Hi and welcome to another piano comparison article. In this piece, we’ll be comparing Casio PX-160 vs Roland FP-10. These are two darlings of the entry-level 88-key digital piano space, and certainly two instruments that our customers love.
The PX-160 really elevated the entry price range when it came out and caused other companies to play catch up. Roland’s FP-10 was in many ways Roland’s direct response to the PX-160.
Yamaha (particularly the Yamaha P45 and Yamaha P-125, huge sellers on Amazon), Kawai, and Korg also had their own musical instrument responses, but we’re focusing on this comparison in our piano review today.
Also check out our individual reviews for the Casio PX-S1000 & Roland FP-10 review.
Discontinued Model: The Casio PX-160 has been replaced by the PX-S1000 and the CDP-S350.
Casio PX-160 vs Roland FP-10 – Sound Engine Comparison
Let’s start by comparing the sound of these two instruments, and we’ve really got a good match-up here as far as grand piano sound is concerned.
Casio has in the past been a brand that’s somewhat associated with the very entry-level portion of the market, but when the PX-160 digital piano hit the market a few years ago, it redefined what a $600 CAD digital piano should be delivered to the marketplace.
The PX-160bk is using Casio’s Multi-Dimensional Morphing AiR Sound Source (Acoustic and Intelligent Resonator), which is essentially a sample-based sound engine with some additive synthesis on top to add some of the extra nuances like after-touch, string resonance, and damper resonance, among others.
Overall, the PX-160 is generating a pretty authentic and satisfying concert grand piano tone, particularly when you’re listening through headphones. It was the top piano sound for the category in our opinion for a few years easily.
It has 128-note polyphony and an onboard speaker system with a wattage of 8 watts per side.
When we flip over to the FP-10, it’s important to remember that we’re now looking at a newer instrument that actually arrived in response to the PX-160.
Roland has put their SuperNATURAL piano engine into the FP-10 and that unlocks all sorts of value to piano players who are aware of Roland’s technology. It has a slightly lower polyphony of 96, but this only becomes an issue if you’re doing a lot of layering. For solo piano playing, 96 notes are still fine and the SuperNATURAL Sound Engine is very nice.
The speakers on the FP-10 are a little weak at 6 watts per side, so the best way to enjoy the FP-10 is with a good quality set of headphones.
At first, listen between the two, they sound pretty close. The more you listen, you start to pick up some differences. The FP-10 in the extremities of the range delivers a slightly more authentic sound and timbre, closer to that of a real piano.
There’s a certain clarity to the sound that we’re hearing on the FP-10 that starts to get a bit distorted and not quite as well constructed on the PX-160.
Both pianos have a decent selection of other sounds, including some nice electric piano sounds (e.piano), as well as others like synths, harpsichord, and string ensemble.
Overall, we do have to give Roland slightly higher points as far as expressive sound quality is concerned, but this was expected since the FP-10 is the newer instrument.
Digital Piano Action Comparison
The action on these two instruments is probably the most impressive thing about each one. Both of these hammer action keyboards have triple sensors, which means that you’re getting accurate MIDI output touch sensitivity that goes beyond what most digital keyboard actions were capable of, say 10 years ago when dual sensor actions were the norm.
The fact that you’re getting the PHA-4 Standard Keyboard in the FP-10 for this price point is somewhat mind-blowing because the PHA-4 ivory feels key action from Roland is one of the most reliable and well-liked plastic actions out there.
Casio has put the Tri-Sensor Scaled Hammer Action II with simulated ebony and ivory keys in the PX-160, and this was definitely the best action available for the price when the PX-160 came out.
So, the match-up between these two actions is pretty subtle. It’s hard to say one is objectively better, so we’d recommend trying both out yourself.
That said. one thing we noticed is that the PHA-4 has a less lateral motion on the keys, and thus less mechanical noise. This won’t matter for most styles of music, but if you’re tackling some more advanced classical rep, the extra motion can be problematic.
The PX-160 isn’t marketed as an advanced practice instrument anyway, but it’s something worth noting in our side-by-side comparison here.
Both pianos have a moisture-absorbing texture on the keys which is nice, but one other difference is that the PHA-4 keyboard has escapement. Escapement replicates the sensation you get when playing an acoustic grand piano, and it can make playing fast passages for experienced players easier.
That’s it for the comparison of these high-quality actions. Let’s move on to some features and connector specs.
Features & Connectivity
The first feature difference between these two we’ll point out is that the PX-160 has two 1/4-inch stereo outputs that are separate from the headphone jacks. This is great if you want to connect to an amplifier or stereo for[ some sound reinforcement, or if you were actually thinking about using the PX-160 as a gigging stage piano instrument.
The FP-10 on the other hand has a single headphone output and not a discreet line out. So, for people who are considering this for some type of a gigging keyboard, having the mini jack as the only output is a bit limiting.
The PX-160 also has an optional triple pedal unit (SP-33) matching keyboard stand (CS-67 Stand). The FP-10 also has the option for a matching stand (KSCFP10 Stand), but it does not have a port for a triple pedal. They both come with a basic sustain pedal, but the PX-160 has the advantage of offering triple pedal flexibility.
We’d highly recommend if you’re thinking about the FP-10, go with the DP-10 damper pedal with half-pedaling as an add-on accessory.
Both come with their own built-in music stands, though these music rests are probably only going to be able to handle a pretty light book.
One feature that favors the FP-10 is the Bluetooth MIDI connection allowing for wireless connection to apps, like Roland’s Piano Partner 2 for iOS and Android. The PX-160 requires a wired connection via USB connectivity as it has no Bluetooth connectivity.
The PX-160 has a 2-Track recorder with Playback while the FP-10 has no on-board recorder. Both pianos have a Metronome, Duet Mode, and Twin Piano Mode with Transpose (shifts the pitch in semitones.)
Closing Thoughts
To sum everything up here, it’s not exactly an apple-to-apple match-up that we’re dealing with after all. The actions are both great, though the PHA-4 has an advantage on paper with the escapement and an advantage in practice with less lateral movement. Both would be great MIDI controllers with a DAW though.
The acoustic piano sound for the most part is quite comparable, though we do hear more detail and authenticity on the FP-10 side.
The PX-160 has a lot of practical pluses in other areas though. The addition of the triple pedal, the 1/4-inch outputs, and a better visual layout are all check marks.
So, there are some differences here that make it a little bit hard to tally up exactly which one is going to come out on top as a better option for pianists. In the end, it really is going to depend largely on your use case.
Thanks for reading and click here to shop for more digital pianos.
