As bennevis says, the playing is all that matters.and durability, of course. The question is, though, is the later Ivory-G, which feels totally different, also derived from this PHA alpha template?Īnd what is PHAIV standard? Is it a development of Ivory-G or genuinely part of the PHAIV range installed on the best pianos Roland now make? lightweight) action, the assumption must be that it's a lightweight action with the hammers pointing towards the player.įrom that experience I can also confirm that the basic mechanics inside the RD-500 look *very* similar to the "short and lightweight"-type action, like the depicted PHA Alpha 2 above. Since the F120 and F120R had the Ivory Feel G (i.e. So until someone takes the lid off their F130R and posts pics, we can't be sure where this fits. * Roland have said the PHA-4 Standard action is "new", but have released no details about what is new about it. So perhaps we can assume that the form of the lightweight line has been similarly constant. It's clear from a comparison of PHA (from my FP3, 2001) with PHA 3 (from dewster's RD-700NX, 2010) that the changes in the full-size line have been subtle: textured key tops, escapement tab, fatter felt strips, slightly re-shaped hammers, triple sensor, but the form is still the same. More comparison of the full-size and lightweight actions.Īnyway, check out the gallery linked above for more pics if you're interested (that guy uses waaay to much grease!). It looks like the lightweight hammers only have one niche. It's not very clear from my photo but in the full-size action the hammers have two niches at the key contact point: one for black keys, further from the hammer pivot, and one for white keys, closer in.
![pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2 pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2](https://www.modartt.com/images/ipacks/pianoteq-ui-electric.jpg)
Felts are positioned closer to the ends of the keys in the full-size action. Full-size action has separate rows of pins / guide posts for white and black keys, hence the guides for white keys can be wider. Key length, hence length to key pivot (since pivot is at the end of the keys) is shorter in the lightweight action.
![pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2 pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2](https://di2ponv0v5otw.cloudfront.net/posts/2021/11/30/61a67cbea5cbedf0e0b220c3/m_61a67cc121dac782e2e3a9dd.jpeg)
In the full-size action the hammers point away from the player, while in the lightweight action the hammers come up underneath the near section of the keys. Biggest difference is that the hammers pivot in the opposite direction.
![pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2 pianoteq 5 vs ivory 2](https://forum.modartt.com/img/avatars/4064.jpg)
Without further ado, here's a comparison using some of my own pics of my FP3 (PHA), and the FP4 (PHA Alpha 2) (apologies for crappy picture quality): This gallery is 7 years old, but despite extensive searching in the past, I haven't previously been able to find pics of Roland's lightweight action (aka PHA Alpha, Ivory Feel G). I came across a gallery on Picassa showing the action of a Roland FP4, which according to the specs is "PHA Alpha 2". There's been a lot of confusion around Roland's naming scheme for their piano actions, but it seems there are just 2 (two) lines of 88-key action that Roland has produced since the early 2000s:ġ) a full-size action (PHA, PHA 2, PHA 3, Ivory Feel S, PHA 4 Premium/Concert), andĢ) a lightweight action (PHA Alpha, PHA Alpha 2, Ivory Feel G, PHA 4 Standard (?)* )