Newsgroups: rec.music.makers

The original list of reasons to prefer a digital included:

>     1. You need an instrument that stays in tune no matter where you
>	go.
>     2. You have been unable to rely on a decent-sounding piano to be
>	available wherever you practice or perform.

I said these were the same.  I also took exception to:

>     3. You can't afford a good acoustic piano.

Bill says:

>If you are going to perform for a live audience, I doubt that your $1000 piano
>will do.  If all you intend to do is sit at home and play for fun, you don't
>need a performance-grade piano.

But I rarely worry about live audiences in my home.  The person who does not
plan to play the instrument he buys anywhere but at home can consider all
three of these points as "If you need to have a good sounding instrument
outside the home, get a portable digital; if all you care about is playing at
home, get the best acoustic you feel like paying for".

For what it's worth, I paid about the same, just under $2000, for both my
digital (Yamaha pf-85 - essentially a portable Clavinova) and acoustic (Schafer
& Sons console).  I defy anyone to listen to both and tell me that in any, way,
shape, or form, the pf-85 (or any other digital) sounds better than the
acoustic.  Now, admittedly, this is a *great* sounding acoustic for the price,
but the $1200 Charles Walter I almost bought also sounds better than any
digital I've heard - and that includes the high end Kurzweil boxes, as well as
the Roland U-20 sounds I've been using with my pf-85.  Admittedly, below $1000,
tuning is usually a problem.

I even prefer the recorded sound of my acoustic, especially on ballads, where
I *really* miss the resonance on the digital.  I mic with two Audio-Technica
M31 condenser mics that dangle from the top of the piano between the sound
board and the wall - one an octave or two below middle C, one above.  Even one
Shure SM57 dangling just above middle C produces results I personally find
preferable to the digital.  So I wouldn't even claim ease of recording as
necessarily in favor of the digital.

I will admit that a serious concert pianist would find flaws with a $1000 or
even $2000 piano.  But I don't see how the same person could be satisfied with
the sound of a $1000 or $2000 digital.  Why would you think the choice is
between a $10,000 grand and a $2000 keyboard?  Why not choose the $2000
upright, unless portability or something besdies price is the concern?  In
other words, price could not possibly be a factor, as I see it.

> > >     5. The keyboard has a reasonably good-sounding piano setting.
> > 
> > Not a reason to prefer it over acoustic, though.
> 
> If having a piano sound is critical to your act, this can make a difference.

I think you misunderstood.  The original claimed was to *prefer* a digital if
it had a "reasonably good-sounding piano setting".  That sounds to me more like
a reason to *settle* for a digital if the portability or other concerns are
high enough.  But, all other things equal, why would you *prefer* a
"reasonably good-sounding piano setting" over a "piano"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Sabatella           Winner, 1992 First Annual Bill Evans Lookalike Contest
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com