Stu, whenever you do a "This vs That" comparison you always manage to give me an education so that I am able to form my own opinion of what are my likes/disslikes. This is invaluable in that it lets me asses the information you are providing, instead of having to listen to someone elses opinion of what they like or disslike. While I do like hearing someones opinion, in the end I want to have enough information to be able to make my own decision on what I prefer, and you always manage to accomplish that. So a huge "Thank You"!

The part about the Kawai decay was most helpful.

Finally, after all your fancy piano playing show offish, you got to the point, and tested the single decay trail sample key test @ 12:30 !

I would have liked to see the assistant throw in two pieces from the same keyboard at the end to see if Stewart's mind would have forced him to 'hear' a difference that wasn't there (i.e he couldn't lock in to that low octave resonance characteristic to pick which one)

Because of your expertise and reviews Stu, I have ordered the Kawai ES920, due to arrive in late summer! You are one if not the best at distilling all the technical info and then playing beautifully through your knowledge and integration of musical styles.

Thank you Maestro!!!

Thanks, Stu. You raised the bar once again, the bar you always set. Looking forward to watching your impressions about the Namm. Cheers, Ali.

Thank you. A very interesting comparison.

A very welcome video, and match-up. Thanks

That Roland sounds unbelievably great! BTW Great musician playing it. My vote is definitely for the Roland. Learned a lot in this video. Thanks!

Great clear explanations! Thanks for the video!

Wow a real expert and communicator . . .not to mention a fine piano player Thank you

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and explaining this so well!

Feel lucky to be this early to a video for once! I'm debating between these very two brands. Thanks for the vids!

I bought pianoteq in 2009, and I never found that modelled instruments being to perfect annoying. What was a bit annoying though, was a flavour of something synthetic, and sometimes a sense of details missing. It did not stop me from using it. Modartt has over the years done a good job addressing those short-comings. But, when comparing a single pianoteq key to a high quality sample piano, the sample piano wins. Where pianoteq shines, and the reason for buying it or other modelling pianos, is in the interaction between the modelled parts, you can really play it like a real instrument because it has a flexibility and a expressive range of one. I think it means more to pianists than other people in the world. Sometimes people say that modelled is robotic, and rave about 1000 years old pine being used in some sampled piano. But sample doesn't mean you have a real piano, a real piano interacts, it resonates. Sampled piano are bits of recordings, and needs software engineers to come alive. You don't get a recording to resonate sympathetic. If modelled is robotic, then sampled is the Frankenstein version of a piano.

I recently demo'd the Kawai CA49 and Roland HP 704, and the Kawai just blew me away. It was so inspiring I improvised a beautiful song on the spot, and I'm not even that good at improv! The Roland sounds okay but as others have mentioned in other posts, there's no wow factor there. Doesn't seem like modeling can currently compete with sampling. It is completely subjective though, as we all hear things differently. I can say this for Roland though.... the build quality of their pianos I found to be excellent, and I also found myself really liking the controls and interface. They have the balls to be unique, like Casio. It's super handy having a volume knob and metronome tempo knob right at your fingertips. If you live in a condo like me, you're adjusting volume constantly. I really hope Roland is able to develop a more authentic modeling sound soon, otherwise my next piano is a Kawai!

Beautiful, thanks for the information and music!

You are the sommelier for the pianos. Thank you for your suggestions to make the right choice. Very appreciated!

Excellent video; but what was not discussed here is the difference with the keyboard bed which is very important in making a selection. I went to a local music store and I loved the Roland 90X PHA-50 keys that has wood as part of the material, vs the all plastic Kawai keys. The Roland keys have a more solid feel and more like a real piano feel. This cannot be overlooked. The Kawai keys are a little too light and feels more like a keyboard vs a piano. The Roland feels more like a piano and I like it better. With that being said, I also prefer the sound of the Kawai but a little bit. The 90X has pure acoustic modeling which is better than the older supernatural sounds of the older Roland 90. So they moved up in quality a bit with the 90X. Both the Kawai and Roland are very good and you could be happy with either. But I am going for the Roland due to the key material, feel of the keys and the increased amount of different sounds it has vs the Kawai. The 3 band EQ is also very good to get a warmer or more modern pop sound. In addition, there is more watts on the amp of the Roland with its 4 speakers giving you a more satisfying sound.

I don't care which team which team are you. Both of them are technological great achievement. You are lucky if you afford one of them.

