🎹 Casio AP710 vs Roland HP702 - Digital Piano Review & Demo Comparison🎹
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- 🛒 Get the Casio AP710▸ geni.us/Casio-AP710
🛒 Get the Roland HP702▸geni.us/Roland-HP702
🛒 See More Casio Digital Pianos▸geni.us/Casio-Digital-Pianos
🛒 See More Roland Digital Pianos▸ geni.us/Roland-Digital-Pianos
💕 Subscribe to Merriam Pianos HERE ▸ bit.ly/SubscribeMerriam
🔔 Click the 🔔 bell to be notified of all videos! ▸ bit.ly/SubscribeMerriam
#rolanddigitalpiano #casiodigitalpiano #digitalpiano
0:00 - Introduction
0:53 - Opening Playing Demo on the Roland HP702
1:04 - Opening Playing Demo on the Casio AP710
1:25 - Video Overview Comparing the Casio AP710 vs Roland HP702
1:48 - Review of the Roland HP702 and piano modelling discussion
3:32 - Piano Sound Review and Playing Demo on Roland HP702
4:19 - Acoustic Modelling Engine and Tones on the Roland HP702
5:12 - Roland HP702 User Interface
6:25 - Review of the Casio AP710 and it’s piano engines
8:47 - Piano Sound review and playing demo on the Casio AP710
9:55 - Speaker Review on the Casio AP710
10:26 - Casio AP710 User Interface
10:35 - More piano demos on the Casio AP710
14:05 - Comparing the Piano Sounds on the Roland HP702 and Casio AP710
16:49 - Piano Sound Spec Sheets
17:01 - Piano Action Review and discussion
18:14 - Testing the weighting of the piano actions on the Casio AP710 v.s. Roland HP702
21:11 - Piano action textures on the Casio AP710 and Roland HP702
22:03 - Piano Action Spec Sheets
22:15 - Piano Features Review
27:26 - Piano Features Spec Sheets
27:46 - Closing conclusions on the Casio AP710 v.s. Roland HP702
Hi everyone and welcome to another piano comparison video here on the Merriam Pianos RUclips channel! In this video, we break down and compare the Roland HP702 and the Casio AP710.
Due to recent price changes implemented by the manufacturers, these two upper mid-range digital pianos are now the exact same price, so it only makes sense to compare and contrast these two popular models.
Background
While the price gap between these two instruments was quite substantial even a year ago, given that they are now identical in cost, we have received numerous requests from customers and RUclips subscribers to take a deeper look at key similarities and differences between the pianos.
Sitting right around the $2500-$3000 price point (depending on the market you’re in), the Roland HP702 and Casio AP710 both fall into the upper-midrange category. Both of these piano offerings come from two of the giants of the digital piano industry and are designed for customers that want a high-end playing experience and some of the features of the absolute top-of-the-line models, but at a more affordable price.
Both pianos have a wonderful aesthetic that quite closely resembles the look and feel of an acoustic console piano. However, they are quite different in terms of their playing experience. Let’s dive into comparing these models by taking a closer look at their tone engines.
Sound
The most notable difference between Roland’s and Casio’s approaches to their respective piano sound generation is that Roland relies primarily on modelling and synthesis while the core of Casio’s piano sounds come from recorded samples of real pianos.
The HP702’s main concert grand piano sound has a strong mid-range and shimmering treble that will be reminiscent of the tone of a New York Steinway. However, there are a variety of different piano sounds and voicings that range from very mellow to very bright, which makes the HP702 quite versatile.
The built-in Piano Designer feature takes the HP702’s versatility to the next level. With more than 20 different adjustable parameters ranging from hammer noise to duplex scale, you can custom-tailor the sound of the piano exactly to your preferences. Another very impressive feature is that the piano sound engine has limitless polyphony.
In addition to the onboard piano sounds, the HP702 is well-stocked with a number of other instrument sounds such as electric pianos, organs, strings, pads, and much more. There are over 300 built-in sounds in total, so the selection is quite wide.
The Casio AP710 utilizes a more traditional sample-based approach. However, it is certainly more sophisticated than the average sample-based tone engine in that it combines excellent recorded samples of real concert grand pianos with a synthesis that helps to enhance and control some resonance parameters.
..... 
Видеоклипы
Hey I want to thank you for all your videos. Ive been watching your videos all day figuring out what piano I should purchase and your videos have made me super excited and 100 percent confident on which piano I want. I'm going with the Casio AP710.
