring, but I hear a lot of comments on how different pianos sound out front.

 

Thanks.

[allan_evett]

When I used a PC3, Studio Grand was my go-to Program for country and rock. I was told by band mates, engineers, and audience members that it sounded good live, and mixed well; sometimes it monitored well, other times not. On the Forte, I've gotten similar results with a 'legacy' piano Program with the effects modified to match Dave Weiser's 'gig piano' and 'mix cut' Programs.

[Hoochie]

Another Scott,

 

I'm stumped as to your dissatisfaction of the Forte Pianos.

After having a Kronos, a CP4, and a stage 2, I've found

the Forte to be that magic spot of character like the stage,

grunt like the Kronos and smooth repitition like the CP4.

 

In fact the Yamaha sample is what I use in the Forte.

To me it's better than what I got out of the CP4.

It has the slightest bit of that glass on top for crystalline clarity.

Maybe it's the iem's? But I've gone out front too and listened.

It still sounds like a well miced piano should.

 

Is your velocity curve holding it down maybe?

I had to adjust that a bit for my taste.

Hector Space over at VAST forums did a bunch of piano edits

and the latest update did too.

 

I guess I can understand your feeling about it though.

The Motif Power Grand was the same type of tone.

The attack is consistently strongly the same.

The lopping and looping doesn't matter live.

It does settle into an obvious loop but it's very smoothly done.

 

The CP4 did the same thing. It has far far better attack samples.

But it's looping pretty quick too.

Once again, very smoothly done. And that action. Wow.

If I could have kept that one I would have,

but it would stay at home.

 

It's that Yamaha digital piano sound.

Very consistent. Very smooth.

Nice sustain in a loop most ears won't notice.

Heck I didn't on the CP4 till it was pointed out.

And I didn't care.

 

John

 

Forgot to mention using the newly added sampling.

There's enough room in there for that s700 Yamaha.

The largest piano samples in the stage 2 are well under a gig and you've got

3 and a half gigs to play with here.

Plenty of room for layers and layers if you want to go that far.

It's a thought.

The Kurz midi capabilities and user friendly interface are unmatched.

It might be worth your time to keep the Forte 7 as your

"Goldilocks" board.

I use the 88 and it definitely is it for me.

 

 

[AnotherScott]

Another Scott,

 

I'm stumped as to your dissatisfaction of the Forte Pianos.

It wasn't me, I haven't played a Forte.

 

As for the older triple-strike models, I seem to remember liking the "Grand Evans" patch.

[allan_evett]

Another Scott,

I'm stumped as to your dissatisfaction of the Forte Pianos.

It wasn't me, I haven't played a Forte.

As for the older triple-strike models, I seem to remember liking the

"Grand Evans" patch.

 

That was me you were referring to, John.

 

It isn't so much an overall dissatisfaction with the Forte pianos;

taken alone, for accompaniment, or jazz duo/trio they are a capable

choice. The few times I've used the Forte pianos in that type of

situation I was satisfied with the results. Where I've run into problems

with the pianos translating well is within larger groups with a

heavier sound - harder rock, two-guitar country/classic rock, etc..

 

But I've always had excellent results - across the board - with this

type of sound (especially at 5:50 for all-purpose, and 2:20 for 'cut') when using a Motif-derived instrument.

 

[video:youtube]

 

Even with the updated 7' grand Programs (Yamaha C7-based, same as the Motif-based sample set in the video) I've yet to hear the Forte reproduce this vibe. So I wonder if, even with 3+ GB of sample memory available, the same C7 sample set (or those from a S700) would have the same clarity, openness and sustain within a Forte created Program. One thing I have noticed about Yamaha piano Voices, that I haven't quite experienced with Kurzweil, Korg, and Nord instruments is a velocity curve shaping that allows for very deep digging-in - which ties into that 'openness and sustain' I mentioned. I also suspect that Yamaha's end-stage processing plays a part, too.. In both the S90XS and CP4 there is a final, global/master effects configuration; if I understood the options correctly, it's like having live 'mastering' choices. I recall that the PC3 had a Global final effects configuration; but that's not an option on the Forte. Too bad. I'd love to see an FX choice for Forte called 'spacious bright stage grand with extra sustain'; something like that. Along with some deeper, dig-in types of velocity options, I wonder if Kurz R & D would consider developing that one, and add end-of-signal chain Global effects choices.

 

 

[MoodyBluesKeys]

Have you tried the WeiserSound Gig Pianos on your Forte? I don't own one, but find that the "Blues Piano 1974" on my PC3 gives the best response in a band context. Not sure if that is available on the Forte.

[allan_evett]

Have you tried the WeiserSound Gig Pianos on your Forte? I don't own one, but find that the "Blues Piano 1974" on my PC3 gives the best response in a band context. Not sure if that is available on the Forte.