As a follow up to my last comment below, you sold me with this video on the Kawai ES 920. I’ve listened to all of your reviews and this is the one that really pushed me over the edge. I’m looking forward to getting one soon. Thanks Stu, what a beautiful Acoustic sound on the es 920. Your playing is awesome too!! Jim from Fort Lauderdale.

The roland one sounds absolutely beautiful

I hear a difference between both, and I know that I like the Kawai sound more, but I didn't know why - unless you explained how you hear the difference near the end of the video. That's it, thank you!!! The uniformity over the whole musical range that the Roland offers creates an artificial sound experience in my brain. That's not how an analog instrument behaves. Before watching this my path went more in the Roland direction beacuse I am more the "geeky tech stuff guy" and I am fascinated about that modelling system with all its parameters, but the musical guy in me (playing trumpet, flute/recorder, guitar, drums - and learning piano) also needs that analog imperfection. I think Kawai is my way to go. Super interesting video! That's what makes this channel so unique. Subscribed. Greetings from Germany!

Stu, you are a great asset to the music world, especially Merriam Pianos. Both instruments play beautifully under your skilled hands!

Thanks for another interesting video, which motivated me to power up the Roland Fantom 7, which has VPiano (predecessor to the FP-90X Pure Acoustic Piano Modeling) and also sampled instruments. I also had an acoustic (Ritmuller RS122) to compare against. The VPiano on the Fantom has a large number of settings which can be changed , most of which are subtle (e.g. string and damper resonance) and others, such as lid position (grand) and most interestingly, 'character', being more obvious. The latter has a huge effect and whilst some piano 'sounds' have the 'character' set the same for every note, some are different (for example, to change the bass compared to the rest). With 'character' set the same, I could notice some slight note to note differences, with slight ringing/metallic when played hard for the odd lower note, which is what you would expect. With VPiano you can also set the tuning for every single note. I also tried some Roland Supernatural sound samples too, which I understand has samples for every note over multiple amplitudes. I did find something a bit odd here. Playing the lowest G, on one particular piano sound, after a few seconds, had a clear transition whereby the fundamental disappeared leaving just the higher harmonic, but this was not the case for adjacent notes! Was this a true reflection of a real piano? Comparing the two, there was more consistency of tone with the VPiano, note to note (with 'character' for each note set the same), but with both there did seem to be a noticeable transition during the sustain period on a note played hard (though not like the low G mentioned early) which was more obvious on the VPiano. Doing a sense check with the acoustic and no, these transitions were not there. The very top treble sounded more believeable with the Supernatural, but neither had the same level of sustain as my acoustic. Another difference with the acoustic was that when playing lower notes on the acoustic and releasing, you could still hear the note for a short while afterwards (presumably soundboard) which was not the case on the synth for either Vpiano or supernatural. In conclusion, (and note the above was hardly a scientific test), the VPiano gives you many options to find the sound you want (which I believe the FP-90X also provides), but whether it is better than the samples is, as always, down to personal preference and it is important to try them out yourself. For me, I think I would go for the sampling approach, but actually prefer an acoustic!

Thank you - that was a fascinating comparison and explanation of sampling and modelling. It seems that both approaches are quite mature, both very good and it's a matter of taste as to which the player/listener feels is best.

I love these videos

I like that Stu detected a characteristic of the acoustic piano that crosses notes; and that the Roland modeler is clean/consistent across the board. Not sure if the firmware of the FP90X could be updated, but it would be nice to update the modelling to include these characteristics of real, acoustic instruments without making the hardware obsolete.

I bought a fp-30x and love tweek the sound with the app and pianoteq, but on the evening tired from working day i get a much relaxing effect listening your video :-) is like seeing football from the couch instead of playing it. Cool executions Stu!

This was incredibly well done. Congratulations. As someone who's used samplers going back to the 80s (my first sampler was a Korg DSS-1 with 256k of memory), I enjoyed your summary of sampling evolution. It was spot on. This is so subjective, but the Roland still has a kind of sheen to it that gives away its modeling approach. But it's so subtle till I don't think I would notice it if I didn't already know it uses modeling.

Nobody does it better!Stu has made it easier for us to understand the subtleties between each technology and product. Keep up the great work. Thanks. It has made it easier for me to pick my digital piano.

Learned a lot from this video, especially being a beginner looking to buy a mid price range keyboard. Thank you for making these videos

A similar thing happens with Roland V Drums vs many competitors. I own a Roland 27 KV and on a daily practice basis it’s great, but once you plug in just the most basic GarageBand drum samples, it’s like OMG what a difference. Sound modeling still has a way to go and I wish they do improve. Great video!

