Tag Archives: Yamaha DGX-670

Yamaha P-525: Mini review

Posted on by

Yes, I played one! I want to thank Kennelly Keys in Everett, WA who let me bang away at their floor model ($1,600 USD).

Previously, I reviewed the P-515, CSP-170 and several other Yamaha digitals. I own and play the CSP-170 which has several features in common with the P-515: NWX keybed, 2017-era CFX and Bösendorfer pianos, and first generation VRM. The CSP-170 (and related P-S500) have many more sounds and features including auto-accompaniment and unlocked Smart Pianist functionality.

Thus, it’s interesting to return to the P-525 monolith after playing CSP-170 for a year and a half. I liked the P-515 when I reviewed it and I’m positive about the P-525 in its form factor at its price point. Please keep in mind that I could not A/B/C 515, 525 and 170 in the same room at the same time.

Yamaha P-525 digital slab piano

The P-525 has the Yamaha Grandtouch-S action. It’s not a step back from the NWX and it has a weightiness that I like without causing fatigue. Grandtouch-S seems well-built — tight — while the NWX is a bit thunky in comparison. Yamaha must have redesigned the key shape as I felt a bit more “cut” into my hands than NWX. I would not perform a lot of palm-swipes on Grandtouch-S.

Gratefully, Grandtouch-S is playable. The new Graded Hammer Compact (GHC) action in the P-225 is a hand-killer. Pass. The DGX-670 is an option if you want GHS in a quasi-portable form factor.

P-525 has an improved piano engine versus P-515 and CSP-170. You now get Grand Expression Modeling. The acoustic and electric pianos sound familiar (the same?), but it’s difficult to say more without an A/B/C comparison. I will say — the P-525 has a nice, playable dynamic response. I could definitely go from ppp to ff without thinking too hard about it. I’m happy with CSP-170, but I would be happier if it had Grand Expression Modeling.

The electric piano and organ offerings are familiar with respect to P-515. 525 adds a (very) few EP variants — the same basic Rhodes EP with different DSP effects applied.

Moving on to strings, pads and XG sounds, the 525 is similar as 515. However, this is where I miss the CSP-170 and its range of high quality voices. The CSP offers more EP and organ variations, too. I honestly don’t think I could go back to P-525 in this regard.

The P-525 has rhythms and a bass that will follow the harmony implied by your hands. Again, I can’t go back from CSP’s auto-accompaniment. If you want a richer experience, pass the P-525 by and go to the P-S500. It’s a CSP in a slab.

Of course, P-S500 and CSP need the Yamaha Smart Pianist (SP) app for full access and functions. SP with P-525 gives you:

  • Absolute rule and control over the acoustic pianos in Piano Room.
  • Easy access to secondary sounds and XG voices.
  • Chord Tracker song analysis and playback from audio songs.
  • PDF score analysis and playback.
  • An attempt at MIDI file playback.

“Attempt” because the P-525 displayed an error message and gave up when loading a Standard MIDI File (SMF). The SMF plays just fine through CSP. As mentioned, you don’t get Styles or auto-accompaniment. Just drum and bass is, well, kind of weak.

Certain Smart Pianist functions seemed slower than CSP. In a senior moment, I forgot to check the P-525 USB spec: USB Type C. So, I connected by 5-pin MIDI instead. Perhaps it’s unfair to criticize P-525 for being slow when I should have brought the appropriate cable. 

    Model       Amplification                Speakers
    -------   -----------------   -----------------------------
    P-515     (15 W + 5 W) × 2    ((12 cm × 6 cm) + 2.5 cm) × 2
    P-525     (20 W + 6 W) × 2    ((12 cm × 6 cm) + 2.5 cm) × 2
    CSP-170   (45 W + 45 W) × 2   (16 cm + 8 cm) × 2

The P-525 sound system got a small bump in power. The speaker box is redesigned. Volume is adequate for practice and home use, and would be adequate for personal monitoring when playing with a small acoustic group. To me, the P-525 seemed brighter than the P-515.

Redesigned Yamaha P-525 speaker box

In comparison, the CSP-170 is robust and much louder. Upper-end Clavinovas and CSPs exceed the (discontinued) CSP-170 sound system. In retrospect, I’m glad that I purchased the higher priced CSP-170 for home versus P-515. The CSP-170 is furniture, though, and not portable. If you want quasi-portability for home use and need more voices, try the P-S500 or DGX-670. Unfortunately, the P-S500 loses the Grandtouch-S and has a GHS action instead. Trade-offs, trade-offs, trade-offs!

P-525 weighs 22.0 kg (48 lb, 8 oz). P-S500 weighs 21.8 kg (48 lb, 1 oz). At 48 pounds, the P-525 and P-S500 are quasi-portable.

I recommend giving the Yamaha P-525 a spin. If you like the action, sound, form factor and price, you may be digging out your credit card.

Copyright © 2025 Paul J. Drongowski

Yamaha P-225 review: It’s not for me

Posted on by

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.

Copyright © 2023 Paul J. Drongowski

Yamaha DGX-670: Do you love me?

Posted on by

Yes, I played one! The pandemic has let up to the point where I can drag my old bod to music stores, again. Fortunately, I haven’t worn out my welcome with local shop owners and clerks (yet).

