One of the drawbacks of playing high-end instruments is that it is hard to go back to entry- and mid-tier keyboards. Therefore, I’m going to use the Yamaha DGX-670 as my reference point in this review. Comparing the new Yamaha P-225 against DGX-670 is both fair and informative. Both instruments feature the CFX grand, both have VRM Lite and both sell for $750 USD (MAP). I’m going to focus on acoustic piano, electric piano and, to some extent, basic secondary sounds.
The big question in everyone’s mind is the new Grade Hammer Compact (GHC) keybed which helps make the P-225 slim and (lighter) weight. The DGX-670 has the well-known Yamaha Graded Hammer Standard (GHS) keybed. The GHC keys have a solid feel even though they are plastic through and through. No texturing.
The DGX-670 GHS is enjoyable to play. The P-225 GHC is not. In one word, its “work.” GHC has a springy resistance that is felt immediately. The one and only up-side is the ability express dynamics with more ease than the DGX-670 GHS. You can get some relief by increasing the volume slider or, perhaps, by changing the touch response.
My hands are 72 years old and somewhat arthritic. My hands hurt after playing the P-225 for one hour. I spent an hour with the DGX last Saturday with no ill-effect at all; It was downright fun to play it. Not so, the P-225.
Organ, strings and pads are difficult to play on GHC. Forget smooth organ-like playing gestures — GHC makes you dig in. I question whether I would want GHC for MIDI control as legato gestures would be labored.
If you’re buying on-line, please do not assume that GHC is a clone of GHS with a similar touch. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Try before buy. Do not buy a GHC-based keyboard on speculation! (Same goes for the Yamaha P-145 as it, too, has the GHC action.)
The CFX grand is the 225’s featured piano. I preferred the mellower sounding Ballad Grand variation. The front-firing speaker system does not do the CFX sound any favors. The 225 AP sounds thinner than the DGX-670. The DGX, with its upward firing woofer and tweeter, sounds richer than the 225. If you want better sound, expect to add external monitors to your P-225.
The P-225’s electric pianos are typically Yamaha. They are decent enough and do not offend. The string sounds — also typically Yamaha — do offend me and need a serious update. The Synth Pad voice is pleasant and usable. The pipe organs are OK and, like the strings, are Yamaha perennials.
Frankly, I would take DGX-670 over P-225. The sound system is better and the available secondary voices are numerous, varied and quite good. The DGX secondary voices are taken from Yamaha’s arranger series. The P-225 secondary voices are very limited in comparison. The P-225 wins only on portability (size and weight).
If you need a light-weight slab piano, I recommend trying the deprecated P-125 wide-by-side with the P-225. The P-125 is a decent sounding instrument and you may be able to buy one at a reduced price. I suspect that retailers have P-125 inventory to sell through.
Wish I could be more positive, but the P-225 is not for me.
Forum folks are picking over the Yamaha Montage M leak photos, so no need to duplicate that here! Wish we spent as much attention on world peace. 🙂
Many comments — my own included — are reading personal hopes and dreams into the new boxen. My own special hope is a decent keybed action for piano practice. I’m seriously looking for a practice digital piano in order to work out arrangements and get ready for Sundays when I need to sit down at the Petrof acoustic grand. That’s why my own guess of “X” for “escapement” is an act of wishful thinking. Dare I hope for Virtual Resonance Modeling?
The time period between leak and reality is much like football preseason. Right now, it’s the perfect season. Your team looks pretty good, no major injuries, and “Superbowl here we come!” Then, like a perennial Browns fan, your hope is slowly extinguished week by week. [Well, that was bleak.]
When I saw Yamaha’s parting gift — the character pianos — I thought, “We’ll be seeing these, again, shortly.” So, I won’t be surprised to find CFX, Bösendorfer, U1 Felt, U1 upright, Nashville C3 and friends in Montage M. Even if the pianos aren’t factory installed, there’s always expansion flash memory. Could I hope for the CK pipe organs? Same answer.
The most striking features in those horribly blurry, low-rez, leak pictures are the textured keys, six new knobs below the main touch screen and a new subdisplay above the bank of eight knobs and eight sliders. The subdisplay is a feature borrowed from Genos. On Genos, it’s called the “Live Control” subdisplay. Instead of fixing internal parameters to TONE, EQ/FX and ARP/Motion FX, the user can assign internal parameters to knob/slider groups and switch between groups in real-time. The subdisplay tracks current parameter values, updates and so forth.