Great video. Differences in sampling and modeling are quite clear in the sound once you know what you are "looking" for. IMHO, multiple notes in combination affect more one another in the modeling piano, whereas in sampling piano they sound overdubbing each other, similar to what you might hear when playing a chord in one acoustic guitar, compared to the same chord played individually with multiple guitars instead. That effect bothers me a lot in sampling pianos, but up to this point I've never realized what it was. Thank you.

This is a cool analysis about synth types and how it works

I am all Team Roland (FP-90X) and Modeling so this will be fun to watch! 🍿🤠🍿

A mesmerising insightful exposition of a fascinating subject. Which, to me, and I suspect many others was a vague notion of the intricacies of the breathtaking developments in a technology which we tend to take for granted. It would have been interesting, if possible, to have heard some of the earlier attempts of say twenty or thirty years ago and actually hear the difference. I wonder where we will be twenty or thirty years on?

Modelled pianos have some significant advantages. The polyphony can be better (unlimited for some Rolands) and the tone is different at every volume level like a real piano. A sampled piano may have three or even four tones per key, mapped to the 128 MIDI levels of volume, but a modelled piano will literally have 128 or more different tones per each key and be potentially more realistic and expressive. FInally, modelled pianos are much more customizable, with tuning, cabinet, soundboard details and other features highly variable. All that said, many sampled pianos sound excellent, and your choice could easily depend on the action or the way that the piano reacts to your playing style. You really have to try several pianos and choose one that suits you.

Very informative. Thank you. That resonance you mentioned in the Kawai is quite obvious. I'm not sure I like it. Getting a complex, singing tone evenly across 88 keys is an remarkable achievement for any piano maker. I still remember a 5 foot grand in the lobby of a hotel in Nashville way back I played in the early 80s that, while it lacked power and volume, impressed because of this even response.

Thank you! 🙏

Wow, Stu, you do a magnificent job with all of these videos that you produce. Especially this one on sampling versus modeling, I wish I could be close enough to be one of your students. I just love to learn from you. Do you do online courses? Keep up the great work you’re the best out there. Jim from Fort Lauderdale

I am a proponent of the modelling approach and hope that digital pianos not only replicate but improve on acoustic pianos. The key is not to just copy but make something that sounds really really good to the ears.

I would listen to this guy playing for hours!

I aways love your reviews of new digital piano's. Personally, I have noticed my tendency to adapt to current tech (sampled piano sounds of my Roland.. My first digital piano was a used Roland FP4, when I upgraded to a Roland FP7F I was upset, however, I soon adapted to the new piano and still use (and love) to this day.

That was very interesting and very well done. I found that I moved a little further in the direction of the Roland than I had been. I'm still waiting to see what might be coming from NAMM, especially from Yamaha. The P515 is now 4 years old and in need of a refresh. Maybe we'll see an MP8 from Kawai? That would be sweet.

I totally agree about this particularity about the low medium of the Kawai : this range of note is more real, vivid and i realise that the sample i prefer in the Nord ' Bank of grand pianos is ...the Silver wich is a Kawai. I listened and re listened the blind test and it is obvious, The kawai flavour is here becaus of this range of notes

Fantastic video Stu! I like the film-style camera work during the performances. I highly enjoy playing my Yamaha P-515 which is sample based and augmented with their Virtual Resonance Modeling. It is VERY satisfying to play.

I’m a proponent of modeling, want it to succeed, but I think sampling still sounds better. That initial bass hit was just ‘dryer’ less lifelike than my body anticipated. Really tough to explain. But present. In any case, great review. I learned a lot. You packed really good information into here.

To add what I think the process I go through when choosing what to play. 1) Do I like the sound? It doesn't matter where it comes from - sampled, modelled or a mix. 2) How does it feel to play. Is it responsive? Modelled usually feels better to me as a player. This is also related to the keyboard choice, and amplification (through in-built speakers, or separate speakers or even headphones).(Phil Best is very good on this, in explaining - as a very highly skilled musician - intention and response are everything to him) Finally 3) How authentic is it - does it feel and sound like a 'real' piano? For many, this is the least important aspect, as they don't have experience playing a real piano much. It's true for me - I can't remember the last time I got my hand on a well-tuned grand piano, let alone an upright. For most of us, by now, it's just a matter of taste. My limitations as a musician are hugely down to me, as a human, rather than any instrument I play.

To make the test fairer I would recommend playing the same songs on both pianos :).

Well I liked the bloom in the Roland more generally. I tried the FP90X and that impressed me. The Kawai, I feel drier in this particular case.

