Talk:Kawai Musical Instruments

message: The K3 does not employ analog envelopes, they are completely done in software. Also, the K5 is not the only additive synthesizer -- in fact, the K3 uses additive synthesis for waveform generation. Unlike the K5, it's a static waveform, though, i.e. there's no overtone progression over time. Instead, the waveshaping is done using a low-pass filter (SSM2044). For those interested, check out the K3 schematics (available via Kawai US and also on the web) and the corresponding discussions on the synth-diy list around 2006 (with subsequent analysis done by a guy named Plutoniq9). 
84.163.149.202 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some corrections 

message: The edit by 206.192.208.178 contains large amounts of plagiarism, information from http://www.kawaius.com/. I think it should be reverted or changed to suit Wikipedia. A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edit by 206.192.208.178 

message: I'm putting a tone tag on here because the individual sentences are random, poorly worded, and make no sense. We need more info on this page...68.79.53.217 02:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More info, better tone

message: What is the origin of the name Kawai? I was thinking maybe it was a play on the Japanese word for cute, Kawaii. Anyone know or care to add it to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.249.52 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any similarity to Kawaii? 

message: The paragraph called "Pianos," which reads:
"Kawai has introduced a new technology in piano construction dubbed ABS styran and carbon. Piano actions have long been limited to wooden construction (usually maple for its inexpensive strength) as no other material has been found to be more practical or feasible. Kawai makes several claims with its ABS styran and carbon piano action construction, and many today believe this construction to be superior."
The sentence "Piano actions have long been limited..." is a very biased statement, since most serious piano manufacturers in the world consider wood to be the most important aspect of any piano, and hardly consider it "limiting."  The last sentence, "...believe this construction to be superior." is also false.  I'm not saying I have the citations to back my statements up, but I don't think these things should be left in as-is. 
I have inserted the BIAS template.  Please discuss this, I will look up some useful citations.  --Brandon (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say I'd have to agree with Brandon, this does read like an ad for Kawai, not only that the tone of the article just sounds wrong. It just doesn't have the feeling of reading an entry in an encylopedia, and is annoying at best. Copy/paste from manufacturers promotional material does not an article make. 66.244.109.166 (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy BIAS and Non-Neutral 

message: Many models have been made, they are listed below. (source: http://www.kawaius-tsd.com/pages/organ_om.html). Each link on the page given shows the user manuals - and the user manuals show that the Japanese company manufactured/designed and/or licensed them.
C-600 	
DX80/90 
DX95/105 
DX100 	
DX200/300 
DX205/305 
DX500/600 
DX700/800/1700/1800 
DX900/19000 	
E65 
E220 	
E260/360 
E300 	
E500 	
E520/620 
E550/650 	
E600 	
KL2 	
KL3/KL4 	
KX130/230 
KX330/KX430 
KX1000/2000/5000 
SR2 
SR3/SR4 
SR5/6/7 	
SR50/70 
T3 
T5 	
XR150 	
XR300 	
XR600 	
XR7000/9000 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.43.78 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing is any reference to Kawai organs 

message: - This page does read like an advertisement and/or a brochure for Kawai. See Wikipedia is not a means of promotion
- The edit by 206.192.208.178 is full of plagiarism.
- This article does not appear to cite any reliable sources or references. Verifiability
- Also in apparent violation of Neutral Point of view
If anyone wants to have a go at completely re-writing this article, have at it. But it seems to me to be such a mess, I'm seriously considering marking it for deletion. It certainly fits more than one of the criteria. There are times when it's more work to fix something badly broken, than to start over with a clean slate so-to-speak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.109.166 (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Often, several IP users want to re-write entire article without any consensus, and often really re-write it without any reliable sources. However, please stop it. Your proposal is not yet accepted by community. --Clusternote (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes Clusternote I agree with you 100%, completely re-writing something without any reliable sources would just be going around in circles, and leave the page no better than it currently is. Or, even possibly ending up with something worse. Verifiability, neutral point of view and community consensus is what makes a wiki good. That's why I didn't mark this page for deletion, it's better to discuss things, several people collaborating on something can often times come up with a better solution than one persons opinion. 66.244.109.166 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is bad 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kawai Musical Instruments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505060212/http://www.kawai.jp/product/c/electricorgan/ to http://www.kawai.jp/product/c/electricorgan/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified