I think itās gotten to the point where saying āonly an acoustic piano is a real pianoā becomes a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Ultimately, a digital piano is a piano if you say it is. And itās not, if you say it isnāt. 
Piano
9 days later
The first digital keyboard that came out was the Moog synthesizer in 1963. They were capable of playing 1 note at a time. To play chords you must record the piece and dub extra notes on top. It's usable in a studio but not in a concert.
If you think of a piano as an instrument you can perform in a concert, a digital can be like an electric guitar. An acoustic guitar is used for Classical guitar pieces. In a Pop concert, the artificial sound of an electric guitar is common. In a concert of Classical music, an acoustic grand piano is preferred. In smaller venues where a grand piano is n/a an upright or the digital substitute is used.
Can a digital piano ever reproduce the sound of a specific acoustic piano like Bosendorfer Imperial Grand? To the point that people wouldn't be able to tell them apart?
Last year I went to a concert of Bach music in a church. The keyboard used was a replica of a German harpsichord. Wouldn't it be cheaper & easier to use a DP with a haprisichord sound as a substititute?
thepianoplayer416 If you think of a piano as an instrument you can perform in a concert, a digital can be like an electric guitar. An acoustic guitar is used for Classical guitar pieces. In a Pop concert, the artificial sound of an electric guitar is common. In a concert of Classical music, an acoustic grand piano is preferred. In smaller venues where a grand piano is n/a an upright or the digital substitute is used.
I would not say a digital piano is like an electric guitar.
A guitar is foremost a guitar, a string instrument. Typically, 6 strings over a fretboard and there is a standard setup where the notes are. The difference between electric and acoustic is the way how the sound is produced and of course how it sounds. This makes the electric guitar a different instrument than an acoustic guitar, nevertheless it remains a guitar.
The same is true with keyboard instruments: You have the piano, an organ and a harpsichord. All three of them are keyboard instruments with the same keyboard layout. But the produced sound is different on all of those instruments, making them to different instruments. Adding to this, I also can mention the E-piano: same keyboard, but different sound. So this is a different instrument.
And then there is the digital line. It tries to mimic the produced sound of an analog instrument (electrics included). The input is made of hardware, it cannot be altered on the fly. But the produced sound can be. It is just a setting in the software. A digital piano can mimic an acoustic one, an E-piano, a harpsichord and an organ. Even other instruments that are no keyboard instruments at all.
And this development you can also find on the guitar side: Electric guitars used to have an analog amplifier and some effect pedals. And this produced this distinct e-guitar sound. But nowadays, you can go for a digital amplifier, one box that can mimic all the different analog amplifier and effects digitally. It even allows playing acoustic sounds on an e-guitar.
Okay, I must admit the digital guitar amplifier is not that close to its original instruments as a digital piano is, and I guess the technical challenge is much higher to achieve it. But this will get better and better over time.
- Edited
thepianoplayer416 Can a digital piano ever reproduce the sound of a specific acoustic piano like Bosendorfer Imperial Grand? To the point that people wouldn't be able to tell them apart?
Hard to say at the moment. As technology progresses, maybe development can get to a stage where people really won't be able to tell the difference.
But got to also consider the amazing work that the audio crew have come up with up to now. They take recordings of acoustic pianos. And they take an adequate amount, and they do some extra work, such as add extra content in real time, such as sympathetic resonance and other components. This can and does lead to amazing sounds for which to make wonderful music with.
Also, the keyboard or input mechanism of modern digital pianos are excellent in my opinion.
The main point with piano is ... digital pianos and acoustic pianos are all pianos.
WieWaldi This makes the electric guitar a different instrument than an acoustic guitar, nevertheless it remains a guitar.
Apparently you don't follow the same guitar forums I do. All these same arguments surround guitars. Acoustic sound, and whether it is really an acoustic sound when any reinforcement is used. Amps; solid state VS tube, digital VS analog. Carbon fiber guitars VS wood guitars. It is all argued about endlessly and passionately. People swear they can tell the difference between the wood used in bridge pins. And their guitar sounded HORRIBLE unless they used Brazilian Cherry bridge pins. Amazingly, almost all this stuff goes away when the same musicians are blindfolded. They can't tell the difference with their ears. Scientific research has proven again and again; We hear with our eyes.
Studiologic Numa X 73, Pianoteq, Mac, Motu M2, Kali LP6 Monitors and WS 6.2 sub
SouthPark maybe development can get to a stage where people really won't be able to tell the difference.