23:46 NO NO No . you won't get away with this one. these 251's are insane. can u please explain them 2 me. your playing, taste, style is AAA+++

It is a tribute to your other (oh so wonderfully many) videos that I am able to begin to grasp what sounds I am hearing here ! And had the temerity to go play both these fine instruments in a store, coincidentally . Next , a pianoteq set up and a Nord maybe .. Thankyou . Btw I guessed each correctly too but the last pair were more ambiguous . Brilliant helpful insightful as ever video from you - a huge thanks .

Awesome video! I've watched tons of videos to find a good piano sound module and find interesting that my perception changes all the time, it's all relative. I may like a certain timbre one day and find it dull and unnatural after comparing it to another. The comparison makes all the difference. It's kind of like when people were amazed at the synth pianos in the 90s and their ears get used to the better quality of today's standards. What sounded real back then now sounds metallic. But just by itself, a certain sound may be pleasing no matter how refined it is. Also, in mix productions with many other instruments involved, the attack phase of the sound becomes more important. That's probably why piano sounds of your typical music workstations such as Fantom or Motif/Montage tend to have brighter patches without a perfectly realistic decay which is mostly required in solo piano scenarios.

Wow, Stu, what you don't know about pianos is not worth knowing. Thank you for another excellent review.

Good video! I'm listening on a mediocre sound system so bear over with me, if I'm completely wrong: The Roland might have a softer attach, perhaps due to more calculations when the tone starts. It sounds like each tones volume is programmed to be slower building up, until the sound is fully calculated?

I am listening through just a pair of little desktop speakers, but, I will give the edge to the Roland here. Both are outstanding! I need to face the reality that I may end up in a retirement home, and so my beloved GL-40 will need to go. The idea of digital makes my teeth itch, but at the same time I acknowledge they've gotten very good. I am hardly a Horowitz or Aaberg, but, I AM picky. Stu, if the border ever settles down, I plan on visiting your shop.

Thanks for your analysis that shows pretty well the sound's differences btw those 2 models. I've been playing piano for like 20 years. I use to play on an upright piano Zeller during 10 years and after on an upright Kawai. Living in a flat, I decided to buy a digital piano. I tested various digital pianos but nothing looks like the Roland LX 17 : with the modeling sound you really get the impression the piano contains a soundboard it's incredible. Plus the touch technology which is hyper realistic. Definitly I'm a Roland addict.

I have a few of the big VST pianos, hundreds of gigabytes and 3 microphone positions. They're very different. Some of the pianos sampled seem a bit too real. A sampled Yamaha could be tuned better with couple notes that buzz unpleasantly. But a result is that all of these instruments sound very real. Other problems are that the far microphone level is pretty low and they didn't have a quiet enough studio, so if you're listening to that concert sound far mike, there are notes that capture trucks driving by or airplanes flying over. I wish they'd re-recorded those samples.

That Roland sounds very nice.

I agree with your comment at 28:40, when you said, "The Kawai SK-EX has a particularly resonant LOW MIDRANGE... and they didn't bother to try and eliminate that slight bulge... in fact, they may have embraced it". Kawai did bother to eliminate that bump in their SK-EX Rendering engine. I have played the CA79/99 (which has the SK-EX Rendering engine) side by side with the lesser SK-EX engines (specifically, I have played the models CA49, CN39, CN29, ES920, and KPD75), and the SK-EX Rendering is clean and flat, compared to the low-midrange exaggerated SK-EX sample in the Harmonic Imaging (HI), Progressive Harmonic Imaging (PHI), and Harmonic Imaging Extra Long (HI-XL) engines. Maybe this video does not make this situation apparent, but if you are playing the instruments side by side, you can tell right away. There is this saturation in the sound in the cheaper SK-EX engines. The 250-500 Hz zone makes sounds in general "muddy", "less defined". The ES920 doesn't have a built-in multi-band parametric equalizer that would allow the user to cut those frequencies to provide a cleaner tone. The built-in 3-band equalizer is not as refined as a more surgical equalizer.

I can deffo tell the modelling, as a ca99 owner and an upright owner I just can't get used to modeling yet on the 99 I have adjusted it to make it as bright as a yamaha but not as straining to the ear and it has took a while to get that setting. It's in the lower tones I can tell the difference didn't sound as genuine as a lower sampling tone. The higher the keyboard you go the the harder it is to distinguish. Excellent in depth talk about the decay and how large a file would be if it was really that long.

Hi, when are you reviewing the new Roland Fantom 08 ? Will also appreciate your comparison with the previous FA 08.