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thank you kindly for tuning in! We're very happy to hear that you found the videos helpful throughout your piano research process. The Casio AP710 is an awesome digital piano. The tone engine in particular is quite impressive. Enjoy the piano once it arrives! Happy playing! :)
Very interesting demo. Thanks Stu.
You're very welcome! I'm glad you found it helpful! :)
Thanks, Merriam. Great review.
You're very welcome! Thank you for tuning in! :)
We love you and you are a King in what you do, thank you for loving pianos and devoting so much time to the art, and wisdom, we love you and really appreciate you!!!
Thanks for tuning in! I will be sure to pass on these kind words to Stu! :)
@@MerriamPianos thank you
Thanks for getting into the static & dynamic weight. That's 1 out of quite a lot of interesting differences between these 2 pianos.
You're very welcome! Absolutely - they're both wonderful pianos, but very different musical offerings. :)
@@MerriamPianos Good to see that much variety available, considering how different people's needs can be. You certainly made an effort to point out lots of differences! Thanks as ever 😊
You do such great reviews, I always feel that you are completely impartial which is important.
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks for supporting our channel and review videos! We do our best to be as impartial and objective as possible when presenting the info, so we appreciate that compliment. :)
@@MerriamPianos It's my pleasure. 🙂
I greatly appreciate the detailed timestamps. Hope they become a stable for every video.
You're very welcome! We are certainly doing our best to make this a feature of each review and demo video to ensure community members can get to the info that is pertinent to them as quickly as possible. :)
@@MerriamPianos 👍
Thanks Stu for another great video. I haven't played Ap710 but through my earphones I the tone is more mettalic, brighter than the Roland. Having said that, the bass seems to be stronger, especially with the Hamburg grand. I have played Hp702 a number of times and I did enjoy both the touch and the tone. I also think that you barely need more powerful amplifiers and speakers in home conditions. I find the Roland's tone warmer and more substantial, too. So that would have been my natural choice. Though Casio's are getting better by the day and as a Casio owner (as a second instrument) I am very much satisfied with how much bang I got for my bucks. Cheers.
You're very welcome! Thank you for tuning into the channel! Casio and Yamaha pianos definitely tend to lean on the bright side of the tonal spectrum in comparison to warmer tones of Roland and Kawai. Naturally, it all comes down to the preferences and tastes of the player, but Casio has unquestionably upped their game in recent years with their amazing mid-tier and top-tier digital pianos. :)
I'm waiting for a review and a demo dedicated only to the Casio Ap 710, thanks Stu!
It is certainly on the list for upcoming videos! ;)
Thanks Merriam music and Stu! YOU ARE SPECIAL!
I noticed that when you measured the keys on the Casio you placed the weight on the keys, but when you measured it on the Roland you slightly dropped the weight most of the time at about 1/4 inch above the white keys. The first time, when you placed the weight on the Roland, the key didn't move. Then you started dropping the weight rather than placing it. It should be noted that if you drop the weight rather than place it, that will create a force greater than 65 grams of static weight. Based on this test, it seems to me the Roland has more than 65 grams of static weight.
I didn’t know which was which when I listened but the Roland’s warmth drew my attention. The Casio was a little too loud and shrill for me but both sounded good.
I agree. I listened to the Casio AP710 in other videos from other channels and it is the same shrill, thin sound with no bottom end. I thought this piano was like $799, and even then it would sound pretty bad. But it turns out that it is $2,800 here in the US... even the $699 Casio PX-S1100 sounds better than this.
The Casio still sounds very synthetic to me. I have yet to play an es 920, but I think it's the same. Stu is correct that with top end digitals it is the treble that is the final test. That's the part that's was hardest to work up on my set up. While I don't have a gripe with the DGX-670's action it is not perfect. Playing Scriabin's Prelude for the left hand only you really have to work to get your fingers to the outer edge of the black keys where you can play them properly. When I get a chance to go down to DU and play on their 9 foot Steinway in the basement orchestra room, I'll be interested to try it.