 

I've tried just about everything, piano-wise: Factory presets, DW's 7' 'gig' and 'mix cut' pianos, Hector Space's 9' pianos, plus several edits of my own. To most listeners, my favorites of these do sound present out front, and cut through - most of the time; it's the lack of clarity on stage that is tough for me to get past. Unfortunately, it's not the band, the gear, or the stage setup. Have had this problem with the pianos mostly, since my first Kurzweil in 1996, then noticed it also occurring with Nord piano tones, starting around 2007. I hear the envelope falling off too fast, it's as if the sound gets swallowed quickly by the everything else on stage.

 

So I've generally ended up using my Kurzweils more for recording, or solo / much lighter stage work, and have used Yamaha AWM piano tones, for the most part, live. I'm beginning to suspect they're set up, somehow to be more 'forgiving' in a greater variety of mixes - especially for monitoring. And the envelopes, while a little less 'natural', are definitely longer - more 'encompassing'. So the brighter Yamaha tone tends to cut further, as a result. That ones been confirmed by listeners, too. Dave Weiser and I talked about extending the envelopes on some of his 7' - C7-based grands; he found that the tones started to sound too fake.

 

I was hoping that the Forte might translate differently than previous Kurzweils live, but that hasn't quite happened yet. Trying a Yamaha P50m MIDI'd to the Forte today - with the module going to the Forte's external audio in, and using the Forte's FX.. Thinking that might cover the cutting, sustained tone. Definitely a cheaper option, if it works, than picking up a MOXF 8 for stage and leaving the Forte in the studio. I could look into sampling my S90XS into an EXS file, then translating that into Forte; but that'd a big undertaking - as I'm a much better synth programmer than a sample library designer.

[MurMan]

The consensus in this great thread is that almost any AP sounds better to the player than a DP. When seated at an AP, the large resonating surfaces of the piano act as a plane source. ("Plane" refers to the geometry of the sound source. Speakers are point sources and line arrays are line sources.)

 

I ran across a white paper written by the vendor of an electrostatic speaker (which acts as a plane source) that claimed that plane sources have the following characteristics:

 

- a much lower intensity per unit area of radiating surface or low surface loudness

- drastically reduced intermodulation distortions

- drastically reduced compression effects

- bigger dynamic range in the very sensitive presence and high frequency range

- reproduction of complex, dense passages is much more faithful and relaxed

- superior spatial presentation

- extremely transparent and at the same time natural, unforced reproduction of smallest of details

- can be listened to for hours without listening fatigue

 

Of course, there's probably some marketing hype in here, but many of the same terms are used to describe what we hear when playing an AP.

 

I'm wondering if the sound field created by an AP is responsible for our preference to even a crappy piano. If this is the case, there is no amount of EQ that can make our DP listening experience better when monitoring from one or two speakers. The rest of the band will always mask the sustaining tail of each note and turn it into a ugly plunk. And we search for answers with little satisfaction.

 

The technique that Reezekeys described of EQing while wandering around in the house is probably the best that we can do for the audience.

[jimmymio]

Dave Weiser and I talked about extending the envelopes on some of his 7' - C7-based grands; he found that the tones started to sound too fake.

This comment is not specifically related to the above piano sound but in my opinion, I've always thought Kurzweil keyboards sacrifice "vibe" for authenticity. While I admire the accuracy of some of their programming, the sounds just don't seem to work for me while I'm onstage with a loud band.

[allan_evett]

 

I'm wondering if the sound field created by an AP is responsible for our preference to even a crappy piano. If this is the case, there is no amount of EQ that can make our DP listening experience better when monitoring from one or two speakers. The rest of the band will always mask the sustaining tail of each note and turn it into a ugly plunk. And we search for answers with little satisfaction.

 

 

Looks like we're collectively getting to the root of the issue: disappearing tails. The question then becomes, why do some manufacturer's DP tails tuck 'n run, and others carry through ? Recalling the various keyboards I've owned, or played as backline: It seems that much of the Nord Library pianos, most Kurzweil pianos, and a couple of the earlier Kronos pianos end up with docked tails. Meanwhile Yamaha AWM pianos almost always carry through full-tail, along with Roland piano tones - to a greater or lesser degree the JV-XV-Fantom-based sounds, and especially well the bright SuperNatural pianos. I've heard some of the mellower SN pianos tail-out early, though. Casio Privia has run 50/50 for me. Meanwhile, there are a handful of HD-1 based pianos in the Kronos that have always bit hard and carried through well when I used them. And I've heard good things about the clarity and carry-through of the new Nord Silver Grand (and to a lesser extent the Italian Grand).

 

So what gives with the disappearing tails, and more importantly, can they be re-attached if our main '88' that problem ?

 

 

[Hoochie]

Another Scott,

I'm stumped as to your dissatisfaction of the Forte Pianos.

It wasn't me, I haven't played a Forte.

As for the older triple-strike models, I seem to remember liking the

"Grand Evans" patch.

 

That was me you were referring to, John.

 

It isn't so much an overall dissatisfaction with the Forte pianos;

taken alone, for accompaniment, or jazz duo/trio they are a capable

choice. The few times I've used the Forte pianos in that type of

situation I was satisfied with the results. Where I've run into problems

with the pianos translating well is within larger groups with a

heavier sound - harder rock, two-guitar country/classic rock, etc..