I like the Roland

Good to see. But I think quite a few people could hear the difference between the Roland and the Kawai, as they are different instruments. It would be better, I think, to see if you can hear the difference between a real piano and a sample or a modelled instrument. If not, then it just a matter of taste.

Good explanation. I think you should say the pitch of a sample is "shifted" rather than "bent." Your team is very good at recording these various pianos. They all sound excellent. I guess in some respects I have the best of both worlds, as I play a piano setup that combines a sampled piano voice, (Yamaha DGX/CGX) with a modeled piano voice (Painoteq Hamburg Classical Recording D). Presently I'm piping the Pianoteq into the Yamaha's internal amplification system, but in turn piping the output of the Yamaha into an additional relatively cheap Logitec computer speaker system. The Yamaha's internal speakers are used as well. I didn't care for the sound of the Roland 90x when I played it at the piano store. It was sort of there, but never satisfied my tonal tastes. I was always trying to find a really satisfying voice from the instrument. On the other hand, I did like the sound of Roland's top line digital upright, the LX-708. I personally don't care for the sound of the DGX's CGX when played alone. It's much more realistic when Pianoteq is added to it. In turn the Pianoteq voices have more body when a voice from the DGX is added to them. Essentially at the present time I have two hybrid piano voices I use regularly. One is what I call the "CGX" which is as mentioned a combination of the Pianoteq Hamburg and the Yamaha CGX. The other one which is actually thicker is the Hamburg combined with with "Warm Piano" from the DGX. I switch between the two depending on the piece. If I want a cleaner sound with complex classical music, I use the CGX, but if I'm playing something more sparce I like the richness and presence of the "Warm Piano." Personally I think almost any digital that doesn't suffer latency could be combined with Pianoteq Pro to get a really great sounding digital. I also think you are going to see digital pianos in the future that are marketed with two or more sound engines that can be blended into a single unified voice.

I've only just come across this video which I found extremely interesting and instructive, thank you. It does rather look as if modelling is the way to go. I have a very old Roland digital piano, and am looking to replace it with something more modern. Being in UK sadly I suppose there's no realistic possibility of buying an instrument from your company. I want my new piano to be portable, and I'm aware there are some quite cheap portables which are pretty good. I currently use Pianotec which literally transforms the quality of the sound from my old Roland. I wonder if a cheap portable can achieve the same result using Pianotec? It may be of interest to mention that despite my piano being old, the amplifier and speakers are pretty good, so after I connect up my piano to Pianotec I re-route the signal back through the Roland rather than using a separate amplification system.

Sampling = is something like an Audio Player / What do you play you will hear..... In short high quality but boring! Physical modeling In short = Expressive!! Sound reacts due to many variables, So you'll never get bored, even if the sound doesn't mimic the real instrument, you'll still have fun playing for hours. As a keyboard player who has spent more than 20 years experimenting with different keyboards and tried many VSTI's to get the best sounds with physical modeling technology, I can play Korg MOSS / Swam VSTi's / Pianoteq sounds for hours and hours and I won't get bored What's interesting about the physical modeling technologies is that If you have experience in programming and sound design, you can make an instrument that doesn't exist in our world.

Stu, you're absoloutly amazing...I feel more natural resonance from new roland i mean x series, the other ones so shiny and how can i say...mmm, they looks like more sentetic, more digital for me...especially, x series bass tones are perfect, balanced and natural. but you are the boss ı'm just user :) I'm grateful for your opinions. and thank you merriam of course. cheers !

I like these videos. Thanks. They give me a nice direction to go when heading for the piano store. Truth is, I must lay my own fingers on the keyboard to know it it’s right for me. The good news these days is that the industry is highly competitive, meaning I’m going to get my money’s worth whatever brand I choose. Try-before-you-buy is the way to go.

Stu, can you do a review of the Numa X piano with the new110 action. It does not sound as good as the Roland FP90 Xor the Kawai ES 920 but the pianos have a nice sound as do the electric pianos. I think they are Modeled and sampled.

