How does the Yamaha CP4’s Spectral Component Modeling (SCM) better simulate an acoustic piano performance experience relative to what’s possible on a MOXF8?

I am comparing the Yamaha CP4 to a Yamaha MOXF8 to complement my Motif XF7. My main objective is to get my most satisfying acoustic piano portable instrument in a sub-50 pound board. (Sub-40 pound is a plus.) I’ve just begun to play them both a bit at the local store. And I’ve begun to go through the CP4 reference manual.

For me, the pros are:
MOXF8: custom & 3rd party sampled piano instruments. (as part of a deep, user-programmable sampling-synthesis engine.) (Now that I am getting my feet wet in this realm with my XF7, this is a major draw.)
CP4: higher level action, that to me, better simulates a real grand’s see-saw key feel & inclusion of a 3rd sensor (but, didn’t compare this yet)

Per Bad Mister’s advice, I adjusted the velocity curve on each instrument, and effected a significant difference to my piano playing satisfaction. And, I was pleasantly surprised to believe I would be fine with the MOXF8 action. But, for acoustic piano playing, after a few tweaks, I did connect really well with the CP4. (I did not spend a lot of time on MOXF8, yet.)

And so I ask, what’s SCM got do with it?

…

For this inquiry, I would like to learn about the following:
- velocity-swapping levels
- looping/sample length
- sample per note/ no sample stretching
- mic modeling (for a standard sound, there were a few choices, but I put it through to get the straight sense, first.)
- hammer hardness & hammer strike position (it’s my understanding these are not user tweak-able on the CP4, as they are on the CP1.)
- other mysterious things I have not uncovered yet.

For this inquiry, I don’t need to hear about the following, as I’ve got a sufficient perception of them:
- damper resonance: (like what I find on XF. for most realism, best used sparingly)
- key-off noises (subtle, adds realism)
- string resonance (from what I gather & tried, not present on the CP4)
- CFX Voice (I like it a lot!)
- effects modeling (in my opinion, this is more important for the electric pianos, rather than for acoustic piano simulation). (I’ll surely delve into this well some other time.)

On this internet, I have read that velocity-swapping does not apply to SCM. I wonder if this means, the velocity-swapping is sufficiently high, that it may be mostly imperceptible to most. Perhaps like an Apple screen uses the term, Retina Display, to describe a pixel resolution that is so great as to be experienced smoother. From my observations of sound in time & frequency spectra, smoother is better, for life-like simulation of acoustic/electronic phenomena.

Another way of approaching this question is:
If I compare playing the CFIII voice on the CP4 versus on the MOXF8, and I disregard the action differences, what other differences are happening? And, does SCM account for any of these differences? And if so, which?

: )

Yes, a wordy, wordy question. I greatly appreciate any insight you may have on this. Thanks in advance. 

(Oh, & I wasn’t tuned in to SCM when the CP-1 came out; & I have yet to learn about SCM as it applies to the CP1, CP5. I did find one acoustic piano aspect on the CP-1’s SCM that’s not tweakable on the CP4. So, I don’t know how SCM compares between the mothership, but older CP-1 relative to on the CP4.)

And I’ve got gratitude for Dave Ferris & anotherscott for their insights that have led me to this point.

I’ll post this in the XF forum because all the MOXF comparisons apply to the XF engine, there’s no dedicated CP forum, those here likely have the deepest knowledge of the XF engine, and as such, many may have made this comparison.

So, here’s some info I’m finding on it. But at this moment, not I don’t grasp it. In the coming weeks, I’ll try to play a CP4 & Motif XF8/MOXF8 side by side to see if I can experience the difference. But, if anyone has insight on this, I am curious.

From a Yamaha CP-1 Brochure: http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/Documents/Pianos/CP1_Catalog_Y30C.pdf

The Spectral Component Modeling system starts with a fundamentally different tone generation system than Yamaha has ever used before. This system allows physical components of the instrument (hardness of the hammers, resonance of the sound board, striking position of the hammers) to be modeled. It also uses a complete different method of playback than normal sampling technology. Rather than multi-velocity layers of samples, SCM uses granular parametric data so every nuance of the player’s touch is translated into expressive tone. ... [I omitted VCM effects info.]

From a CP-1 keyboardmag.com review (http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/yamaha-cp-1-cp5-and-cp50/28212):

One of the benefits is inaudible transition between whatever different sample sets are involved, another is absolutely realistic harmonic generation in response to your keyboard dynamics.

Scott Healy on CP1, same keyboardmag article:

The overtones don’t build up in an unnatural way as they do on so many sampled keyboards.  … There’s no perceptible looping or cross-fading.