Of course, the big question is “What are the internal engines?” AWM2 and FM-X are givens. Wishes include AN-X and the YC stage tonewheel organ. More engines means more parameters, so that Live Control subdisplay seems like a really good idea™.
The more I contemplate functional details, a larger question arises: “How will Yamaha keep the Montage M, Stage CP and Stage YC in their own lanes?” Yamaha need to make Montage M inviting while keeping the CP and YC specialists special. I think Montage M will follow the Montage line and remain a jack of all trades, integrating multiple engines into motion control, sequencing and studio audio/MIDI channels. Sound designers and players who need a generalist keyboard will still turn to Montage M.
Organists and pianists will turn to Stage YC and Stage CP. The simplified, focused user interfaces have proven successful — little or no menu-diving required. Yamaha have learned a lot after introducing the Stage CPs at January NAMM 2019. [The Stage CP tech is even older; check dates in the manuals.] The Stage YC interface is an improvement on the Stage CP. Hopefully, some of this experience has trickled over to the Montage M.
Which brings me to my concluding question. Even if we see AN-X in Montage M, will we eventually see an AN-X specialist keyboard, a Stage AN? Montage M would need to fit AN-X into its generalist usage model and I don’t think that will satisfy analog purists/players. [How ’bout alternate MPE control, too?] I think there is an open lane for a control-studded Stage AN specialist.
Further evidence popped up on a Yamaha regional site. The digital piano accessories page shows the L-515 stand and refers to an “P-525” as well as “P-515”. This situation is not unlike the pre-announcement days of the CK88. “Hey, look, there’s a music rest for the unannounced CK88!”
Should we expect a Yamaha P-525? I think so!
The new P-225 and P-145 models each received matching stands: L-200 and L-100, respectively. The P-525 will use the same old stand as P-515. Therefore, I don’t anticipate any big change in the P-5×5 form factor.
Given the modest bump in model name, I wouldn’t expect much more than a functional spiff (i,e., a small refresh). Maybe a few more voices? Maybe a few more rhythm patterns? I wouldn’t mind “Grand Expression,” but I’m not holding my breath.
We’re coming up on the September/October triple-witching hour: new product roll-outs, new price lists, and “Back to School”. If you’ve worked in electronics retail, you know there are three selling seasons in North America: “Back to School”, holiday, and “Dads and Grads”. We’re about one month into the Back to School season.
I stopped into Guitar Center last weekend to try a P-225 (no luck). I saw the same deep stacks of P-45 and P-125 digital pianos. Big retail stores are over-stocked on some models and I expect to see price reductions or promotions for deprecated products in the near future. Maybe you can pick up a digital piano at a blow out price while the new models trickle in?
There are rumors that Roland will try to spoil the Montage M announcement with a major Fantom update. Yamaha never like to pre-announce, so the Montage announcement in July 2023 was a big deal. Was Yamaha trying to spoil Fantom sales? Watch these two daikaiju duke it out!
Update: Accessorize!
Don’t forget to accessorize!
Yamaha will be introducing a new triple pedal unit, the FC35 — a stand-alone unit which you can throw into a (large) gig bag. The FC35 will be compatible with models having the 6-pin DIN LP-1 connector: DGX-670, P-121, P-125, P-223, P-225, P-515, P-525 and P-S500.
New Yamaha digital piano accessories (Sept 2023)
Need a keyboard gig bag? The new SC-KB851 will handle P-35, P-45, P-115, P-125, P-142, P-145, P-223 and P-225. Availability may be limited by region.
Regular readers know that I’m trying out 88-key digital piano keyboards and developed a fondness for the Yamaha P-515. The P-515 was release in 2018 and it will be replaced by the P-525, again, sometime in the near-term future.
Wow, the new Montage MX8 and P-525 — both are worth waiting for and both potentially fill an actual need. Patience is a virtue. Keep repeating that. 🙂
I’ll have more thoughts about all of this tomorrow. Today is a typical Sunday — gig, God and football. Take a breather and start the new week fresh!
Pictures of the new Montage M8X have surfaced on the Facebook. I thank the folks at Yamaha Musicians Forum and the Musicplayer Keyboard Corner for the pictures and off-the-cuff comments. I suggest reading the ongoing discussions at these fine and well-informed Web sites.
Montage M8X in da box
The names “Montage M6”, “Montage M7” and “Montage M8X” are also confirmed.
Montage M8X — Does “X” stand for “escapement”?
