"Double escapement" mechanism on an upright piano

Schimmel did better: they invented a mechanism called R2 that has a spring that helps repetition more. But in reality, I don't think it's possible to achieve a true system similar to the grand piano. In truth, on a grand, everything happens due to gravity and the mechanical returns are more realistic. In verticality, I don't know if it is as intuitive, weights and returns (not so much the key descents) act with "verticality," precisely, and the resulting forces in play are rather diagonal. On a grand, everything adds up either upwards or downwards!!!! Excuse my crude explanation intended to be more understandable (I hope I succeeded)

Is the "mechanics" inside certain digital pianos that is supposed to recreate a double escapement a kind of sensory illusion?

It depends on the mechanics. Some perfectly simulate those of a grand piano. In others, the escapement is represented by one lever slipping from another. Practically just a sensory illusion, to use your correct term, which has nothing to do with systems designed to facilitate the repetition of an event in the case of repeated notes or trills.

On my Roland with PHA-III Ivory Feel technology and double escapement, this "illusion" is quite real; in fact, pressing the key down, you can feel it escape, only to then feel the key ready to resonate at the end of the descent.

But wouldn't a "key within a key" be enough in digitals? That is, by pressing a key, at the end of its travel it would trigger a second key with a spring, giving the sensation of an escapement. Said in my total ignorance on the matter...

I don't think it is that simple, but I seem to understand that other paths are being taken; an example comes to us from Casio with the Celviano Grand Hybrid designed in collaboration with Bechstein, which was discussed on this forum in another topic some time ago.

On that Casio model indeed, as Giovanni says, they did not try to imitate the double escapement, considering it superfluous given the excellent key return achieved. I was wondering how much digital technology could "inspire" new revisitations of acoustic uprights. Until now it has always been the opposite, i.e., digital technology trying to imitate the acoustic... now perhaps the time has come for technology to return the favor.

Francescopianist wrote:

But wouldn't a "key within a key" be enough for digitals? That is, by pressing a key, at the end of its stroke it would trigger a second spring-loaded key, giving the sensation of escapement. Said in my total ignorance on the subject...

It is not possible to adopt such a solution because in digital we deal with velocity, which means 128 dynamic levels (from 0 to 127). With a stroke reduced to just one millimeter, it would be electronically possible to calculate a new velocity value, but impossible for the pianist to calibrate their true dynamic intention. It is already difficult to achieve a real dynamic equal to the mental one with the 10mm key dip, let alone reducing everything to 1mm. To simulate escapement, escapement must also be implemented in the mechanics of the digital instrument. The Roland V-Piano is an example of this. In fact, it adopts the mechanics of an acoustic grand piano made of wood, but the string is replaced by sensors that, upon contact with the hammer, determine its upward force and thus the sound intensity.

nancy wrote:

On that Casio model, in fact, as Giovanni says, they did not try to imitate double escapement, considering it superfluous given the excellent key return achieved. I was wondering how much digital technology could "inspire" new reinterpretations of acoustic uprights. Until now, it has always been the opposite—that is, digital technology trying to imitate the acoustic... now perhaps the time has come for technology to return the favor.

In reality, the acoustic is unreachable for the digital. Let me explain better... If the goal is to simulate an acoustic instrument through technology, then the objective is unreachable by definition. In digital, we are in a discrete field; in acoustic, we are in an analog (continuous) field.

If instead one wants to experiment with new solutions—and when I say new, I refer to new instruments with new sounds—then it has already been invented. There is the "Roli Seaboard"; it is a MIDI keyboard with VST synths that allows you to modify the dynamic level and microtonality by pressing harder on the key and moving your finger further to the left to decrease the frequency or further to the right to increase it. In essence, by doing so, it is possible to simulate string vibrato. Clearly, having all these possibilities also opens a window for the study of new techniques and new pianistic gestures. I tried it in a shop in Rome; the software is truly fantastic, engineered specifically, and the applications are infinite, but here we are in another field, that of synths, and therefore not the simulation of acoustic instruments.

A short video of the possibilities offered by this instrument...

Open content (youtube)

Yes it's true this is a completely different instrument and in fact he plays it in a completely different way from how an acoustic keyboard is played.