There are a couple of differences between acoustic pianos and digital pianos worth mentioning. The way acoustic and digital pianos transfer acoustic energy to the air is very different. Acoustic pianos use a soundboard. The player is very close and the generated sound envelops the player. Digital pianos, (with a couple notable exceptions) are point source generation systems. The built-in speakers are generally not capable of reproducing the fundamental frequencies that an acoustic grand can. The amplifier systems are generally underpowered as well.
From the audience perspective, I'm sure that 99% of audiences will not be able to tell the difference between digital and acoustic if they cannot see the instruments, and the digital is using an appropriate sound reinforcement system for the venue.
Just my opinion. We've all got em.... 
Studiologic Numa X 73, Pianoteq, Mac, Motu M2, Kali LP6 Monitors and WS 6.2 sub
- Edited
Quitter with a couple notable exceptions
I have tried both the Kawai CA99 and Nv10S in a dealership. I was really impressed by the sound coming from the CA99 with its soundboard and not so much from the NV10S which uses speakers. Of course I could not fault the NV10 action. No doubt both would sound great through headphones.
Could I ask if there are any other PT members who share or would like to comment on this impression?
- Edited
I have nothing to add to the discussion about what constitutes a āreal pianoā because itās been argued ad nauseam, both here and elsewhere.
But we do need a point of correction around the historical definition of a piano - as ultimately these forums may be used by students or those doing research, and factual errors may negatively inform their studies or research.
The idea that what makes a piano is merely its dynamic ability and keyboard layout is false. It is also not true that there was no other method or technology for a keyboard instrument to achieve variable dynamic control. The piano was NOT the first instrument with both a variable dynamic range and a 12-note-chromatic/āseven-plus-fiveā keyboard. That honor belongs to the clavichord.
Nearly 300 years before the historical piano was created, the clavichord existed, and had a variable dynamic range AND a 12-note chromatic keyboard in the seven-plus-five layout.
The definition of a piano was never MERELY its ability to variate between soft or loud and its keyboard layout, as the clavichord contained both those defining features 300 years before the piano ever existed.
So, if your definition of a piano is an instrument that can be soft or loud and has a traditional 12-note-chromatic/seven-plus-five keyboard layout, then that wouldnāt be accurate. And, concurrently, the idea that any instrument containing that keyboard layout and dynamic variability, is therefore, a pianoā¦would also be inaccurate.
By that logic, digital pianos and keyboards could equally be called clavichords, since clavichords contained those same features long before the piano. Further, by that logic, a piano could be classified as a clavichord, since the clavichord came first by centuries. And that is not so. No more than a clarinet is an oboe, is a piano a clavichord, or vice versa, despite similarities.
_
Itās also a bit of an error to assume that āpianoforteā was the original name of the instrument or even the true focus, per se. If we go back and look at the definition and description that the inventor of the piano, Bartolomeo Cristofori, gave, it becomes clear what he considered a piano to be: āUn Arpicembalo di Bartolomeo Cristofori di nuova inventione, che fa' il piano, e il forte, a due registri principali unisoni, con fondo di cipresso senza rosaā
So, the inventor of the piano, considered the instrument to be: āA harp-harpsichord which plays soft and loud, with two unison principal registers (two sets of unison pitch strings) and a bottom/foundation (soundboard) made of cypress without roseā.
To the inventor of the piano, it was not about merely the keyboard layout or the dynamic ability. It was the strings, the action (which was revolutionary), the body of the instrument, the soundboard as an important element of sonic projection, the mechanisms, etc. The inventor was very clear on what, in whole, defined a piano. Now, was the dynamic range important? Yes! It was a defining feature, as it was one of the first keyboard instruments that could compete with an orchestra and be featured in a large hall. But that alone was not the sole import. The tone/timbre of the instrument, the method of sound production, the construction of the instrument, all those things mattered.
As for why the name became shortened to fortepiano, then pianoforte, then piano, it was not because the only thing that mattered was the dynamic range, but because of linguistic issues and for promotional purposes. Cristoforiās inventions actually took off in Germany, when Gottfried Silbermann was introduced to them through Italian trade papers as āgravicembalo col piano e forteā. Thereās an issue of translation from Italian to German. A choice was made to abandon the āgravicembaloā part altogether (which is how the design was introduced to Germany) and the original āarpicembaloā that Cristofori wanted, and to focus on forte and piano, terms already familiar in Germany, and terms that could highlight the loudness of the instrument compared to the harpsichord and clavichord.
But what a made piano was never merely its dynamic variability or its keyboard layout. So, to use that as the means of defining a āpianoā would be inherently wrong, as a clavichord shares those characteristics, and possessed them first.