Astute forum members at The Keyboard Corner noted the textured keys on the 88 model (Montage M8X). This raised my hope that Yamaha put the Natural Wood, Graded Hammer (NW-GH) keybed into the new Montage M8X. I’m hoping that the “X” stands for “escapement.” Will it have the triple sensors like the CP88? Will it have Virtual Resonance Modeling (VRM)?
Montage M8X — 8 sliders and a simplified button matrix
Yamaha have my attention now and I will hold any decision on a piano for home until I see all of the details. At the premium price tier, I can be patient.
Let the kvetching commence! 🙂 I’m off to Saturday breakfast with the fam.
Having tried Yamaha‘s lower-end digital pianos, I decided to try the upper end. So, I took a short field trip to Classic Pianos Bellevue, WA.
First, a shout out to Classic Pianos! They have a huge piano showroom in Bellevue, WA covering the full range from entry-level to the concert stage. Their manager was super friendly and helpful. I recommend visiting if you are questing (lusting) for a digital or acoustic piano.
My original goal was to try the top of the line spinet-style CLP-785. The general manager suggested trying the N1X hybrid, which proved to be an excellent idea even though the N1X is beyond my budget. The CLP-785 is expensive, but within striking distance price-wise. Playing the two instruments gave me a basis for comparison between higher-end, digital instruments.
Overall, this was a worthwhile trip. I have a better idea of the tangibles offered in each price tier. Furniture aside, it all comes down to the piano playing experience: touch (action), expression, and sound (sound system). Secondary features like extra voices, recording, touch display, and so forth are less important in the Yamaha product line. All models have similar, equivalent or identical secondary features (e.g., maybe a different number of voices or effects).
Yamaha N1X
Even though I didn’t spend as much time with the N1X, I thought I would mention it first in order to draw comparisons. The N1X is a hybrid digital with a for-real grand piano hammer action, digital synthesis and a superb sound system. Quite frankly, one can play the N1X and forget that it uses electronic audio reproduction. The response and acoustic sound field are authentic. In other words, you believe that you are playing a for-real acoustic piano.
Anybody can bang away at a piano. (I’ve been guilty of this sin, mea culpa.) To me, the real test is how an instrument responds to delicate gestures. Can a player bring out quiet nuance? Can a player swell and ebb across a large dynamic range? The N1X ably passes this test.
Amazing. The only thing better is the real thing. I briefly played a Yamaha C7 grand at the end of my session of trials. Yes, the C7 is fantastic and excels at response. We’re talking $10,000 USD (N1X) versus $68,000 (C7), folks. I didn’t dare profane one of the Bösendorfers on display… 🙂
Yamaha CLP-785
Uppermost, I wanted to try the CLP-785’s GrandTouch action. The 785 has the most refined action in the CLP range with linear-graded, wooden (white) keys and counterweights. The 785’s sound system is tri-amplified (woofer, mid-range, tweeter) and has transducers to add soundboard emulation.
After waxing rhapsodic about the N1X, it seems like anything I say about the 785 is faint praise. However, the CLP-785 ($6,400) is a solid citizen and I would be happy to own and play one. The action and key-to-sound connection allows subtlety and nuance. Practice on the 785 should translate well to the Petrof acoustic grand at our church — my top requirement. And, playing the 785 was down-right enjoyable without overtaxing my hands. [71 years old and somewhat arthritic.]
The 785 synthesis and amplication system produces a pleasant sound field. Not as authentic as the N1X, but a definite step up from the CLP-775. I think Yamaha are on to something with these transducers. They have added bi-directional horns to the new CSP-295 for soundboard emulation. Thus, I’d like to give the CSP-295 ($7,300) a spin when it’s available at Classic Pianos. Finally, I’d like to try a CP88 — if I can ever find one — just to round things out.
Well, there you have it. The quest goes on and I’m in no hurry. The N1X and CLP-785 are serious money, so careful and slow is the way to go. Plus, we’re heading into the Fall product announcement season. Will Yamaha celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Clavinova with new CLPs?
I would love to write a “PJ explains all about VRM” article, but the more I learn, the more I recognize the breadth and depth of the technology. If you would like to know more about Yamaha’s Virtual Resonance Modeling from a player’s perspective, please see my earlier article about VRM
Sampling and modeling
We know that a relatively number of (short) piano samples by themselves sound flat. Virtual piano instruments such as those in the Vienna Symphonic Library go to great lengths to create rich, deep, evolving and playable piano tones. The VSL CFX grand boasts “up to 4,200 samples per key for maximal authenticity and liveliness.” The end result is a ginormous 115GB installed CFX library. Oh, hell, why not go for the full library at 240GB? 🙂
Massive libraries such as these would steer hardware instrument designers into solutions that really aren’t intended for low-power, light-weight electronic instruments. PC technology, that is. You could characterize the VSL approach as space-intensive. Sample playback also depends upon stable, available (disk-to-)memory bandwidth and sample caching in order to reliably stream samples as commanded by the player.
