Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Digital dynamic range

What I forgot to say in my post above - and I think that this is the critical difference between Physical Modeling and Samples - is that the GEM pianos NEVER play back the original sampled sound. They only ever play the mathematically altered and regenerated sound, complete with soundboard harmonics etc.

You may want to google "dynamic range of sampled sound".

That's a HUGE difference, if it never actually plays the recorded sample.

I think there are some serious misconceptions floating about in this thread. Physical modeling has nothing to do with samples but instead are mathematical models of a sound, what is being described for the GEM methods is a hybrid approach incorporating physical modeling, sampling, and FDSP, to call the GEM products "physical modeling" pianos is in my opinion misleading. While the results may be very good (and having never heard one I can't say one way or the other), I think what it really is going on is a hybrid synthesis technique. And that's OK, I don't really care how they reach their end result if it's good, if I'm misunderstanding something here perhaps you can explain the error of my understanding.
Clyde

The GEM products use physical modeling - without recourse to onboard samples - for their Rhodes, Wurlitzer and Clavinet sounds.

They use samples as the root for their acoustic piano sounds. However, as explained above, physical modeling (i.e. mathematical models) are used as the modifiers for sympathetic resonance, damper resonance, the sustain/decay of the sound, and release samples. So the raw sample of a grand piano is not played back as it is but reworked into the resulting sound.

GEM made it quite clear in their literature as to the extent of the physical modeling employed. It is not in the least misleading to use the term 'physical modeling' as that is what is going on, exclusively in relation to some sounds and partially in relation to others.

Perhaps you don't feel it is misleading, I think it is. That would be like Yamaha saying that the SY77 was an FM synthesis keyboard when in reality it uses both FM and samples, that's why they call it an AWM/AFM synthesiser. The Yamaha EX5 was called an "Extended Synthesis" keyboard as it incorporated AWM (samples), VL (Physical Modeling), AN (Analog Physical Modeling, and FDSP (effects and resonance). The SY77 and the EX5 (which are just two of many examples by several manufacturers) are hybrid synths/keyboards because they rely on more than one synthesis technique. To call the GEM products Physical Modeling when there is obviously other synthesis forms going on is misleading in my opinion.
Clyde

They are not called Physical Modeling, they use physical modeling. Their literature states quite clearly the range of techniques used. For example, the RP-X module employs the term "PCM" before physical modeling in its description, because Pulse Code Modulation is used as the source for its sample sounds.

Why the hangup on names anyway?

V.P.'s posts are consistent with GEM's product descriptions, "physical modeling algorithms" etc. I personally assumed P.M.'ing & sampling were mutually exclusive too, but then again I.D.K. why it would necessarily be impossible for the two strategies to be combined.

I get some sound and some crackling. And if I try to lower the delay then I get distorted sound. I really think I have a sound card that is not powerfull enough. I spent quite some time fiddling with the parameters, but to no avail.
Thanks though.

Well, don't feel too bad. I did manage to solve the problem. But I'm not too impressed with the sounds.

I've tried Pianoteq, Pianissimo, and True Pianos.

The latter was a tin-can sounding dog. The others had a distant sound, which might be good for some purposes, but not for me.

I want the piano to sound like it's right in front of me, not far off like I'm sitting in the cheap seats of a concert hall.