While the MO XF pianos sound perfectly fine, the CP4 sounds awesome. That’s the simplest explanation. Play it and hear it for yourself, you don’t need a degree in physics or computer
coding to understand it. Even I don’t understand how it works and I don’t care. The sound is what matters.

For the upcoming Fleetwood Mac tour, Christine McVie is using a Yamaha CP4 onstage.
Many other artists also use one. It’s the best-sounding digital stage piano I know of.
Keep in mind that Roland, Kurzweil, and Korg don’t build acoustic pianos. Yamaha has been building them for over a century.

Thanks, Dave. I know, I sound a bit heady. And, yeah, I was taken in by the CP4. While playing the CP4 and MOXF8, I assumed I was only comparing the action differences. Until now, I’ve all but ignored SCM - as I’ve been in Motif land.

But now that I’m eyeing a portable piano - & I believe I have a sense of the MOXF8 engine as I’m comfortable with the XF- I’m just biding my time, getting to know more about my #1 contender, until I’m in a position to purchase. And, as SCM has been around for a bit, I figure some here may provide some insight on how it compares to the XF, MOXF engine.

In the end, yeah, it’s how I react to each. While at the store, I think I’ve tweaked all the major acoustic piano related SCM parameters on the CP4.

I don’t want to speak a lot about specs,but i had all the motifs,and today a CP4 and a Rd800 roland.
In the next weeks i will buy a MOXF8

I’m a gigging musician,i want the best stage pianos available.
The roland is a killer.
The yamaha CP4 is the best stage piano and keybed on the market for 17,5 kg.
Sounds are perfect in live situation,pianos and eps are really on top.
They are different for roland color so i love the 2.
(But roland workflow is far superior from the yam)

I’ve tried the moxf8,i was blown away because for the price i found near all i’ve loved in my ex motif xf.
The moxf8 is beautiful.
The keybed is a good heavy plastic action,while the cp4 wooden action is better and more organic.
But no problem at this price it´s a good synth at a very good price.
All that in 14kg is incredible.
I can already say for little gigs it’s a killer.!

The moxf pianos sounds good an great in a mix(i already know that because i’ve made so many gigs with motif xf)
But the cp4 has fabulous rhodes for exemple you can’t have with the moxf..
Yes,the cp4 is superior for keyboards sounds,but in situation the moxf8 pianos and eps can do very well the job.
that’s how i feel these differences.

Buy the cp4 if you want a pure stage piano,but if you need a workstation and versatile sounds the moxf8 will be a perfect friend!

sorry bad post(if a moderator could erase)

Thank you, lekanout.  I agree entirely with your thoughts regarding the two. 

Anybody else with thoughts on the differences of the sound-engine aspect of the acoustic piano experience on a CP4 vs a MotifXF8/MOXF8?  Or, in which ways does Spectral Component Modeling improves the acoustic piano experience on the CP4?
(I have yet to spend enough quiet time on it to see if I can hear it.)

Thanks.

You’re welcome.
I know what you want to know.

Consider the cp4 engine better than the moxf/xf engine for pianos.
I mean if you think specs,the cp4 is superior.

There are modelisation in the piano(?)and eps engines in the cp4.
Motif are just simple(good)romplers.

BUT:
-there is a moment to analyse specs,and a moment to play.
A digital synth or stage piano is a connexion between your soul/fingers/keybed/sound engine.

Just play the cp4,try to feel the engine on your fingers.
And play the moxf too.

Try to forget all that and to just feel…

I have 7 pro synths,and i must play hours to feel better on each.
It´s not easy because everybody has a piano vision.

For exemple a moxf pianos can feel better on a particular situation while the cp4 is more.

The advantage of the moxf is the ability to load different samples with different colors too.

The best place to ask this question is not here but here:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/

Generally speaking, Yamaha’s piano voices suck in all aspects you’ve asked. Yamaha’s sample table technology is archaic and haven’t improved since it was developed! All Yamaha did was to add more elements (layers) to the voice.
Here is more info about the post:
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1365103.html

Roland is much better in terms of modeling few aspects of a real piano and sounds better than cp series(CP stands for Crappy Piano btw). In terms of MO, even Kronos is better. At this moment I think the only product that sounds worst than Yamaha is Casio.
I don’t believe that calling samples from a sample table could be called “Modeling”. See the “Fine details of sound”. This is what I call modeling:
https://www.pianoteq.com/pianoteq5#new

Roland is much better in terms of modeling few aspects of a real piano and sounds better than cp series(CP stands for Crappy Piano btw). In terms of MO, even Kronos is better. At this moment I think the only product that sounds worst than Yamaha is Casio.
I don’t believe that calling samples from a sample table could be called “Modeling”. See the “Fine details of sound”. This is what I call modeling:

I can speak about that because i have the rd 800,the cp4...and pianotech!