Physical modeling, such as MODARTT Pianoteq, takes a compute-intensive approach. Pianoteq’s installed size is about 50MB. That’s 3 orders of magnitude smaller than VSL! It is overly simplistic to say, but Pianoteq computes what VSL plays back. Pianoteq is its own witness to the quality and faithfulness of its internal mathematical models.
Like massive sample libraries, physical modeling requires compute resources that are at odds with a low-power embedded system like a digital musical instrument. High throughput means high power, bigger power supplies, fans, cooling, and so forth. In a manner analogous to sample playback, physical modeling requires stable, available compute capacity to maintain a consistent polyphony spec.
Why VRM?
Yamaha’s digital piano synthesis is a hybrid approach. They build on (literally) decades of experience in sampling and sound design. This experience was forged in the era of small read-only memories when pianos where packed into memories that we now regard as ridiculously small (e.g., 8MB). The CLP-685 fits the CFX, Bosendorfer, EPs and whatnot into 512MB of NAND flash memory — 2 orders of magnitude less than VSL (roughly speaking).
Instead of sampling all possible playing/tone situations, VRM adds certain dynamic qualities back into the sample playback stream. Full VRM has five components:
Damper resonance
String resonance
Body resonance
Duplex scale resonance
Damper noise
VRM reacts to player gestures in real-time — the keys that are held down, pedaling, and so forth. Thus, VRM produces a more lively experience where sample playback along might sound monotonous.
Source: Yamaha
VRM is not alone in its fight against monotonous tone. Higher-end Yamaha digital pianos add techniques like transducers and soundboard emulation to enhance the playing experience. Digital pianos also rely on effects to add the spatial ambience (e.g., mic’ing and reverb) captured in ginormous sample libraries.
Compute resources
VRM involves a lot of real time computations; it, too, is compute-intensive.
VRM was first introduced in the Clavinova CLP-575 and CLP-585 digital pianos. The standard workhorse compute engine at that time was the Yamaha SWX08 processor. The SWX08 combines an SH-2A CPU core (host computer) and an unspecified number of AWM2 architecture tone generation channels. Yamaha added a heavy-weight SSP2 to the CLP-575 and CLP-585 designs for VRM processing alone. The SWX08 processor alone was not enough for VRM; a second SH-2A core (SSP2) was required.
I will say more about the internal designs in a future article. Suffice it to say, Yamaha eventually issued an SWX09 processor which is capable of both sample playback and VRM.
Yamaha VRM patents
I found two patents assigned to Yamaha by Eiji (Hidetsugu) Tominaga:
U.S. Patent 8,115,092 B2, February 14, 2012, Method for synthesizing tone signal and tone signal generating system
U.S. Patent 8,895,831 B2, November 25, 2014, Method for synthesizing tone signal and tone signal generating system
Tominaga-san is Yamaha’s resident expert in piano modeling. The two patents are very similar and both lay out the essentials of VRM.
Be forewarned — the mathematics are complex. The computations must be performed in real time and there are a lot of them. Yamaha does not add an extra processor to a product design just for kicks!
You might also enjoy these other Yamaha patents on related piano sound technology:
U.S. Patent Application 2014/0150624 A1, Yuji Fujiwara, et al, Recording and reproduction of waveform based on sound board vibrations, June 5, 2014
U.S. Patent 8,106,287 B2, Masahiko Hasebe, Tone control apparatus and method using virtual damper position, January 31, 2012
U.S. Patent 8,878,045 B2, Shinya Kosecki, Acoustic effect impartment apparatus and piano, November 4, 2014
U.S. Patent 8,729,376, Masahiro Kakishita, Musical sound synthesizing apparatus, May 10, 2014
The last patent is rather interesting. It describes a “sound deadener” to eliminate the effect of the sound board or other vibrating strings. You might want to add VRM to a stream of “pure” samples to avoid doubling up sympathetic resonance?
Virtual Resonance Modeling
So, what of the VRM models themselves?
The fully elaborated system consists of five, coupled, physical models:
Damper model
Hammer model
String model
Instrument body model
Air model
Results from each model are sent to one or more other models.
