Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards CA63 vs Pianoteq

Ole Laursen

Hammer sounds in Pianoteq are pre-recorded, not "pre-computed".

A few comments (numbered to make rebuttals and/or criticism easier ):

(1) I've never really cared for the extraneous sounds that a piano makes (keybed noise, pedal noise, damper noise). Even though I started piano lessons in 1946, I still don't like these non-musical noises of a AP.

(2) Having said that, if it had been possible to not have these sounds, I'm 99.99 percent sure that piano builders would have eliminated these sounds if they could have. In fact, many attempts have been made to reduce these sounds in APs. Otherwise why put felt padding where the key strikes the keybed, or why not eliminate the felt hammer bushing and let the hammers squeak (that would be cool). The list goes on.

(3) There is another "music" noise that I've never liked - the screech of the guitarist's fingers as they slide along the strings. What a godawful sound. Sorry guitarists.

(4) So, the fact that Pianoteq has some of these disgusting sounds that are not modeled hardly seems important. The truth is, when I set Pianoteq up, I usually turn these noises off. What I want to hear is music, not random frequency noise.

Glenn

^Dampers lifting off the strings when you press the damper pedal is hardly "noise." I do appreciate that the effect sounds different for each model, so I guess they sampled it on every piano they modeled. But I think it'd be better for them to model this effect. I'm guessing it plays into the resonance.

Anyhow, the CA63 and CA93 sound pretty damn good! I tried them in a store. But I wouldn't get one. Too expensive for what it is. And while the RM3 action is nice, it doesn't feel properly graded--the high notes felt too heavy while the bottom notes felt too light.

Right on all counts. None of those noises were designed into the piano. They're just unfortunate side effects. They'd eliminate them if it were possible without adding too much cost and not detracting from playability.

If a DP lacks some of those noises, I consider that an improvement, not a defect.

I want the sounds of the real piano in there, warts and all, and the ability to adjust the levels to what I want. It's all part of the charm of the thing being modeled, and the options that modern technology provide.

Me too...one of the charms of my low end P-85 is that it lacks those noises...of course, one can always turn them off on any other digital (or, at least I hope they could be turned off).

In the studio, we always took great pains to minimize, or if possible, eliminate, these noises on an acoustic...the less racket the better.

I like Glenn's reference to the squeaky finger/fret noises on a guitar...one always tried to play with enough skill to eliminate those as much as possible.

Snazzy

Gosh, that brings back memories of the 'fret noise' sample on the old Technics KN keyboards (great instruments, back in the day...). I recall my father being particularly impressed by some of the acoustic guitar demo tracks that made heavy use of this special sound!

Cheers,
James
x

Hi everyone,

I'm Niclas Fogwall, in charge of Pianoteq sales, support and beta testing.

In response to various claims that we do not admit the use of samples, I just want to clarify that we informed already from the very beginning in August 2006 about using samples for mechanical noises. This has never been a secret.

Anyone still doubting could have a look here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pianoteq.com/pianoteq_details

The information about optional sampled noises are also present in many since long available articles and webpages, such as:
http://www.musicmarketing.ca/products/pianoteq.asp
http://www.catalog.sonic8.com/benelux/index.php/modartt/pianoteq.html
http://www.plugorama.com/customer/product.php?productid=568
http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Pianoteq.shtml
http://www.samash.com/p/Pianoteq-Virtual-Instrument_-49971605
http://www.macmusic.org/software/view.php/lang/en/id/4152/Pianoteq

Best regards,
Niclas

Some crazy thing just happened - my original post about hammer samples in pianoteq was deleted and I received a message from moderator saying "It is illegal - you'll be banned next time".

Ok, one last thing I have to say to make things clear: reverse engineering is not illegal or unethical, there no laws agains it - like there is no laws against "opening your digital piano" or "opening the hood of your car", and I have not signed any absurd "argreements" about "do not look into EXE". Thank you.

Yes, it seems to work well for guitar samples especially...I'm presently using a Yamaha PSR-S910 arranger keyboard that uses Super Articulated guitar sounds (among others) that add fret noise, and scrapes...very effective when used in moderation, and very well programmed in the Yamaha...in fact, I've yet to hear a more realistic "real time" guitar emulation on any instrument, including high end samplers and VST programs.

Other Super Articulated instruments include superb saxophones, Hammond/tonewheel organs, string sections, brass sections, and solo brass like silver and golden trumpets...each is exceptional in it's own way, and contribute tremendously to the realism in my personal recordings.