 

But I've always had excellent results - across the board - with this

type of sound (especially at 5:50 for all-purpose, and 2:20 for 'cut') when using a Motif-derived instrument.

 

[video:youtube]

 

Even with the updated 7' grand Programs (Yamaha C7-based, same as the Motif-based sample set in the video) I've yet to hear the Forte reproduce this vibe. So I wonder if, even with 3+ GB of sample memory available, the same C7 sample set (or those from a S700) would have the same clarity, openness and sustain within a Forte created Program. One thing I have noticed about Yamaha piano Voices, that I haven't quite experienced with Kurzweil, Korg, and Nord instruments is a velocity curve shaping that allows for very deep digging-in - which ties into that 'openness and sustain' I mentioned. I also suspect that Yamaha's end-stage processing plays a part, too.. In both the S90XS and CP4 there is a final, global/master effects configuration; if I understood the options correctly, it's like having live 'mastering' choices. I recall that the PC3 had a Global final effects configuration; but that's not an option on the Forte. Too bad. I'd love to see an FX choice for Forte called 'spacious bright stage grand with extra sustain'; something like that. Along with some deeper, dig-in types of velocity options, I wonder if Kurz R & D would consider developing that one, and add end-of-signal chain Global effects choices.

 

 

My apologies. I was reading two things and once and somehow

got the names mixed up.

As far as that type of grand you want, if Dave Weiser is around he might pick up on this

and grant your wish.

But like I said. I hear what your saying and it makes sense.

 

John

[allan_evett]

We'll see, I wonder if it's possible with the existing installed pianos, or would it take a new piano being added to the stable (like what Nord offered with the Silver Grand) ?

 

[Donsta]

Maybe when that day comes, I'll pull a "Hal Galper" and look for the closest bridge or river.

 

You scared me with that line. I thought Hal Galper had killed himself and went looking for the Obit.

[Dave Ferris]

No, just wistful thinking.

 

Taken from Hal's Bio on his website: http://www.halgalper.com/category/hal-galper/

 

"Another factor in his departure (from Cannonball Adderly's group) was renewal of his dedication to the kind of piano he had spent most of his life playing. After all, I was an acoustic pianist, he said. Galper sealed his decision by wheeling his Fender Rhodes to the end of a dock on the Hudson River and tipping it into the water. He remembers watching bubbles rise to the surface as the instrument sank out of his life".

 

 

[Theo Verelst]

This weekend, probably for the first time in my life, I played an (acoustic) piano in a park, partially covered with plastic and under a bandstand, but, remarkably: it sounded fine to do some hard Blues Woogies on. I've struggled with digital pianos since, well, samples took over, because none are interesting or good sounding enough to "live" or in a normal studio/home setting get into sounding like a "real", acoustic piano. It's a long old discussion, and there is change upward from the basic sample player, so recently I've made the digitals I've used for some years get closer to a sound I consider usable.

 

I saw the post and resisted the idea of going into the same ol' subject I've mentioned, because sampling has remained sampling, digital processing didn't all over suddenly change, and digital algorithms get deeply improved only so often.

 

Being aware of the mixing materials I've worked on it's a fact that some digital instruments, as it so happens, the Kurzweils as one of the first I recon, can make a lot of piano characteristics outside of boring and wrongly DAC-ed samples come about. Nobody explicitly publically works on programming these things, which is a pity. I've come across ways, including effect programming with parallels in the mix-on-the-computer examples I've given here, to create power and rolling sounds for the CP4 for instance as well, that may well make for better live sound, depending on amplification.

 

T.

[allan_evett]

'...rolling sounds' is apt; ties in well to the sound 'tail' concept. In researching this a little more, I discovered the case of a Kurz SP88x that, while being recorded, was losing its tail. After some trial and error the engineer found that applying a tube pre and compression added a sufficient sound tail to the piano track. The exact parameters used were not provided though, and the posting was from 2008; so I could only guess at that now.

 

Being that Yamaha and Kawai are piano manufacturers, they know a lot about correctly presenting the sound of acoustic pianos in a live setting. No doubt that they have extensive experience in correct miking, proper amplification, and use of effects; and this would have carried over to the work of the digital piano sound design teams. I'll hazard a guess that part of the solution is a way of over-exaggerating the tail yet keeping it somewhat realistic sonically.

 

So it's not surprising then, that these two companies typically present stage piano tones that carry through with plenty of tail, and don't 'fall off' easily. But I highly doubt they'll be sharing their secrets soon - for those of us wanting to 're-tail' our particular instrument. And realistically, some of that would involve a redo of at least one sample set.... Probably easier, at least in the short term, to instead use one of their DPs for stage. A huge part of performance is feeling at ease with one's instrument. Hearing 'thunk, thunk, thunk..' half the night, and attempting to correct it, is a major distraction. Not good for me, and not good for the audience.