The Roland HP702 definitely has a very pleasing warmth and depth tonally. With that said, it ultimately all comes down to the preferences of the player. Some people really resonate with brighter voices, while others prefer a darker and warmer tonal offering. The beauty of the piano community and industry is that there are so many talented builders and designers offering a vast array of digital and acoustic pianos that ensures that nearly every player will have an option that they truly connect with tonally. :)
@@MerriamPianos Hello Stu, I understand your view, but there is something that needs to be addressed: while all digital pianos are emulations of real pianos, some do a better job than others. And that is independent of whether the sound is "warm" or "bright". I typically prefer a bright piano over a dark piano, but if done right. If it is done wrong, then I will prefer a dark piano done right over a bright piano done poorly. In other words, I will prefer whatever brand or model of digital piano does the best job in imitating a real piano. While it would be another subjective category, maybe you could include in future reviews a category called "Digital Piano Sound Authenticity", where you evaluate how well a particular model achieves its goal of emulating a real acoustic piano.
Hey I'm just curious what are your favorite headphones to use when playing on your favorite digital pianos? I'm considering the Røde nth100 or meybe an open back Sennheiser 560s I don't know what to buy. Any favorites under $200?
Stu has a dedicated review video for headphones on this Merriam channel. I had found it very useful, you can check it out.
Hi Yoni! As Ali pointed out, we do have a video that thoroughly reviews various headphone options for digital pianos. With that said, I have recently tried some Meze Audio models and they are beyond incredible. The way it captures and simulates the feeling of proximity to the sound source is quite impressive. Expect to hear more about these headphones in upcoming videos. ;)
@@MerriamPianos looking forward! Would be amazing If you could review and compare the Røde nth100 specifically to use with digital pianos. Thank you!
Something about hybrid digital pianos and their actions: no hybrid piano has the action of a 9-foot concert grand piano. The Yamaha AvantGrand N1X, N2, and N3X and Kawai Novus NV10S have grand piano actions, but not 9-foot concert grand actions. It has to do with the length of the keys. And the Casio GP-310 and GP-510 don't even have an acoustic grand piano action in them, just an imitation of the movement of the hammers (they do have real key sticks made of spruce). Casio has just a piece of plastic instead of a real whippen assembly, the same goes for the shanks. Yamaha and Kawai do have full actions with real whippen assembly and shanks, but they are not from their concert grand pianos. Stu has said the Kawai NV10 seems to have the key length of a GX-2, and I have seen a Yamaha master technician saying the action of the AvantGrand N2 is about the size of a Yamaha GC1 or so. Just for the record: Kawai Millennium III action refers to the infusion of carbon fiber with ABS composites. The name doesn't imply that all Kawai grand piano actions are the same length. Renner of USA states the key lengths are as follows:
A nine footer's key length would be about 623 mm (24.5 inches)
A seven footer's key length would be about 523 mm (20.5 inches)
A five footer's key length would be about 480 mm (19 inches)
So, in other words, no one gets to play a concert grand piano action when buying a Yamaha or Kawai hybrid, let alone a Casio hybrid.
Stu, can you address the best digital pianos to use just as a MIDI input device? I am already very satisfied with my software pianos, but I am having trouble finding a digital piano with excellent action that doesn't waste money on fancy speakers or other features.
This is an excellent suggestion and one that I will certainly add to the list of potential video review topics! Thank you kindly! We will do our best to tackle that in an upcoming video.
Thank you Stu for this video, i have one question: I see from that the Casio is a bit lower with it's keybed than the Roland. How important is that when playing?
Hi! Brent from Merriam Music here! Thanks so much for tuning in! The height of the keyboard in reference to the ground is not particularly important if you have an adjustable bench. It may be a concern if you have a fixed height bench though.
@@MerriamPianos Just to follow up on my previous question, is there a video about seating position/heigth and any tips and tricks about that?
Are the keys wheighted for Casio AP710? Thanks
Yes! The AP710 does feature a weighted keyboard action. :)
¿What about reviewing the Casio Ct-s1? a lot of us are interested in this line of 'vacation-traveling-gear' :)
Great call! We try to tackle as many review requests as possible. I will certainly add it to our list for potential upcoming video candidates. :)
I like the sound of the Roland. I'm suspicious that Roland probably has
some non-disclosed license agreement with with Modartt. Modeling has
taken years for Modartt to develop, and it doesn't seem likely that
Roland could do something so similar on their own. French computer
scientists at major French universities are deeply involved in the
Modartt project.