However, they do not use a Super Articulated piano...the resident stereo Live Grand does not have any noises whatsoever, and, I for one, am glad it does not.

As I said earlier, these noises were a downright nuisance when recording piano parts using an acoustic piano, as any experienced studio engineer/technician will agree...yes, I suppose they add a kind of realism to the sound, but, I also feel that in most cases, especially during recording, they are very much unwanted.

After many years of trying to eliminate these "noises", I hardly feel much like adding them in, if you get my drift.

Pete

IANAL, but it seems you are right - and I always thought US laws prohibited it:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

We have so many restrictive and crazy laws here to protect corporations (e.g. DMCA & copy protection) I just assumed reverse engineering was somehow legislated against.

That said, bkmz, I'd take this as an indication that you are putting the owners of this board in an uncomfortable position.

Even assuming that you were correct that it weren't illegal to publicly publish the copyrighted elements of a software package that you have either obtained illegally or legally and thus bound by the agreement you signed up to by downloading it, it would still be unethical and bad behavior IMHO.

This is a privately run site and even very productive members have been banned from posting here after thousands and thousands of posts over many years simply because they were a continued disruptive influence or engaged in unethical behavior.

Pianoworld also has an obligation not to be collaborating with people either obtaining software illegally (as discussed up thread) or with people breaking their terms and conditions for use of a product (such as this could be considered) or with people engaging in general activities of violating copyright law (such as publishing these files or publishing illegally copied sheet music or torrents of copyrighted CDs).

On other forums it is also considered not done to discuss moderator activity and your above post might also result in suspension for a number of months.

If you want complete freedom to spread anarchy, you might want to consider starting your own forum.

TheJourney,
1) deleted post does not contained copyrighted elements, because I already removed the link day ago.
2) and once again: I did not break any terms and conditions, because I did not signed any.

I am just a guest on this forum, and of course we all have to do what moderator says.

I ain't no Lawyer but brief research into the law on reverse engineering suggests that the there is considerable room for argument as to the legality of the operation depending on a whole host of conditions including location, reason for reverse engineering and what you do with the information gained from it. I found no simple statement that it is legal regardless of circumstances.

In the UK spreading confidential information gained by reverse engineering does seem to be illegal and probably is under European law too. I didn't find any info in my brief search on American law but I'll bet it's not straightforward there either.

BazC

Wrong. There are a lot of books published revealing information gained from RE, just one famous example:

http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?cat=4

Interesting discussion but the point is being missed. You don't break wind in polite company.

You can debate the legality or ethics of reverse engineering all you like. The facts that are indisputable are these:

• bkmz said in his post (now deleted) "OK, we have here the Pianoteq demo software..."
• Unless he stole the software (clearly illegal), he obtained it by downloading from the Pianoteq site.
• In order to complete the download, he had to agree to the Pianoteq EULA by clicking "I accept the agreement"
• The Pianoteq EULA contains the following in section 1.1 under "Grants and Restrictions"

(e) Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, Disassembly and Modification. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or modify Pianoteq Trial.

Seems clear enough.

I think, the point is, that the internal structure of the software doesnt matter here.
Describing how to extract the ressources and how to crack the (weak) encryption might go to far here.
I personally find it ok to re-engineer for some reasons.
Re-engineering is allowed here (in Germany) so far it is necessary to ensure ongoing operation and system integration of software when you legally own the right to use it. Its not allowed to circumvent copyprotection and violize copyright.

That said, it was always clear to me that "pure Modelling" is marketing speech and that there are samples or data tables in the software.

Now examining the binary data doesnt tell us if this data is synthesized or sampled. On the other side it is clear that the sustained sound is purely modelled. Just look to the size of the binary...

And didnt he say he tried to crack it ;-)
You may do this inside your 4 walls and nobody will care but dont publish it here ;-)

Mark Russinovich and David Solomon never published how to crack the copy protection.
They where always respected gurus and system specialists and respected even by Microsoft.
And now they are Microsoft employees for some years.
Their whole website was bought by microsoft some time ago
www.sysinternals.com ;-)

The original post with the published samples is already deleted. If Modartt think bkmz has breached something, they can sue him. But I don't think it's illegal for him to claim he has cracked something and to share information he has obtained. The forum rules prohibit links to pirated software but not talks about cracking and reverse engineering. And all at all, he has discovered that Modartt were not precise in their marketing about a software. I should be more concerned about a company hiding truth than a person breaching an EULA for non-commercial reasons.