I can’t see your point about the “worst"cp4 sound.
I’m often on stage and studio and can compare.(do you have both to be sure like that?)

Modelisation parameters are one thing,the sound you play another thing.

The cp4 is a joy to play in many situations,easy to make it sounds right..
The roland need more tweaking to sound right.

Yes,the cp4 just simply sounds right for every situations,easilly!

And don’t speak only about pianos.
Eps on the yam are gorgious,etc etc

If you speak about modelisation,pianotech is pianotech(but who cares?do you think i bought 2 proffesional stage pianos like the cp4 and rd800 to take my computer on stage with pianotech?)

But....the cp4 just sounds right in so many situations!
(even if modelisation parameters inside are poor!)

I can speak about that because i have the rd 800,the cp4...and pianotech!

I never had rd800 nor cp4 I played both of them in the store with my own sony sony mdr 7506. At the out set just to let you know different people experience different instruments differently.

I’m often on stage and studio and can compare.(do you have both to be sure like that?)

I’ve listened enough time to acoustic pianos and repaired a few (hope you did as well).
If you can compare it doesn’t mean that other can’t or your comparison is superior whatsoever. My ears are well trained enough to understand and recognize different nuances and characteristics of an acoustic piano vs a DP.

Modelisation parameters are one thing,the sound you play another thing.

Yes you’re right my friend. Before you post sth read the question. It’s about “Modelisation “.... no about the sound you play [???]....

The cp4 is a joy to play in many situations,easy to make it sounds right..
The roland need more tweaking to sound right.

This is you very humble opinion right? If you feel like that it doesn’t mean everyone feels the same. I’ve heard live performances with CP1 and it simply sounded crap. Never think you’re everyone.

Yes,the cp4 just simply sounds right for every situations,easilly!

Read the above answer twice. This is my very humble suggestion to you.

And don’t speak only about pianos.
Eps on the yam are gorgious,etc etc

Sorry to say that, if you say this you didn’t know about rd800 nor pianoteq (no offence). If you couldn’t work with those, and this is your comment your ignorant and illiterate.

If you speak about modelisation,pianotech is pianotech(but who cares?do you think i bought 2 proffesional stage pianos like the cp4 and rd800 to take my computer on stage with pianotech?)

Man read the question asked and then start rambling about CP series okey? You didn’t even pay attention to the question itself. CP-X doesn’t do any simulation/emulation (modelization...).

But....the cp4 just sounds right in so many situations!
(even if modelisation parameters inside are poor!)

This is your personal opinion based on your experience and knowledge. It doesn’t mean you’re right about it. I said my own opinion and there is no rule here. The person who is asking must read every post and decide what she/he wants to buy.

Then again, if you couldn’t get rd800 work or you couldn’t get pianoteq go through but Yamaha did, it doesn’t mean you’re a pro whatsoever. I’ve seen many good musicians that know about keyboards and sound and they believe their DP sounds like Steinway & Sons.

RD 700 simply has more dynamic range. In the lower freqs you can hear the ringing noise of the strings as well(resonance)!
http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2222141/Yamaha_CP4_vs_Roland_RD800?.html
here is the link to the comparison there:
https://soundcloud.com/sonic-sense-pro-audio/sets/kurzweil-roland-and-yamaha
Roland is the 2nd one and Yamaha is the 3rd one. The crappiest one regardless of the SCM blah blah that I believe it’s tweaking effect.
I’m sure most of my professional musician friends will give it to me that CP4 sounds like crap compared to both others plasticy lack of samples makes it sound thin and it get worst due to abuse of digital effects which is a tradition in Yamaha’s keyboards.

Give me a sample of your recording as a proof then I’ll believe you.

The order of the recordings are:
1-KW
2-Roland
3-CP
Roland sounds live and It’s difficult to find how the samples are arranged. In Yamaha the in between samples sound terrible.
Just a hands on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwuyBOTSiXs

Here is a youtube comparison as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU-jFzCMYhs
The recording quality is good to my ears on this video but both keyboards sound a bit better if you play them yourself (a little).

I’m a Yamaha fan owning both a Motif XF and Tyros 3 and to me the RD-800 is much better in all comparisons. This is my subjective opinion. I love, to me, the warmer, fuller and rounded Roland sound.

