2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2.9 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
Find a Professional
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers

Advertise on Piano World

Who's Online Now
59 registered members (Burkie, cmb13, butchkoch, bxrdad1, ChrisGoesPiano, bobrunyan, Boboulus, 13 invisible), 350 guests, and 504 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Live Piano Venues
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Directory/Site Map
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords & Scales
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: Kawai James] #1438904 05/18/10 09:43 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
dewster Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
Wow, you go bkmz! More like this please.

So they use samples to excite their resonant structures.

I wish everyone involved in making these products would stop the unabashed lying about such fundamental things. It's no wonder there's a massive cloud of confusion over it all.

(ad) ROLAND

Click Here

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: dewster] #1438930 05/18/10 10:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
M
mucci Offline OP
1000 Post Club Member
OP Offline
1000 Post Club Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
dewster & bkmz, the new dreamteam to reveal the technic used by DPs and software pianos... smile


<~ don't test forever - play and enjoy! ~>
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: mucci] #1438951 05/18/10 10:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
P
pianophil Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Hi,

I am Philippe Guillaume, creator of Pianoteq. In the end, everything is samples from the soundcard point of view. Pianoteq is based on a model, that is, an approximation of the physical reality based on the equations of mechanics. Some parts of the model are generated in real time (the string vibrations, the soundboard resonance, etc.). Some parts of the model are computed each time a parameter is changed (string properties, soundboard properties, etc.). Some parts of the model are precomputed in Modartt's office ("virtual factory"), and among these precomputed data, you will find some samples. The only samples that are almost unprocessed recordings are the noises from the pedal and the note-off sounds. Calling us liars is just not fair.

I must add that I have kindly asked bkmz to remove the files that he has uploaded to sendspace. These files are part of Pianoteq, they are copyrighted and they cannot be distributed without our permission.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1438966 05/18/10 11:06 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
M
mucci Offline OP
1000 Post Club Member
OP Offline
1000 Post Club Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
Hi Philippe,

Pianoteq is an absolutely amazing piece of software, congrats! I like the way how it simulates so many aspects of a real grand! The only thing I don't like about it is that it somehow still sounds too artificial, not like a real piano! I have recently found that it sounds just perfect if it's combined with my Kawai CA63 grand piano sound. I love the sound of the CA63 combined with the great and long decay of pianoteq 3. A combination of both (some CA63 style samples and the pianoteq string modeling) would be the perfect piano sound!

Keep up the great work!


<~ don't test forever - play and enjoy! ~>
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1438973 05/18/10 11:15 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
dewster Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
Originally Posted by pianophil
The only samples that are almost unprocessed recordings are the noises from the pedal and the note-off sounds.

Philippe, is there any reason you don't artificially produce the note off and pedal noises? I would think those would be rather trivial, and then you could claim that it is 100% modeled.

Do you think Pianoteq could somehow benefit from the use of real hammer etc. samples?

Also, do you consider the impulse response of a real piano a sample or a model?

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1439009 05/18/10 12:05 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
B
bkmz Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by pianophil
Some parts of the model are precomputed in Modartt's office ("virtual factory"), and among these precomputed data, you will find some samples. The only samples that are almost unprocessed recordings are the noises from the pedal and the note-off sounds.


Are you saying that you computed the sound of muted string hit by hammer and saved it to a FLAC file? That's strange for several reasons:

1) If you needed hammer sound, why string vibration is there? It can be heard clearly on lower notes.

2) The main and only benefit of physical modeling versus sampling is - dynamics, variation, liveness. What the point of modeling static hammer sound, which is not even varies among velocities (I mean that the same sample is used for all velocities and for several different keys)?
To me it looks more logical to use recording, and I still think that this samples are recorded, not computed.

upd
3) And, I forgot, your own patent:

Originally Posted by http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090241757
44. ... p,b(p,t) represents the percussive part of the sound and any other component of the sound that cannot be modelled (or that can only be poorly modelled) by a decomposition into a sum of sines.


<deleted by moderator>

/upd

Quote
I must add that I have kindly asked bkmz to remove the files that he has uploaded to sendspace. These files are part of Pianoteq, they are copyrighted and they cannot be distributed without our permission.


Uhm.. I'm not sure I can do this, sorry. Sendspace gives a link to delete files after uploading, but I have not saved it. You should ask them to delete.

I must say I don't feel I did something wrong or bad. I think we all have right to know what is "under the hood" and how marketing statements are relevant to reality.

Also I admit that Modartt is doing great work, and wish you luck smile

Last edited by BB Player; 05/19/10 06:05 PM. Reason: Violation of EULA
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: dewster] #1439017 05/18/10 12:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
P
pianophil Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by dewster

Philippe, is there any reason you don't artificially produce the note off and pedal noises? I would think those would be rather trivial, and then you could claim that it is 100% modeled.