U.S. Patent 8,895,831 B2 Piano models [Yamaha]
The models take the actual piano structure into account, e.g., hammers hit one or more strings depending upon soft pedal behavior, etc. The piano cabinet, sound board, frame, bridges, bearings, and other vibratory components form the instrument body.
The models are driven by four input (controller) signals:
Key stroke data
Hammer velocity
Damper pedal stroke
Soft pedal stroke
The four input signals — controller data — vary over time. Results are computed for each time delta (a small time interval).
As to the mathematics, I recommend reading the patents. The math is dense and each model is fairly complicated.
The patents describe alternative embodiments (implementations). The full embodiment has the five models mentioned above. Other embodiments drop one or more models — no damper modeling, for example.
Modeling research
Yamaha aren’t finished yet. 🙂 If you’re curious about Yamaha’s on-going research, check out their Technologies page. One of the featured investigations is Physical Modeling and Simulation of a Piano. Yes, Tominaga-san and his compatriots at work. The page has some nifty visualizations of sound board behavior, air models and so forth.
“Physical model and simulation of piano touch”, Hidetsugu Tominaga and Juichi Sato, Tribologist Vol.62 No.10 pp. 623-628
“Physical model and simulation of a piano, Hidetsugu Tominaga, Juichi Sato, Makoto Minoda, Music Acoustic Research Group Materials 36(4), pp. 133-138
“Since the essence of piano performance lies in the interaction between the piano and the player, our ultimate goal is to build a physical model simulation technology in which the piano, air, and the player (fingers, ears, intellect, etc.) are one system.”
Further reading
The Yamaha patents cite several papers. If you’re a “casual” reader, you will find scientific papers to be more approachable than the patents! Here is a short reading list.
“Physical Modeling of the Piano”, N. Giordano and M. Jiang, Eurasip Journal of Applied Signal Processing, Vo. 2004, No. 7, July 1, 2004, pages 926-933
“The Simulation of Piano String Vibration From Physical Models to Finite Difference Schemes and Digital Waveguides”, Bensa, et al., Journal of the Acoustical Society of Ameria, American Institute of Physics, Vol. 114, No. 2, August 1, 2003, pages 1095-1107
“Numerical Simulation of Piano Sounds — Toward the Combined Analysis of Strings, Bridge and Soundboard”, Tomoki Hashimoto, et al., Institute of Electronic, Information and Communication Engineers, Japan Institute of Electronic, Information and Communication Engineers, Vol. 2000, No. 19, February 17, 2000, pages 1-6
“Model-based digital pianos: From physics to sound synthesis”, Balazs Bank and Juliette Chabassier, HAL Open Science ID hal-01894219, 12 October 2018
“Acoustics of pianos: Physical modeling, simulations and experiments”, Antoine Chaigne, Juliette Chabassier and Nicolas Burban, HAL Open Science ID hal-00873639, 16 October 2013
“Piano Wire Excitation”, D.E. Hall, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 1, 1992, pages 95-105.
I was on a quest for information about Virtual Resonance Modeling (VRM) when I encountered two interesting Yamaha patents. Both patents have the same obtuse title: “Musical sound information outputting apparatus, musical sound producing apparatus, method for generating musical sound information.” The U.S. Patent numbers are:
U.S. 11,398,210 B2, July 26, 2022
U.S. 11,657,791 B2, May 23, 2023
Both patents, essentially, cover the same technology — a kind of multi-touch keyboard and control scheme for synthesis. Here’s my synopsis.
Black and white keys are divided into two (or three) detection regions each as shown in the diagram below. Each region detects touch and release. Pretty simple, eh?
Yamaha U.S. Patents 11,398,210 and 11,657,791
The sound generator reacts in repsonse to touch and release differently according to key region. Here are a few examples mentioned in the patent:
A touch in white (black) key region Wa (Ba) initiates a tone.
A slide in white (black) key region Wb (Bb) applies an effect to the tone.
A release in Wa (Ba) stops the tone.
A release in Wb (Bb) stops application of the effect.
The word “effect” is meant rather broadly, including vibrato, modulation and so forth. Touch and release generate typical MIDI-like information such as note number and velocity.
Please note that a player can touch more than one key region simultaneously. The player chooses the gesture — with one or more fingers of a single hand or both hands. The sound generator could respond differently as to which region is touched first or held. Similarly, the sound generator could react differently depending upon the order (or temporal relationship) of release.