Thank you so much for taking the time to check out the video and writing in! Roland's tone engines are quite impressive! They offer some of the most cutting-edge modelling technology available. While licensing of technology from one company to another is always a possibility within any industry, one thing to consider is that Roland was founded in 1972 and has been more or less exclusively dedicated to electronic and digital instruments. Unlike other companies that split their RND efforts up between multiple initiatives such as acoustic and digital piano lines, Roland is exclusively dedicated to making the best digital pianos possible. :)
While Pianoteq was created in 2006 and Roland's V-Piano was released in 2009, physical modeling is not something that new. Yamaha has been doing research at Stanford University since 1989 and has many patents in the technology. The Yamaha VL1 synthesizer, released in 1994, has a tone generator based on physical modeling. Yamaha, Kawai and Casio also use physical modeling in their digital pianos to create a number of effects and behaviors added to the sample. I don't know why Yamaha, Kawai or Casio don't use a fully modeled piano, but I doubt Moddart or Roland are the exclusive leaders in the field, or that Roland has necessarily a license from Moddart.
@@MerriamPianos I own the Roland MKS-20 piano module which was one of the 1st electronic pianos that sounded like a piano. Kurzweil had a good sounding one back at that time, and even Panosonic had a digital piano that was very good. I see Modartt as being the leader in the field although you have demonstrated many pianos that sound good. I understand that Roland is a leader in the electronic instrument field, but they are essentially a hardware company. Since Modartt seems to be a leader in acoustic piano modeling, it only makes sense that Roland could benefit from using their software technology rather than reinventing the wheel. I don't think there is much difference in the actual software that makes up all of Modartt's alleged piano models. It would be easy for Modartt to provide Roland with a variety of voices that could run on Roland hardware.
@@JoeLinux2000 seems to me that sampling has the edge at the moment, both in hardware and software, but only just, and arguably, the very best sounds are a combination of sampling and modelled effects. But I believe that pure modelling will soon be the superior system for the generation of digital piano tone. To my mind, this above is why companies like Yamaha have held back, but it won't be for long, since Yamaha is a very shrewd company.
I appreciate that Moddart's Pianoteq software may be better than anything else offered at the same price. Dollar for dollar, modelled sounds make sense.
I read a bit more about Pianoteq patent, and based on what I read, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are "the" leaders in the field, but more like a group of people who have created a BUSINESS (and sell a product) based on research that is not exclusive to them. In their patent filing, they cite Yamaha, Kawai, Viscount, and other companies, who have many patents as well. There are also many similar non-patented documents. In addition, there are 4 priority applications with similar ideas 2 years before them. So, I don't think they are that special in terms of scientific research. There is a difference between the world of science and the world of business. There is a community of mathematicians, engineers, physicists, etc. in that field. Just because they went ahead and created a company that sells a commercially successful software doesn't mean they are the leaders in the field of physical modeling. Two different things: being the leader in scientific research, and running a successful business.
If one put a pair of Yamaha HS 7 speaker amplifiers with the HP 702 how would that compare with the HP 704 and others for sound?
It would certainly help bridge the gap between the HP702 and HP704. With that said, the placement and voicing of the speaker are also very specific with many digital pianos with more advanced 4+ speaker systems. So, from that perspective, it might not be the same sonic result.
@@MerriamPianos Many thanks for the prompt response
how does the Bechstein sound of the 710 compare to a VST?
Hi James! Brent here! There are certainly some similarities in the tonal profile of the AP710's Bechstein samples and various Bechstein VST plugins. With that said, some of the more recent and sophisticated VST plugins do have a bit of an edge in my opinion. However, with that said, the AP710 is a fantastic piano and the convenience of having everything you need built-in is quite attractive. :)
If you have lots of voices and potential tweaking on an instrument, it's good to have lots of handy controls. My preferences are more performance oriented than some people's, so perhaps I'm more impatient with programming via cryptic function buttons and so on. Yes, congratulations Casio. Give me access! I have to say that the Roland sounds good in this video, but if I were playing it, would I like those simplistic speakers?
The French Cathedral effect was interesting, but normally I hate the affect of a cathedral on a musical instrument other than an organ or a choir, because of the long echo. I have played trumpet in French cathedrals. I did not feel closer to god, not musically, I felt more like I was in h***. Enjoyed, the Bösendorfer.
It would be interesting to hear the Casio played against that wall/partition. And I get the bit about being able to achieve more clarity when you tweak the Roland (it does sound a little dull, upon further listening) but should we have to? And can we always be bothered? Years ago, I returned a Roland FP50 partly because it needed too much diving into menus just to get one good pianistic sound.
