kapelli So their own piano, with their own digitally designed scale, type of wood used, frame shape and so on.. oh..yes… do I want too much?
According the video that @QuasiUnaFantasia posted earlier in this thread, Yamaha is doing that… but to design their acoustic pianos. I suspect that if the model was able to produce good sound in a practical way (i.e. without having to wait for three hours to get 1sec of sound) they will consider incorporating those in their instrument. I say "suspect" rather than "I am sure" because Yamaha is a big corporation and I don't know how balkanized it is. If a motorcycle engineer has a great idea for piano, do they have a process to get that feedback to the right people? I have no idea!
MacMacMac If the piano does so by having mice run on treadmills, that's fine with me.
As long as I don't have to feed them and clean their poop, that would be fine with me too. But I guess we'll soon enter into an argument about mandatory hantavirus vaccines 🤣
MacMacMac I don't care how the sound is produced. I just care about the sound.
Jokes asides, I believe everybody agrees with this, with one modifier: playability. I am sure some people (and perhaps even you) would accept an inferior sound if it responds better to the player, for example for pedaling, including half-pedaling and re-pedaling.
Before you say "sounds is king, I don't care about the elusive playability", let me make an extreme example. Consider a perfect recording of a piano, wonderfully made, but totally unplayable: single layer and no editing of the sound. When playing, no change in dynamics whatsoever (not even adjusting the volume of that single layer) and not even noticing you releasing the note, but keeping it sounding for the duration of the sample, rather than the duration of the note being held. Total polyphony: 1. This is quite simple to get it right and "perfect" sound-wise! You have to "only" record it correctly! But it's obviously useless. Modifications to the sound are needed, an easy one is adjusting the volume, and using multiple layers doing cross fading among them. This is probably easy to get right, so let's make another example: deciding how to "interrupt" the sound when you release the key. Not super difficult, but not simply "stopping the sound" otherwise that would be like an audible click. Perhaps hide that click by playing a noise release sample? A possibility, but is it the best? How about sympathetic resonances? Things get tricky with any of these, as I am sure @dore_m can explain to us. So while nobody would accept my "perfectly sounding, not playable" extreme example, different people may accept a different trade-off between "perfect sound" and "perfect playability", assuming that increases in playbility reduce the quality in sound. To me this assumption looks like a reasonable thing to happen because you cannot record every single possible duration and dynamics and combinatorial possibility of notes playing at the same time, so you have to do some sort of "live editing" of the recorded sound. And with any of such changes, the possibility of unwanted artifacts and decreased "closeness" to the original "perfect" sound becomes more likely.