So if acoustic and digital are in different fields, couldn't technologies and mechanisms never exchange to improve further in their respective performances?!?

My fear is that the acoustic will be completely abandoned and there will no longer be any effort to improve it. I would like to know if it will resist in history or if in some time it will no longer be found and we will have only digital technology under our fingers....it would be a grave loss, but I have the impression that we are heading in this direction...

Look... Here, unintentionally, we are returning once again to the subject of mediocrity. The mediocre person chooses a digital instrument because they believe it is better than an acoustic one. Those who understand the construction processes of both, also in terms of technological limitations, do not have these problems. Digital has been an incredible invention from many points of view. Just think that now, inside a USB stick the size of a lighter, you can contain all the books of the entire Vatican Library and even more. But when this applies to the world of sound, then there is great limitation. If we are talking about the simulation of an acoustic instrument, unfortunately or perhaps, fortunately, the acoustic one is unreachable. The explanation lies in the difference between analog and digital, namely in their respective fields of existence. We are moving in that direction because digital costs less and, with the crisis, it is much more likely to orient oneself toward that. You can also mix a track with plugins, but if you do it with analog outboard, the meaning changes totally. In short, in many contexts, one must abandon the idea of a digital quality capable of surpassing the acoustic.

I believe that flute stands to bowed instrument as piano stands to percussion string instrument as keyboard stands to electronic instrument. What do I mean? That we are talking about different types of musical instruments that can only evolve if they detach themselves from emulation. The organ was also born to reproduce the orchestra in a certain way, impressively so in some Romantic examples, but without an "obsessive" pretension. It always remains an instrument unto itself, with its own repertoire, its own character, its own technique, etc. It should be the same for the digital instrument. Imagine if, at the birth of the fortepiano, it had been required at all costs to emulate the harpsichord in timbre, touch, and technique, with the only difference being a greater dynamic gradient: we would not know the modern piano, we would not know Liszt, Chopin, and many others. Therefore, let us leave the piano its uniqueness and give the digital piano the opportunity to definitively detach itself from its acoustic counterpart and take flight. This applies also to the mechanical aspect: if many adjustments only result in a more "pianistic" sensation for the player, without any relation on the sound side, they have no reason to exist. When I play the piano, I expect a certain type of keyboard and sensations (which vary from upright to grand); on the harpsichord they are different, as they are on the organ and on the digital instrument. When I find myself playing an electronic keyboard, I lose a series of sensations that are at the base of my "pianistic" touch; I don't know many functions and I feel like an incompetent, a typist. I know people who are extremely good at playing the keyboard, who truly give me goosebumps, but, placed in front of a piano, they become sterile, without the slightest knowledge of what touch is; you can feel that they are playing as they would on a keyboard. It is perfectly normal: they are completely different instruments that have nothing in common except the arrangement of the keyboard keys.

I agree with the thought of Francescopianist!

Yes, I believe they are different research fields even if with numerous points of intersection. Logically, the study of sound production by electrical or electronic machinery has its roots in the listening of analog sound, and from this factor arises its very "dependence," which explains its "imitation," opening the field to studies on the production of digitized, electronic, or otherwise non-acoustic sound. I believe, following what Simone says regarding human inability to manage a dynamic too detailed and complex for analysis by the human brain (as implemented on the keyboard), that a great step can only be taken when we succeed in combining with the electronic instrument the faculty, not only to calculate the key depression, its velocity, or its release for the purpose of producing a sound—making this conform to the characteristics of timbral resonance, harmonic sounds, ambience, decay, sustain... and so on. (via sensors etc.) but also applying those same identical sensors (naturally in a non-invasive way for the body and movements) to the brain, tendons, muscles, etc.

In this way, surely, "recreating" a certain performance/sonic proximity with acoustic instruments would be greatly refined, although I remain convinced that the relationship between the instrumentalist and the digital instrument always travels on the plane where "one must accommodate the other"; in the acoustic plane, however, this becomes constantly a more intimate relationship of love and understanding, aimed at a final sonic output.

I seriously hope that what Nancy feared might happen in the future does not occur... even if the prospects are not the best.

Beautiful potential, Simone, the instrument you posted. It truly opens the way to something different.