Regarding the speaker system in the Roland with its pair of 12 cm speakers facing down inside the cabinet vs Casio's AP710 2-way 6-driver configuration top and bottom: the Casio has the better speaker system, on paper, but not sure if it will sound better in person. I have played the Roland HP702, but not the Casio AP701 yet. The Roland speakers are unremarkable in this specific model. But I suspect the Casio is not going to perform much better if at all, in part due to the sample which sounds inferior to the Roland at least in this video. You can also get an idea of how this configuration performs comparing it with the Kawai CN39, which also has speakers top and bottom. The CN39 doesn't sound that great either, not significantly better than the CN29, which has just a pair of 12 cm speakers facing down like the Roland HP702. So, more speakers don't necessarily translate into better sound. The lid covering the speakers on the Casio is not a great design: you don't want to obstruct the sound of speakers that close or you get an unnatural horn-like effect. I think neither design is that great, but if I had to use one of them, I would go with the Casio design, but in Kawai's style without the lid, similar to the Kawai CN301.
Oh, you mentioned the wall effect I talked about in the last Roland HP702 vs Yamaha YDP184. Yes, the wall gives the Roland an advantage because the wall acts as a gigantic wave guide. This is why many Kawai digital pianos have that large cardboard wall behind in dealer showrooms, to give the impression of sounding larger and rounder than they would if the wall wasn't there. Look at the super expensive $22,000 audiophile grade speakers from Steinway-Lyngdorf (model S-15) intended to be mounted on the wall for this same reason. Everything has its little trick behind.
@@Instrumental-Covers yes indeed, I remember your earlier comment about walls, and I've thought about it several times. Makes sense.
In yet another video thread you mention how an improvement in speakers is often more urgent than an improvement in sample. (Excuse the paraphrase.) In this case, however, you suggest that superior speakers may be negated by an inferior set of sounds. Maybe you were talking mainly about portable pianos back then. Anyway, the Casio's Bösendorfer patch seemed very nice to me.
I suspect I would enjoy the heavier static weight on the Roland action, once I got used to it, not that I'm looked for a home piano. If I were, I'd consider the GP-310, which seems to hit a sweet spot with price and features. Digital pianos depreciate too quickly for me to spend over 3000 euros. Getting a "hybrid" under 3000 is a very attractive proposition.
@@Zoco101 I would say if you have a fairly good sample, then better speakers make more sense than having a slightly more detailed sample with bad speakers for a live performance situation. The simple addition of more speakers does not automatically guarantee better sound, even with the same sample. It depends more on the design than the number of drivers used.
Generally more buttons up front are better than less. The DGX-670 has a lot of buttons, but I use very few of them. I find the screen menus really hard to navigate. Settings are all over the place on multiple screens. If you know what you are doing, you can lock the settings in which is extremely important.
@@Instrumental-Covers I think the quality of the treble speakers is extremely important. I have to have speakers that can sing and that are not shrill. I was in an elevator in a commercial building the other day and the beep tone for the floors was terrible because it was so penetrating and damaging to your ears. In a digital piano you have to have treble notes that sing, are not dead or clunky, but at same time are pleasant to your ears. My Yamaha set-up is almost there but not 100% perfect. Better than most, but not competely perfect. That's were being able to adjust every parameter of every single note comes into play. Only Pianoteq Pro can do that.
Am completely lost, which is best: roland hp704, rp701, or this casio ap 710?
The Roland HP704 is a bit of a step up from the RP701 given its specs (action, tone engine, speaker system, etc.). When comparing Roland versus Casio, it gets a bit more difficult to make any type of objective declaration as they are quite different in terms of tone and touch. It would ultimately come down to the preferences of the player.
@@MerriamPianos considering the rp701 is new, and checking the spec I have the feeling it's a strong upgrade as it's 95% of the spec of the hp702.
Price is mich lower compared to hp 704.
It's the best deal i believe price/spec.
Thank you for all your reviews they are very helpful video
👍👍
Thank you for tuning into the channel! We appreciate it! :)
I am disappointed with the casio. The roland just sounds soo much better. The casio sounds so digital and cold. Maybe they should stick to building calculators.
I will try and sell the casio to instead get the roland.