Hey abdol, lekanout, and joesax. I greatly appreciate all of your experiences & observations on portable piano instruments. I am eager to check out all the various links provided. As it’s easy to get lost in comparing the many different keyboard options & attributes, I would like to focus the scope of this conversation to:

a comparison between the sound engines of the CP4 (& related SCM boards) and of the MOXF8 (& related AWM2 boards), with regards to their ability to satisfyingly simulate an acoustic piano playing experience.

I wonder if the dynamic response correlated with naturally occurring timbral changes is an advantage that the CP4 has over the MOXF8. Separately, since I have some sense of AWM2 (via my XF7) I am most concerned with observations on SCM.

From my observations playing a CP4 under poor conditions….
Advantages of the CP4 for acoustic piano simulation, to me:
- great action, great touch-to-sound connection, piano-like, … see-saw feel. (beyond the core action specs, these things are likely enhanced by things like the 3rd sensor, possible escapement-like thing, slightly textured key tops, & wood.)
- excellent dynamic response, with sufficiently believable accompanying timbral changes (action-sound engine interaction at play)
- simplicity of not having the opportunity to make a custom sampled-piano Voice (instrument).
- thus far, I know I can get all I need, and lots of what I want (mood-wise while being piano-like) from its existing ingredients
- and there’s the potential advantage- that I am attempting to investigate in this discussion ... those mysterious-to-me aspects of SCM relating to acoustic piano simulation that cannot be achieved with the MOXF8.
Disadvantages of the CP4:
- seems I am hearing looping (not a deal breaker for me, and i can get enough around it.)
- the main ingredients (piano samples) are fixed.

Advantages of the MOXF8:
- I could add 1-2 GB of 3rd party or custom piano samples. And thereby, there exists the possibility of having no looping; (but with great effort to approach the realism quality of the Yamaha and 3rd party libraries with looping).  The loss would be the better action & the mysterious SCM acoustic piano simulation aspects that I care about that are not acheivable with AWM2. I suspect this may mean a less satisfying dynamic-timbral change response on MOXF8.

--
And yes, I know this is a chocolate versus strawberry. Which tastes better? Which is healthier? Which makes you happier? The “get ‘em both” answer is not possible for me. And so I’ll pick one; with greater deliberation than at the ice cream line.  Currently, I’m leaning towards the CP4, for it’s overall “most likely to sustain it’s piano-like role” when I first get it and years beyond. I haven’t spent time on the MOXF8. I’ll do so mainly to see if I can connect with the action & the familiar AWM2- a terrific pairing, that’s a spectacularly synergistic complement to an XF7.

I am aware about the potentially contentious use of the word “modeling” in Yamaha’s technology-marketing label, SCM. But as I really want to get some insight on my stated objective, let’s table that for the time being.

I am making this focused inquiry because I have deeply connected with AWM2 and the Yamaha factory piano samples on my XF7, and I have begun to deeply connect with a slanted & chest-level seated CP4 as a piano surrogate- via headphones amidst heavy music store clamor. (I.e., would be better at piano position, good speakers, in a quiet room.) I have experienced excellent dynamic responses from a V-Piano, Pianoteq, & an MP11-equivalent console. I’ll leave these & others (NP2, Forte) to other conversations.

I know that my attempt to focus the conversastion could be off-putting & I understand the passions at hand. Thanks for bearing with me.

--
and on this sep 11, with continuing world tensions, i’ll put out a hope to calmer relations for us all.

p.s.
I do value all the other abilities of the CP4: the rhodes (exciting), wurlitzer, layering & splitting, some motif sounds, & sufficient depth & ease of programming. (But, I’ll leave those conversations for other threads.)

Also, I am seeking a 1-board solution. I do realize the powerful combination of controlling the XF7 from the CP4; and that could surely be useful for the times & places where they’d be paired.

Dsetto:
I think you’re right about all your arguments,if that’s what you feel.

There ‘s a moment nobody can make the choice for you.:-)))
Analyse all that,and go where your feeling appeals you.

All i want to say to you,is the fact there isn’t bad choice.
Even a rompler like the moxf can makes you happy even if the connection between the keybed/modelisation is a little less than the cp4.

abdol:

I’ve listened enough time to acoustic pianos and repaired a few (hope you did as well).
If you can compare it doesn’t mean that other can’t or your comparison is superior whatsoever. My ears are well trained enough to understand and recognize different nuances and characteristics of an acoustic piano vs a DP.

That’s not the point,you don’t have to justify your background
I’m happy for your ears:-)
But i consider having and playing both hours and hours is a better experience than a utube opinion.
I totally understand maybe you disagree with me.
And i respect your preference,what you like or dislike.