The inventors describe possibilities afforded by the invention when the sound generator is producing guitar tones. Depending upon touch gestures, the sound generator may produce a fingered tone, a plucked (picked) tone, hammer-on, fret noise or mute. Possibilities abound: one region initiates a single tone, the second region initiates a chord.
Obviously, if the idea works for two key regions, why not three or more?
The actual mechanism for key region detection depends upon the chosen key technology itself. Much of the patent describes implementation with a tablet touch screen, e.g., electrostatic sensing. They also mention a “pantograph-type elevating structure” where the player can depress independently the front and rear parts of a key.
What really caught my eye is the list of inventors: Masahiko Hasabe, Shinichi Ito, Kenichi Nishida, Masahire Kakishita, and Shinichi Ohta. These folks are heavy-hitters and have made many technical contributions to Yamaha products and its patent portfolio. Shinichi Ohta, for example, was the manager in charge of MONTAGE development!
So, make of it what you will. Yamaha has a broad and deep patent portfolio and not all of its patented tech gets into product. However, that is a rather large amount of talent interested in multi-touch, multi-zone keyboard control.
Folks, to clarify, “A trademark protects names, short slogans, or logos. A patent protects new inventions, processes, and compositions of matter (such as medicines). Importantly, ideas cannot be patented — your invention must be embodied in a process, machine, or object.”
“AN-X” is a trademark — the text “AN-X” and its stylized logo. Period. It is registered in the field of musical instruments. That’s it. Nobody knows the technology behind the name. Rephrasing Phil’s recommendation, look at the history of Yamaha products and you MIGHT get an idea about the technology.
Yamaha — nor anyone else — patents the complete technical design of a keyboard. Patents typically cover one specific technological invention. For example, there isn’t an SWP70 patent per se. Yamaha’s patents cover the NAND flash interface and related functions, specifically.
Thus, you will not find a Montage or MODX patent that describes the internal design of these products. You WILL find so-called design patents which cover the physical shape and appearance. Design patents are filed a long time after product release. Examples are US D889,532 (MODX6) and US D879,870 (CP88). The “D” is important in the patent number because design patents are in a class of their own.
Most of Yamaha’s patents are filed under non-descript names like “sound generation apparatus”. Good luck searching through those bland names! Patents are not scientific papers and are written in legalese. Some of the legalese is translated from Japanese. Good luck with that, too. 🙂 😮
Trademark names are not “leaked”. Trademarks (and patents) are published and public for good reason. Trademarks are published as part of the review process in which some third party can file an objection to the name/application. Companies know that trademark applications and patents (applications, too) are public. If something is secret, that something must be treated like a secret, i.e., never published. That is the meaning of “trade secret” protection.
BTW, when it comes to new unannounced products, I’m not interested in apparitions, visions, dreams, conspiracies, seances, or hot tips about which horse will win the third race at Ascot. 🙂 I hate to be that darned pedantic. It’s just that I sat through soooo many corporate training classes on this stuff. :p
A slow summer for sales?
Both Korg and Audio Modeling extended their summer software sales. Roland are offering rebates on select products.
August 1st and Yamaha drops MAP on Genos, CK88, DGX-670, Reface CS, Reface DX, P-45, NP-12. NP-32, and PSR-E273. Nearly every major USA on-line dealer reflects the new pricing.
A slow summer for sales? Has revenge travel sucked money out of musical instrument retail?
I get the lower prices for NP-12, NP-32 and P-45 as new models have already been announced and are slowly appearing in stock:
I’m surprised to see drops for DGX-670 ($750) and CK88 ($1,300). They should be selling like fried churros at the county fair! Both instruments deliver terrific value for the money.
As to the new Yamaha CSP series, MAP for the CSP-295 ranges from $7,300 to $11,000. Gasp, those prices are rarefied… MAP for CSP-275 ranges from $5,700 to $7,000. CSP-255 comes in from $4,200 to $4,700. I’m holding my breath for a model replacing the P-515 digital piano. Maybe this Fall? No price drops on the older CSPs or P-515.
With Yamaha P-225 hitting the stores, new demo videos are popping up, too.
I like this chap’s Yamaha P-225 demo videos. Masataka Kono is a good player and is totally laidback. You gotta love him. It’s like a Japanese Mr. Rodgers does a piano demo. 🙂
Overall, he has a favorable impression of the P-225 and its new GHC action (doesn’t cause fatigue and has less key noise than P-125 GHS). Damn, Yamaha is making some nice portable instruments — much better than my old 1990’s YPP, that’s for sure!