Hi there! I am sorry to hear that you have not enjoyed the experience of the Casio AP710. Tonal preference is a highly subjective matter, so not every player will connect with every piano's tone. With that said, these are both very solid instruments that offer different musical flavours and playing experiences. I hope you are able to find a model that satisfies your playing. The Roland HP series are wonderful instruments! :)
At 7:00, when you say that the GP series has "significantly more collaboration with C. Bechstein" than the AP710... is there any source from Casio to confirm this statement? In their website, they never say the action in the AP or GP series was developed with C. Bechstein. The only mention I find in Casio's official sources regarding their collaboration with C. Bechstein is about the Berlin piano sample. The AP710 has the same action that the Casio Privia PX-770BK has (Tri-sensor Scaled Hammer Action Keyboard II). Casio never mentions to have developed the action of the GP-310 and GP-510 in collaboration with C. Bechstein. In fact, they claim to have developed the so-called "Natural Grand Hammer Action Keyboard" by themselves, with no mention or credit given to C. Bechstein. Therefore, I don't see any reason to differentiate the golden tags they put in the AP and GP series.
The GP-310 and GP-510 "hybrid" action is significantly less complex than Kawai and Yamaha hybrid actions. Both Yamaha and Kawai put an entire acoustic piano action in their hybrid models, whereas Casio doesn't put any C. Bechstein action in any of their models. The whippen assemby in Casio GP-310 and GP-510 is just a piece of plastic, whereas Yamaha and Kawai puts the entire whippen assembly in their hybrids. The piano shanks are also just fake plastic pieces in the Casio. No wonder their "hybrid" pianos cost much less than Yamaha and Kawai hybrid pianos.
I think collaberation means, "Can we call this developed in conjunction with Bechstein if we pay you enough?"
"Yes, if we feel the compensation is adequate, and we get good promotional value from it."
@@JoeLinux2000 C. Bechstein seems to have chosen a company with "potential"... just to be nice to Casio. Steinway chose Roland (or Roland chose Steinway?) to promote the Roland brand in all their showrooms, which is a clear indication that Roland goes for the "European" and "American" Steinway in their modeling... whether they have succeeded or not is a different story. Yamaha offers 3 distinct piano brands: Yamaha, Bösendorfer, and Steinway (Steinway is offered only in their CP stage pianos with the latest O.S update). Kawai only offers Kawai pianos. It would be nice if Yamaha expanded their business and sampled all piano brands... if they can do it with Steinway, maybe they can do it with the rest?
@@Instrumental-Covers and @Internet Privacy Advocate - the 'increased collaboration' on the GP310/510 is the fact that the keysticks and overall geometry is a direct Bechstein contribution. The plastic simulated whippen and hammer assembly is all Casio, but based on the geometry found in an A160. So it's Casio built/developed, with a Bechstein keystick and geometry. I hope that clarifies the comment. Cheers! -stu
@@MerriamPianos Hi Stu, I am trying to reply to you, but my comments keep getting deleted. I guess I will try later... I was saying you are right they collaborated on the action, something I had forgotten but read in the past. However, I don't see any direct statement from any official source that Casio actually uses C. Bechstein keysticks or they have the geometry of an A160. The most I see is they say the keysticks are made of spruce, just as C. Bechstein also uses spruce. I have also heard rumors that they left the escapement feature to make the action faster... can you recommend any official sources to verify any of these claims?
@@Instrumental-Covers weird :/ not on our end, must be temporary glitch?
can't hear the diffence because you used the line out instead of the physical barrier
Recording the line-out is typically the best way to capture all of the detail and tonal nuance of a model's tone engine. In my opinion, these two pianos' tone engines offer very different sounds.
To me the casio sounds more like acoustic piano
Every player will have their preference between these two excellent digital pianos of course! :)
Roland is too expensive to have only 12 watts of speakers.