I don’t intend to run down the DGX-670 features in detail. The Yamaha DGX-670 has been on the market for two+ years and you can find all the details on the Yamaha Web page. Yamaha position the DGX as a “portable grand piano,” part of the “P” line of digital piano products.

And, as of late, my primary interest is in a digital piano that will help me to sharpen my piano skills. I want those skills to translate to the acoustic piano (Petrof acoustic grand) at church.

In that regard, the DGX-670 does not disappoint. The action is Graded Hammer Standard (GHS) and the main piano multi-sample is Yamaha CFX. The 670 has Yamaha’s Virtual Resonance Modeling (VRM) which “reproduces the complicated interaction between both string and soundboard resonance.” The CFX sounds very good through the in-built amplification and speaker system: 2 x 6 Watt amplifier, 2 x (12cm + 5cm) speakers. If I have one immediate slam on the DGX-670, its front panel legends are difficult to read in poor light (black model).

Yamaha DGX-670 digital piano decked out in white

In short, the DGX-670 has me asking, “Do I really need to move up to the Yamaha P-515 digital piano?” This question is more complicated than it sounds, especially when you roll the Yamaha CK88 into the analysis!

The DGX-670 street price is $850 USD versus $1,600 for the P-515. The store which hosted my adventure was prepared to discount the DGX-670 to $750 — that’s half of a P-515. That’s half of a Yamaha CK88, too ($1,500 MAP).

It comes down to personal musical goals — and desire. 🙂 Let’s take each alternative separately.

The P-515 has the Natural Wood X action with escapement (NWX) and the glorious Bösendorfer Imperial. That’s a lot to argue against. The P-515 sound system is more capable: 2 x (15W + 5W biamplified) amplifier, and 2 x (12cm x 6cm) woofer and 2 x 2.5cm dome. The DGX-670 has a very nice 4.3 inch (480 × 272 dots) LCD display that adds a splash of color to Yamaha’s drab black. The P-515 display has less resolution (128 x 64 dots) and is monochrome. [Yamaha should adopt the color display for the P-515 successor].

Those P-515 characteristics would be easy to live with. My biggest beef with the P-515, however, is the paucity and lower quality of its non-piano (AP or EP) sounds. The DGX-670 outstrips the P-515 for non-piano sounds. I quickly compared the DGX-670 voices against my once-beloved, owned and played PSR-S950. The DGX-670 is (roughly) a PSR-S950 without the Organ Flutes drawbar organ. I know these voices and would be very happy to have them in my piano instrument.

As to auto-accompaniment, the DGX-670 is “arranger lite.” It has styles and chord recognition. The styles are now represented in the Style File Format Guitar Edition (SFF GE) form. SFF GE makes the DGX-670 compatible with styles from the mid- and upper-end Yamaha arranger keyboards. A virtual ocean of styles are available at the PSR Tutorial web site as well as a growing community of DGX-670 players on the PSR Tutorial forum.

Yamaha do not say much about P-515 auto-accompaniment other than it’s bass plus drum, and that it follows chords. What is P-515’s chord recognition technique? Is it similar to full keyboard, A.I. recognition? Wish I knew more about this aspect of the P-515…

Regular visitors know that I test drove the Yamaha CK88, too. The CK88 is positioned in Yamaha’s stage keyboard product line. The sound system is comparable to the DGX-670: 2 x 6 Watt amplifier and 2 x (12cm x 6cm) speakers. The CK88 has the lower resolution (128×64 dots) monochrome display.

Piano-wise, the CK88 has the CFX multi-sample and GHS keybed. No VRM. No Bösendorfer. The CKs are well-equipped for drawbar and pipe organ. (The pipe organ multi-samples originated on Genos™.) The DGX-670 — and P-515, for that matter — are relatively deficient in the drawbar and pipe organ department. The CKs have a good selection of other non-piano voices. No Super Articulation. The CKs do not have auto-accompaniment of any kind.

So, if a player doesn’t care about drawbar organ and wants VRM, why not DGX-670 at half the price of a CK88?

At this point, I would be remiss to not mention slab weight:

    DGX-670 weight:  47.1 pounds (21.4kg) 
    P-515 weight:    48.5 pounds (22.0kg) 
    CK88 weight:     28.8 pounds (13.1kg)

Yamaha’s engineers did a remarkable job of slimming the CK88 down to 28.8 pounds. The respectable GHS-equipped P-125 is 26 pounds and I doubt if Yamaha can design a lighter, robust, 88-key GHS keyboard.

I neglected the whole issue of connectivity and app support. Your mileage will vary. The DGX-670 does not have 5-pin DIN MIDI. That might be a deal-breaker for some folks. Smart Pianist does not presently support CK88. Look to Yamaha Soundmondo, instead.

I didn’t work the Yamaha CP88 into the analysis. After its updates, the CP88 is a virtual library of pianos! It’s also $2,600 USD (MAP), $1,000 higher than the three digital pianos in my analysis.

Finally, why did I enjoy playing the DGX-670 GHS and not so much the CK88. Yamaha swears that the GHS action is the same everywhere. If there is an external factor, perhaps it is the insane way trial pianos are set-up in stores? Often, I feel like a contortionist. (Forget reading sheet music in some settings, too.) Playing piano is, after all, a physical act.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please check out my comments about the Yamaha P-S500. I compare the P-S500 against the DGX-670.

Other reviews and comments about digital pianos:

Copyright © 2023 Paul J. Drongowski