Hi, Stu! Perhaps you can shed some light on my conundrum. I have a Kawai ES520 with beautiful sampled voice of Shigeru grand. Finally, I connected it to my (very decent) sound system and realized that the "hammer noise" (the wooden knocking sounds that I originally thought to be the mechanical noise of the keyboard itself) which is distinctly audible even through the built-in speakers and headphones, becomes deafening when coming out of the subwoofer. Kawai support suggested turning off the "fallback noise" (which didn't help), and then to filter out the noise using EQ (which I don't want to do because I love the punch and rumbling of the bass notes). Further research, indicated that this is a common problem with all sampled libraries (even the high-end ones like Vienna and Ivory Keys). However, the Pianoteq demo did allow me to turn down the hammer noise and even to eliminate it completely! All of this does make sense: sampled sounds are audio recordings of a real piano and it comes with all its attributes whether I like them or not, and modelled sound is one big "effect" that can be modified to anybody's liking. So now my choices are: to trade in my Kawai for a Roland (that's close to $2000 extra for an FP90X) or to simply buy the $300 version of Pianoteq in which case I would also keep the Shigeru sound for practice and subwoofer-less performance. What do you recommend?

please review the Studiologic Numa x Piano and speak about the Sound Engine and TP110 action.

Interesting, I got them all correct as well, and my ear leaves a lot to be desired. The only thing that helped me tell them apart is that the Kawai is a bit warmer, perhaps rolled off, than the Roland. In contrast, the Roland sounded a bit more edgy or sharp than the Kawai. Loved them both, but the Kawai appeals to my ears better.

Hi Stu & Crew. Seriously? Stu, are you gonna listen to YOUR playing and GUESS? 😁😆🤣 I'll take it, it's fun 😉 (...) Lively - shows a collaborative vibe, variety of shots woven with stock materials (the shot of PCI-e port 6:07 on the old computer motherboard slowly becomes a meme here :-) Hi Lee (is that right?) Hand-held shots are the way to go, maybe a bit too excitable at first, then very stable (the rhythm of slow breathing feels proper in this scenario). May I suggest an experiment with the optic stabilization ON? Try to disturb it slightly and make it work a bit, it may result in more "natural" reception (people are accustomed to the effects of optical stabilization therefore it may feel more "natural"). When the movement is too direct it suits "Jason Bourne" ;-) Anyway, you guys need to collaborate like this more often, to catch the feel and flow. It's gonna be awesome.

Great Video. Wished you would have also included the difference in Polyphony Capacity in them, as with the Piano Modeling, there's no contest here. It is a big difference between the two technologies at this point in time.

i like Kawai Shinguru i played the real one and the digital e920 sounds the SAME, i have Roland lx760 replacing Charles Walter studio slimmer just right size, home upright should be !!! A modern piano and home entertainment center, i added a sub woofer, and perfect, better than 708 ❤❤❤

Is the sampling engine on the Kawai ES920 identical to that of the hybrid Aures system on, say, the Kawai GL10-ATX4? If not, how do they differ?

please, please review the Studiologic Numa x piano! I'm mainly wondering about it's new TP110 key action and it's sound engine! Thank You so much!

Excellent video - thank you! I'm curious, would you care to predict the future: where will digitals be in 10 years time and what will those say who think, "Nothing will replace an acoustic"?

Times have changed, and digital pianos are even expected to surpass the sound quality of traditional pianos. Roland's new digital pianos are not based on pre-recorded samples (you can compare the playback of segmented recordings to a zombie), but on a set of algorithms to generate unique sounds (like robots of video games created in real time), instead of just simulating traditional acoustic pianos. For the piano player, interacting with the mechanics of a acoustic piano is essentially the same as interacting with the real-time modeling synthesizer of a digital piano.

Would like to have heard identical pieces of music on each instrument.

why lx706 betterthan 708? Tony , Stu counterpart in England pointed out, the control panels can be hidden (706 not 708) when the key cover is halfway covered ,Tony said i hope Roland will never change the design, (it makes the piano traditional looking and not digital🎉🎉🎉

How many sample layers are there in the SK-EX sampling on the ES920? Also was it deliberate to use ‘Modelling’ (non-US spelling) throughout the video itself, and ‘Modeling’ (US spelling) in the title and hashtag?

Thanks for this presentation. I scored 3/3 too! The Kawai is tinny and bright and the Roland is 'even' as you say, and mellower; and it evokes more of an emotional reaction. In the decay tests, you could hear the beating between the chord notes on the Roland, not so much on the Kawai. I think I prefer modeling and am looking at the GP607 whose action I really like.

Thanks for the nice video Stu. Are digital pianos not the most common pianos in use today? I think they are real pianos too, just as digital cameras are real cameras. And as someone said on another thread, they've raised the threshold... [sic] outperforming many of the most affordable uprights in action and sonority. Nobody has to buy a rough old Joanna anymore. Forgive the digression. It's funny: In the tests, I was listening for those lower mids too, without knowing that that's how you were doing it. Seems it's a make or break thing with Kawais. The buyer either likes the resonance on the lower mids or he/she doesn't.