_
Now, again, as I said, Iām not going to argue what a āreal pianoā is or isnāt. Everyone has their own opinions on the subject. But I do think it would be a mistake to define digital instruments as pianos SOLELY based on an inaccurate interpretation of what defined the original instrument.
And I think itās important that weāre accurate with the historical facts of the instrument as this site may be used as a resource.
- Edited
taushi ... read my original post thoroughly ... and my other lectures on this subject. Adequate ... note 'adequate' soft loud control of independent notes - including absolute maximum loudness. Now there may be different sorts of clavs. If adequate soft loud control - then we have a piano.
I'll be happy to have clavs in the piano family ... piano class. The clav is welcome with open arms into the piano family.
Once again, it was taught to you that we call our digital pianos and acoustic pianos .... pianos ... because we/you know full well they are pianos. Real pianos ... because it is all about piano forte ... adequate soft loud control of independent individual notes, shortened to piano, plus the fact that the word 'piano' is indeed in the word digital piano and acoustic piano.
Basically, the obvious has been there in front of your/our eyes all along.
I don't think it matters whether a digital piano is a real piano. To me, the digital is an imitation of the real thing. That's what I use it for. Other people have different uses for it. It doesn't matter.
- Edited
johnstaf Well said! I had an acoustic for the first 30 years of my life. Now, I have a digital which serves my needs perfectly, and I probably will never own another acoustic. Even so, if someone were to ask me if I have a piano at home, I would automatically answer, "Yes, but just a digital, these days" Old habits, die hard.
- Edited
johnstaf don't think it matters whether a digital piano is a real piano.
I know that it doesn't matter. But it's 'interesting' to know that they are pianos from a regular information and educational perspective. And since they (digital pianos) are pianos, as the word really is in their name, then it's clear that they're really ..... pianos. And automatically ... they're obviously all real pianos.
These days, the performance of digital pianos are so excellent and amazing ... that the reverse is certainly true too ... as in acoustic pianos are approximations of digital pianos ... and importantly ... vice-versa. They're all amazing and fantastic ... digital and acoustic pianos.
johnstaf I don't think it matters whether a digital piano is a real piano. To me, the digital is an imitation of the real thing. That's what I use it for. Other people have different uses for it. It doesn't matter.
I think this is the best take. Digital pianos are not ārealā pianos, but it really shouldnāt matter. I donāt really understand why anyone would need it to be anything beyond what it is. As long as it serves its purpose, who cares?
I have a Casio GP-310. Itās not a real piano. But it serves my purposes excellently, and provides more for me than a real piano would given my current budget and living arrangement. I actually prefer what I have to now to the entry-level/old/used acoustic Iād be able to afford for the same cost and the drama that would come with it due to its volume in my shared apartment.
Iām not desperate for it to be considered ārealā. I donāt find any validation or place any worth in that. As long as it allows me to play how I want to, keep my technique up, and, with the help of a VST, matches closely enough to a real piano that I can switch between the two with ease, and not have to adapt dramatically in terms of technique and playing expectation, then I have everything I need.
I think that if weāre putting a sense of validation into these instruments, and experiencing emotionality that is not connected to the art but rather a sense of personal worth,, then weāve wildly missed the point of what it should be all about.
- Edited
Taushi I think this is the best take.
It's the wrong take. As was mentioned already ... the word piano is in acoustic piano and digital piano. It's a piano. And since it is a physically playable/working piano, then of course it is automatically real.
- Edited
SouthPark And since they (digital pianos) are pianos, as the word really is in their name, then it's clear that they're really ..... pianos. And automatically ... they're obviously all real pianos.
That line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Is an earwig a real wig? Is a honeymoon a real moon? Is a fake Rolex a real Rolex?
- Edited
johnstaf That line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Is an earwig a real wig? Is a honeymoon a real moon?
Let me educate you too. Those words that you brought up - earwig and honeymoon - don't have space in-between them. And Rolex is a brand (a noun), even though some people use it as a different noun ... object ... but if you're talking about watches ... then sure, they are both watches.
I think weāre getting pretty deep in a rabbit hole of semantics, which can lead to talking in circles
I once asked āwhat does love mean to youā in a non-piano forum before, and it went berserk.
Ultimately I donāt see anyone here changing their opinions here per se.
- Edited
johnstaf Is a curate's egg a real egg? Is an Easter egg a real egg?
Let's put it this way ... you don't qualify to ask any more 'dumb' questions. You get the hint.
HeartKeys Ultimately I donāt see anyone here changing their opinions here per se.
It's fine HK ... I won't be responding to him on here or at PC. So it will be ok now.