It's 14 watts per channel, the speakers are 12 cm (4.75 inches). However, the amplifier rating power means very little in practice for many reasons. Be aware that twice the power only translates to 3 dB increase in volume output, which is barely noticeable. That's assuming speakers with the same sensitivity. The Casio is a 2-way design with four 12cm drivers (plus either a pair of tweeters or full range 5 cm drivers giving the high-mids/highs), so the overall sensitivity is 3 dB more than a single driver of the type they are using. Assuming both Roland and Casio have the same speaker driver sensitivity and they really were using their maximum stated power, you can expect the overall volume to be about 6 dB louder in Casio, which is not an impressive number (3 dB is barely noticeable). In addition, Casio states the piano consumes 28 watts, which is likely the maximum under unusual conditions (you might need to play a bass voice rather than just piano, turn up the bass in the equalizer, etc.). Roland states it consumes 5 watts, with a range of 4 watts-16 watts. In practice, expect these digital pianos to consume about 5-6 watts total in normal playing conditions and have about the same volume. Finally, they are driven by modest class D amplifiers and speakers, so the distortion levels would increase dramatically if they were really pushing at its stated limit. Raising the volume all the way up is no indication you are using the full 30 watts per channel in the Casio. If you measure the power consumption with a power meter in the Casio at full volume, expect something like 6-7 watts.
Like most things these days, unfortunately, the world of both acoustic and digital pianos have also been affected by inflation. So, an unfortunate byproduct of that is rising prices. With that said, every manufacturer and model has a different focus in terms of what they prioritize in their offerings. This is particularly true of the entry-level and mid-range where some concessions have to be made in terms of what elements to focus on. Some models may focus on providing the very best action possible while others may prioritize the tone engine. Naturally, the very top-of-the-line models usually have no corners cut and include the very best that the company can over in regard to all elements. Another thing to consider is that the power rating of speakers and their actual Decibel output do not correlate identically. That is to say, doubling the power output of the speakers does not lead to double the Decibels. There are also other aspects to consider such as the quality and frequency response of a speaker, which will also impact the overall sonic experience. :)
@@MerriamPianos This is why you always have to play the instruments in person. The specs can be very misleading. I remember the Casio CGP-700BK a few years ago advertising its 3-way speaker configuration in a store with colorful labels. I thought it would sound amazing. But then I sat and played it... what a disappointment. The Yamahas and Rolands in the store sounded better with just 2 speakers. One more thing to add here: impedance matching. You will be better off with an amplifier feeding a single speaker (Roland) than 3 speakers being fed by the same amplifier and having to use a cheap passive crossover (Casio). There is no free lunch here. And finally: the HP702 doesn't sound that good in person either. If you want a really good speaker system, it is not going to be in any of these two models.
@@Instrumental-Covers Here's what I have thought about. I keep telling you that I like my set up using two pianos in tandem, and then you say, "I prefer a clean sample." Here's the thing: There is no way you can actually hear my set-up. I can hear it, and I can play one or the other pianos by itself. With my setup there is no question that two played together are far better than either one played alone. Also based on my visit to the piano store. they have very few pianos on their showroom floor that sound as good as what I'm playing, other than those that do cost a lot more. I am a digital guy, but I will say really top end acoustic grands say over $100,000.00 do sound better than what I'm playing, but they really wouldn't fit well in my house, and I'm not that good a pianist anyway. My piano sound or action is not the most limiting factor. I am.
@@JoeLinux2000 Well, this is what I think: you have very good ears, but you have two sets of average speakers. The speakers on the DGX-670 are good, but I have recently developed a speaker system using premium Italian speakers that surpass the quality of the Yamaha DGX-670 built-in speakers. There is more to that sample than what you are judging it by, because you are using their built-in speakers. In addition, you use Logitech speakers, which I consider really bad. I don't question that you mix them in a successful way and achieve a more satisfying sound that the DGX-670 alone because you bring up the upper harmonics via Pianoteq (if I have understood your previous explanations in other posts). However, that's not the proper way to do it, in my opinion. If you had audiophile-grade speakers that reveal every little problem in the mix, you would instantly hear that the sound you are getting is less than great. I also understand you talk about mixing two sounds in the air, your reference to the oscilloscope, etc. I disagree with that approach being the best one, even if it seems to work for you using average quality speaker drivers in a less than ideal setup. If you had access to audiophile-grade speakers with a high quality CFX sample, even with the decent sample in the DGX-670, you would hear a more quality sound. Adding two average speakers don't create an excellent speaker. Mixing two average sounds doesn't create an excellent sound. If that were the case, audiophiles would simply buy a Polk and a Klipsch and mix them together, but they don't do that: they spend money in a single better speaker. I have done those tests you do with several speakers at the same time, even mixing samples, and I am not convinced. That said, I repeat that I believe you regarding your particular setup giving you a more satisfying sound that the DGX-670 alone with its built-in speakers.