Yes you’re right my friend. Before you post sth read the question. It’s about “Modelisation “.... no about the sound you play [???]....

No my friend,it’s about piano modelisation from cp4,to moxf8 rompler tecchnology
Not about modelisation in general..or your favorite softs like pianoteq.
So you understood what you want too.

This is you very humble opinion right? If you feel like that it doesn’t mean everyone feels the same. I’ve heard live performances with CP1 and it simply sounded crap. Never think you’re everyone.

This isn’t a humility problem,i never said my opinion is the only viable opinion,i’m speaking only for me and share my experience...that’s all.
But in fact as a cp4 owner,i know what this keyboard can do on stage.
Because this is my keyboard,and i’m playing in pub,festival,outdoor...etc etc with it.
The same with my rd800.

This is my very humble suggestion to you.

Sorry to say that, if you say this you didn’t know about rd800 nor pianoteq (no offence). If you couldn’t work with those, and this is your comment your ignorant and illiterate.

I’m very proud having lessons from you about humility.
Sorry for my ignorance:-)

But let me clarify:
I spent money for the cp4,and a spent money for the rd800.(it seems you didn’t spent some money for them,but spent more for your utube connection)
So i’m happy if you think the rd800 is soooo superior to the yam.
I respect all your preference no problem

I’m sure most of my professional musician friends will give it to me that CP4 sounds like crap compared to both others plasticy lack of samples makes it sound thin and it get worst due to abuse of digital effects which is a tradition in Yamaha’s keyboards.

Let me explain something to you:
The only thing who disturb me is when you explain to everybody the yamaha stage pianos sounds crap.
In my family we have a big musical shop,and we are selling so many yamaha synths and stage pianos for some incredible musicians and pianist.
I would like to present to you these musicians,and you could explain to them how stupid they are for buying a crappy yamaha cp stage piano because you are maybe more intelligent..an more humble:-)))

And while yamaha sells a lot of motif,stage pianos etc etc...explain to yamaha engineers how to produce non-crappy piano sounds too.

To conclude:
I don’t find any bad keyboard(synths,stage pianos etc etc) today honestly.(that’s my global and humble point of view about electronic instruments)
What do you want to prove with your videos?
You want to prove to everybody you’r right?

ok..
But there’s a problem:
There are so many kind people on forums who share opinions about stage piano,brands difference and specs...and:
-there isn’t a global consensus about what sounds the best.
Some prefer roland,others yamaha...others kawai..etc etc
I made my choice:no choice betxeen yam and roland i took the 2.

-all the kind people don’t write things like “crappy sounds"about a brand..they like or not…

-piano vision is personal,everybody has his own story.
People play different music too.
So what can we say....fortunatly we have different feelings and it’s a good thing because we can buy differrent synths and be happy with it.

Sometimes bad mister write some subliminal messages to people:
-"don’t spend time to analyse...play and enjoy!”
That .how i’m trying to be:

I never spend time to analyse specs,i want to play and let my fingers go,no matter how the sound is made(modelisation or not)
Yamaha never delused me,tomorrow morning i will go to take in my shop a brand new MOXF8,i i will be like a child.
I love that…
Loving my synths,trying to stay and love music like a child…

Leave your computer off my friend,make your choice....and go playing your synths.
Let utube off...and stop analyse specs at a moment.
And enjoy!

cool, lekanout. Sounds like you’ll be in a good position to report on your observations ...

… between the sound engines of the CP4 (& related SCM boards) and of the MOXF8 (& related AWM2 boards), with regards to their ability to satisfyingly simulate an acoustic piano playing experience.

If you already have a sense of the difference, could you try to put it in words?

I know, playing them is most important. Every time I go to the store, the room noise overpowers my headphones. But, I do have a sense of the CP4. Next up for me: get a sense of the MOXF8.

I suppose, if I wanted to make this comparison exhaustive I would need to assess the most life-like piano sampled instrument that could fit onto a 2GB board in a MOXF8. To that end, I could envision that the MOXF8 sound-wise could fare quite favorably with the CP4. In other words, loading a large piano with ~6 velocity levels and no looping into a MOXF8. So, in the end, it may be about the CP4 action vs MOXF8 action. And perhaps the SCM stuff becomes less significant. I suppose why I want to have some sense of the piano-related SCM things happening in the CP4 is to help me commit the $2k to one choice. I cannot buy 2, let alone more.

Looking forward to hearing your current or upcoming comparisons. Thanks, and I enjoyed your CP4 observations in the music player forum, keyboard corner.