I'm not sure that it is so easy to do, and these sounds are not the most interesting ones. As an ex piano tuner, I always considered them as nuisances! In fact we did not invest much time on these noises, for now we prefer to focus on the core piano sound. But having all of them synthetized would be a nice thing, for sure.

Originally Posted by dewster

Do you think Pianoteq could somehow benefit from the use of real hammer etc. samples?


I'm not sure, recording a nice and clean real hammer noise is not so easy I think.

Originally Posted by dewster

Also, do you consider the impulse response of a real piano a sample or a model?


This is more a philosophical question, but let's say it is a sample, that may be issued from a model (finite elements simulation for example), or from a recording (not easy also, as you would have to remove the strings of the piano before recording).

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1439031 05/18/10 12:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
dewster Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,675
Philippe, thank you for your responses! And please accept my apology for the lie remark, I get carried away sometimes.

Pianoteq is a really great product, I hope you continue to develop it and perhaps someday offer it in a dedicated hardware instrument or box.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: dewster] #1439047 05/18/10 12:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 457
G
Glenn NK Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
G
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 457
bkmz:

One must be careful what one posts - copyright laws are not to be messed with. While anonymity may protect you, the host/owner of the site is not anonymous, and is open to legal challenges.

BTW, it isn't up to Sendspace to get you out of trouble - that's your responsibility.

G

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: Glenn NK] #1439059 05/18/10 01:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
B
bkmz Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
Glenn, you right, I don't want troubles for this great forum smile So I removed the link from the original post.

Speaking of reverse engineering: I am a software engineer myself, and as SE I think software manufacturers don't have moral rights to disallow it.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: Glenn NK] #1439061 05/18/10 01:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,935
Jeff Clef Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,935
I would think bkmz could at least ask the mods here to remove the links that Philippe has objected to. That would undo at least some of the problem.

Thanks for the very handsome apology, dewster. I can't speak for Philippe, but as a member it was appreciated. It's really clear that you care a lot about this field.


Clef

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: dewster] #1439084 05/18/10 01:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
P
pianophil Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by dewster
Philippe, thank you for your responses! And please accept my apology for the lie remark, I get carried away sometimes.

Pianoteq is a really great product, I hope you continue to develop it and perhaps someday offer it in a dedicated hardware instrument or box.


Dewster, apology accepted, it is so kindly asked, and thank you for your kind words.

Last edited by pianophil; 05/18/10 01:54 PM.
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: bkmz] #1439100 05/18/10 02:25 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
T
theJourney Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
Originally Posted by bkmz
Speaking of reverse engineering: I am a software engineer myself, and as SE I think software manufacturers don't have moral rights to disallow it.


Spoken like someone from a failed, cowboy, parasite state rather than a civilized place where talented engineers and entrepreneurs are actually using their creativity and risking their livelihoods to add value and serve consumers' needs.

Last edited by theJourney; 05/18/10 02:27 PM.
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: theJourney] #1439108 05/18/10 02:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
B
bkmz Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
Quote
Spoken like someone from a failed, cowboy, parasite state


I'm actually working on global US company, but thanks, theJourney, I love you too!

PS And don't even think to open the hood of your car next time.

Last edited by bkmz; 05/19/10 04:49 AM.
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: bkmz] #1439116 05/18/10 02:49 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
T
theJourney Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,946
Originally Posted by bkmz
[quote]I'm actually working on global US company, but thanks, theJourney, I love you too!


I rest my case.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: theJourney] #1439117 05/18/10 02:54 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
B
bkmz Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
B
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 142
Haha, funny.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: Melodialworks Music] #1439512 05/19/10 04:30 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
M
mucci Offline OP
1000 Post Club Member
OP Offline
1000 Post Club Member
M
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,070
Okay now... I made an announcement some days ago that I've found a Pianoteq setting that I'm now almost 100% satisfied with. I now made it to record some samples this morning before I went to work.

First of all, it's not 100% Pianoteq, it's a layered sound of CA63 Concert Grand (set to bright) and Pianoteq 3.6 K1 piano sound. Since I play anyhow on my CA63 I tried to add some sampled flavor to the Pianoteq basic sound and was surprised about how good it sounds!

My setup is a basic Netbook, no special soundcard, just headphones out, to Line-In of CA63. Then I slightly adjusted the volume of the CA63 so that the mix is to my liking. I guess it's about 50:50.

It was not so easy to record the outcome: The record-to-USB functionality of CA63 didn't work since it strangely enough only recorded the CA63 sound. Obviously there was also no possibility to digitally render the internal Pianoteq sound because then the CA63 sound would be missing. Therefore I recorded the sound using the ordinary Line-Out of the CA63 using my Edirol USB soundcard.

