Disklavier

Good evening, everyone.

I believe that the emails below are long on rumor and short on fact.  
I would love to read document in which Yamaha states that "that they  
can control the solenoids with 1024 levels but realistically get only  
around 256 distinguishable levels" or the studies that "have been  
done that show playback accuracy of player pianos is not as good as  
you would hope."

The Mark IV Pro has an extraordinary record and playback system.  
Based on the reactions of the various Piano-e-Competition juries that  
I have observed--which include musicians of the highest calibre, I  
believe that the instrument has a practical resolution that exceeds  
what the average listener can perceive and that it is at least  
adequate--if not more that adequate--for the most discerning musical  
ears.

As a pianist, I also believe that the Mark IV Pro can outplay a  
human--meaning that it can play faster, softer, and more even that a  
human.

When making judgments about any particular piano, it is important to  
make sure that the instrument is in excellent regulation and is  
properly calibrated. If you are sending it MIDI data from an external  
source via a MIDI cable, it is important for it to be set to Delay In.

Regards,
PianoBench

On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:26 PM, James Fry wrote:

>
> While varying levels of dynamics are important, I think far more
> important than increasing the number of levels is the timing accuracy.
> As mark says, the action wasn't designed with this application in  
> mind,
> and I find it hard to believe that
>
> Studies have been done that show playback accuracy of player pianos is
> not as good as you would hope - there was a paper somewhere  
> (possibly in
> the archives?) which compared a mark II disklavier to at least one  
> other
> system and found that there were great timing inaccuracies when the
> velocity was varied. Given how important small timing changes are in
> other areas of audio, I wouldn't mind betting that it makes quite a
> difference with pianos too. It would be interesting to see how the  
> Mark
> IV compares to previous versions of the disklavier.
>
> Regards,
>
> James
> Mark Fontana wrote
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Carl Youngblood wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sticking to the "mechanically impossible" statement, adding the
> > reasonable assumptions that the piano is not in a vacuum and uses a
> > standard grand escapement action, which just wasn't designed to  
> achieve
> > this level of precision.
> >
> > Yamaha's own admission that they can control the solenoids with 1024
> > levels but realistically get only around 256 distinguishable levels
> > already leads one to extrapolate that achieving beyond ten bits of
> > playback resolution is unlikely... adding more input bits isn't  
> the answer
> > to overcoming mechanical limitations.
> >
> > PianoDisc mentioned at the 2006 NAMM show that they have a high-res
> > playback system in development, and it uses ten bit expression  
> levels.
> >
> > Wayne Stahnke's Boesendorfer SE system is ten-bit.
> >
> > Boesendorfer's new CEUS system is ten-bit too.
> >
> > Ten bits appears to be the practical upper limit for this  
> application.
> >
> > Regarding the amplitude resolution of human hearing, these links are
> > interesting (though more casual than scientific):
> >
> > http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html
> > <http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html>
> > http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/ <http://www.pcavtech.com/ 
> test_data/>
> >
> > Mark Fontana