On your blind test, the first pair (and your guess) was the Roland-Kawai, but the clips of your playing showed the Kawai-Roland.

With Roland, Pianoteq, and Piano V all using modeling, do they all use the same base algorithm, or do they have their own exclusive take on modeling? What do they do, i.e., record a sound and convert it into algorithms? Or completely ground up?

How does the Roland engine compare to your RD2000? I assume it’s a newer engine. Great video, by the way!

I listened to both these instruments in different invironments and the Roland took the prize. Resonance and overtones were way more natural.

28:23 I think both are so good it’s subjective but I prefer the Roland.

Dexibell has a modeled sound as well.

Weight. That’s a big deciding factor in shlubbing a keyboard to 4 or so gigs a week. Modeling sure is attractive. I’m happy with my Casios S3100 and S1100, but I still watch your reviews because they are great! Your ability on the keyboard makes me feel like a tiny loser. You are gifted. Keyboards in the 40 lb range are difficult for a solo performer at small gigs. I always look at weight in the specs of a keyboard. 🙂

I was thinking of making a switch to the nord piano 5, and selling the kawai mp7se that i own just because i like the idea of downloading samples. Could i request you to do a video and compare the kawai mp7se vs nord piano5? I really wish i could know which is better. Just because something is more expensive than the other it dosnt make it better. So far my kawai has had no issues leading worship services, but it is not so great at multi tasking. I could use advice lol i always find myself watching your channel i love your work

I just bought a Roland. IMO, it doesn't sound like a real piano. But... I love the way it sounds. It's like a Fender Rhodes doesn't sound like a piano, either, but that doesn't mean it sounds *bad.* Roland's modelling has its own sound and it's very enjoyable to play. The dynamics are fantastic.

BEST REVIEW YET ON KZfaq!!! You are still playing too fast, slow way down, lets hear how notes of an arpeggio blend with full sustain. Let's hear some chords ring out and blend in different octaves across the keyboard octaves. (just about all Dpinao's sound the same when played fast). I play the finest piano's in the world on stage...imagine my disappointment when I come home to my little apartment and have to play today's digital piano's! I play 100% through high quality headphones, but the Dpiano's for the last 40 years have been sterile sound with decay rates of note sound from full to no sound is 2x to 5x too fast, making blending notes are not possible with the note dropping to near zero volume before I can slowly blend 4 note arpeggio's. One of the problems of note decay is how fast the initial strike falls in volume, then a long decay with only 25% volume fading to zero. The note decay should be more even from full strike volume (whatever velocity was played) to zero. Back in 2005 every reviewer agreed that the high end Kawai Dpiano was the best action and sound...it was NOT! I sold it a few years later and replaced it with just a cheap Yamaha P95 which was much better in sound. Here we are again in 2022 with everyone saying how great Kawais piano is again....I don't believe you this time. Again in your video the note decay is way to fast 2x faster than a Steinway Concert D 9 foot. This fast decay makes playing slow songs and slow passages very choppy with full sustain pedal to the floor wishing I had more. All Dpianos in this price range are now using some kind of sympathetic resonance in string and pedal, hopefully this will solve the sterile sound problem. The next problem is half pedaling in a smooth range instead of a tiny notch with on or off, we need degree's of sustain, just like a real piano. I would like to upgrade my now 9 year old Yamaha P95 with todays technology, but afraid it will be $1800 to $2400 waste of money. Software pianos running through a computer are extremely expensive once you have to upgrade computer/OS/App/interfaces/ and are not dependable or fun to troubleshoot when I am scheduled to practice. I need a hardware piano dependability of turn it on and go, I don't have time to troubleshoot computer problems. Then the final problem... Dpiano's are played through near field monitor speakers or studio headphones, never through built speakers if you are a true pianist. These speakers or headphones all sound different and we need an adjustment for tone (compensation for the manufacturers monitors used by the engineer). Roland provides a tone (voicing) on every key individually, this should accomplish our idea of what the piano should sound like. But should also have simple and complex EQ included as well as Binaural versions of recording for headphone play. EQ should be a carefully selected 3 band..AND...a complete stereo 31 band graphic EQ included with every piano. Tone of the piano MUST be user defined because of playback devices used, room environments and our individual need for sound such as classically voiced for solo performances or a brighter jazz version for a band, for example. At this time my first choice for upgrading is the Yamaha P515, but I am worried...I owned a Yamaha P120 in the late 90s and though it was a very good sounding piano...ONE...key out of 88 had a digital ring, and after hearing that ring for years, it drove me crazy and I sold it. NOW...I hear from from one YT reviewer who is a pro classical musician that there is again one key out of 88 on the P515 that has a digital ring. (This is a sample problem on all 515s, not a repair problem) My first digital piano was a Roland U220 sound module over 33 years ago, why are we still dealing with piano problems that can be easily solved with memory and CPU/ROM OS power in 2022??????? So many manufacturers of Dpiano's today, and they all sound the same....digital, sterile, or have manufacturing defects, difficult half pedals, note decay problems, voicing/tone control/evenness problems. Funny....when testing the performance of the piano I am given for a concert it will take me hours to overcome problem piano's and find work arounds and velocities to even out bad pianos. Then in performance I will have to be continually adjusting my playing style and velocities to compensate, as well as key action compensation. But when I am given a Baldwin, Steinway, Yamaha, Kawai, and more... well cared for and classically voiced and well tuned...it takes just a few minutes to adapt to this individual strange piano, and for the concert all I have to play is my emotion, these good pianos mean I don't have to think about the defects of the piano and can play as a free musician separated from the instrument. With Dpiano's, we should have all the control devices to tune and voice our Dpiano's. 3 band EQ can even out a small unevenness and 31 band graphic EQ can work to save more serious tone problems, but Roland seems to have nailed it with the ability to adjust every note, just as we would voice an acoustic. Preferences can then be employed where a musician may prefer the softer voicing across all octaves but would like a more brighter last octave...this is now possible. I don't trust Kawai anymore, so it will be a Vpiano or a P515, hoping for a miracle where I can truly play my Dpiano in my apartment with headphones and not cringe at the sound, or have to compensate with velocity for too bright or dark tone that can't be adjusted correctly. We have the technology, wish they would use it.

The blind test was easy and I didn't need the Kawai's distinct lower resonance to tell the difference. Interestingly enough, it's the mid to lower-mid range where the Roland and other modeling based pianos lose their authentic/realism sound & are subtly thin when playing chords in particular. Whereas the Kawai and other great sample based pianos don't have that subtle thinness in the mid-lower range when chording. It would have been harder to tell if you didn't chord as much and just played notes on the Roland, but there were a few choice notes on the Kawai that I could tell sounded more like an authentic grand. The second comparison he did was the easiest of the 3 because the chording on the Roland gave it away often as that subtle thinness was there, where as the Kawai didn't have that thinness in the chording and had several choice notes that distinguish it as authentic sounding. As examples the Kawai shows some of it's authenticity in these notes, such as just when it gets to 27.16 & he plays the middle E note, and then the double hit B notes as it goes from 27.17 to 27.18, the mid D then C notes at 27.21, the lower-mid G at 27.22, and then the lower-mid F then up to C at 27.25 The Roland shows it's subtle thinness at 27.29 with the lower-mid C with mid chord A#, D#, G, then at 27.36 the A# & F in the lower section is a dead give away for that subtle thinness. Also at 27.38 the staccato C minor chording in the mid/mid-lower chording notes also gave it away. And the lower-mid to mid C minor chord with an A# that is played several times throughout (C, G, A#, D#) at 27.32 & 27.41 as examples. In contrast, this is one example of what authentic, real sounding chording sounds like when he plays the G# bass note with the E major chord on the Kawai at 28.20, which sounds like a true grand, whereas the Roland would sound subtly thin and not quite as authentic/real sounding. So as a quick comparison between the chording line up this video on two different tabs, one stopped at 27.37 (Roland) & the other stopped at 28.20 (Kawai), as you can play the Roland chording, then quickly switch to the 2nd tab and play the Kawai chording. You should be able to hear the subtle thinness & less authentic sounding chords in the Roland, and then the contrast with the realness sound in the Kawai chord...

not fear comparison, based on chillout music, to hear the difference -push to the limit the piano with difficult music

At this point in time I would have to say that I like the Roland's sound better. The Kawai was also great, but the Roland just sounded more real to me. Great job! 👍

I can hear the difference too. The modelling engine tends to have a metalic sound to it when played hard and something I'm not keen on, where as the sampling sounds more realistic in tone. I can see the advantages of modelling and maybe in the next 5+ years hopefully, we will not hear the difference at all. Sound is subjective and personal of course. At the moment I prefer sampling. I use a combination of 3 vst pianos in Kontakt to get as near to the tone I like for my taste. I've adjusted each piano so they mix together pleasingly for my taste with a few variations. I do want a piano keyboard with better onboard piano than I currently have and I'm looking at the Kawai mp7se and the mp11se. Besides the wooden key action, is there a difference sound wise between the mp11se vs mp7se?