Here are the MP3 samples:

First one is the same piece I played with plain CA63 and plain Pianoteq at the beginning of this thread:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/twdnwmmtzyy/Heilig-CA63plusPianoteq36-demo.mp3

Here are two additional sampes for some more investigation:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ttzmziwyzhn/Improvisation-CA63plusPianoteq36-demo.mp3
http://www.mediafire.com/file/y4zujhm14nw/Wunderbar-CA63plusPianoteq36-demo.mp3

For me it sounds just great. I'm fully aware that it's not really science to just combine two different piano sounds, but it's just so easy - other combination might also sound great, like using Yamaha, Roland or other sample based software pianos.

What do you think about the overall sound of this?

I guess I still have to adjust to this increased length of the decay, because it sounds a little bit muddy, but it sounds beautifully muddy!

Last edited by mucci; 05/19/10 04:40 AM.

<~ don't test forever - play and enjoy! ~>
Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1439516 05/19/10 04:50 AM
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 448
M
M. Doege Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
M
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by pianophil
In the end, everything is samples from the soundcard point of view.


Phil, I think you are deliberately muddying the waters here: In the context of PT, I would consider all audio that is not generated in real-time on the end-user's machine samples, whether they are recordings of a real acoustic piano or generated by a model elsewhere doesn't matter. Pre-rendered audio is pre-rendered audio.

Originally Posted by pianophil

The only samples that are almost unprocessed recordings are the noises from the pedal and the note-off sounds. Calling us liars is just not fair.


Well let's see, the back of my PT v3 retail box says "no piano samples". But you just admitted, unsurprisingly, that you are using some piano samples in PT after all, and this admission only came after being caught red-handed by user bkmz. That kind of behavior does make you a liar I'm afraid!

Would you have come clean about this question if reverse engineering had not been done? I don't think so. Threads about "Are there samples in PT?" have been done to death on these forums, and your user account was registered in 2007, so it's extremely convenient of you to remain silent until caught. Your were lying by omission and in the case of the PT packaging, it's an outright, unabated lie.

Martin

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: M. Doege] #1439581 05/19/10 08:09 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
P
pianophil Offline
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Well, we used that wording "no piano samples" on boxes, and everywhere in our communication (bkmz found the only place to my knowledge where we did use an incorrect wording), precisely to avoid the accusations that you are making, so it seems we somehow failed... We do not embed recorded piano notes, this is the meaning of "no piano samples". The sound coming out from Pianoteq, at the difference of the sampled piano libraries, is computed from a true physical model that relies on the equations of physics describing the piano parts and their interaction.

If you want to describe in a few words such a product, which is a real innovation, brings new features as those provided in our Tuning, Voicing and Design sections (had you seen something like this already somewhere else before?), isn’t "no piano samples" an excellent characteristic of such a piano? Does the fact that an exception is made for some noises change the fact that we are doing true modeling? Aren’t the ridiculous size of our embedded data, the unique features that we offer to our customers, and also the difficulty we have in obtaining a perfect sound, a proof that we are really doing modeling, and likely the ones who went the farthest in that direction?

The claim "no piano samples" is not a lie, it is a fact, it is a simple and effective way of making the difference between our modeled piano – that contains no recorded piano notes - and a sample library – that contains recorded piano notes.

We are not trying to be dishonest, we are only trying to provide and promote a new kind of instrument, which is not an easy task, and I just cannot understand such an accusation.

Re: CA63 vs Pianoteq [Re: pianophil] #1439589 05/19/10 08:18 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,017
Kawai James Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,017
Martin, may I politely suggest that you calm down and perhaps show a little bit of respect for Philippe's impressive software.

Kind regards,
James
x


Employed by Kawai Japan, however the opinions I express are my own.
Nord Electro 3 & occasional rare groove player.

"I agree that the User Manual is very good." - arc7urus, March 2019
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Piano World 

What's Hot!!
News from the Piano World
Our January 2020 Newsletter Available Online Now...
Free Piano Newsletter
----------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
Shop our Store for Music Lovers!
(ad)
Pianoteq
PianoTeq Free Trial
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Steinway fallboard lettering
by Lushey1 - 02/21/20 04:30 AM
How do you deal with sweaty hands?
by PracticingPianist - 02/21/20 01:34 AM
FP 90 Question...
by GWILLY - 02/21/20 12:27 AM
I am inspired to write some music
by MichaelJK - 02/20/20 10:51 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums41
Topics197,098
Posts2,928,220
Members96,057
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers


Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers


 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter |


copyright 1997 - 2019 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3