Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Sampled VS Modelled Pianos ???

I don't like this approach. Let's say you play a note and it comes out on the loud side due to the randomisation in your system. You are aware of the loudness, so the next note, you try to back off a bit, but it goes the other way - that is, the randomiser shunts it lower, so then it's too soft. This example functions as a dynamic expander. The next time it might act as a compressor. You would have no confidence in the result of your next note(s). Your system is biased too much toward a listener who is decoupled from the player. Sure it might make it more interesting for a listener, but I don't believe you can assist the player by adding randomness to their input. All it can do is make no effect, or decouple them from their instrument.

Regardless of what the smallest perceptible volume difference is in decibels, remember that, with changing velocity, the piano sound is not merely changing in volume (if that were the case, we'd only have to sample one velocity), it is changing in other ways (timbre, envelope). The fact that it is changing in other ways may make it easier to hear smaller velocity differences than you'd be able to detect if the only difference were volume.

Good point.

@anotherscott:
Agreed, and that's precisely why I said that the volume was only part of the picture in my original post!

@ando:
I agree with everything you say, however, I think I would able to synthesize it to sufficient accuracy that you simply would be none the wiser. If you can detect the difference with my system, I have failed.

Greg.

My DAW (Ableton Live) has a velocity randomizer effect - it can generate noise centred on each velocity value, and the amplitude of the noise can be adjusted. (i.e +/- 1 step, 3 steps, 45 steps... etc). We could experiment with that, to see whether we notice the difference with different amplitudes of noise, with different instruments. (I can't do any testing at the moment) Haven't found a velocity "quantizer" yet, although that could easily be created with anything that allows per-step velocity mapping.

Suggested test: without the randomizer, train yourself for as long as you like, to try and strike any given velocity repteadly. Use the strongest form of feedback - look at the MIDI velocities on the screen. Then. turn on the randomizer, with a deviation of +/- 1, and see if you can notice any difference in the frequency with with you manage to hit that same velocity repeatedly. If you can notice a difference, then this means that you can't tolerate any less than 127 steps (for this specific test only), and in fact, you may need more than 127 steps. This is an extreme test - if you can't notice the difference this way, you will definitely not notice the difference using a piano sound, IMHO.

Thinking about it, another way to do the test is to do a statistical analysis of the results without the randomizer. If you strike each of the neighbouring velocities (+1 and -1) approximately the same number of times as the target velocity, we could then conclude that 127 steps is aready enough to represent your physical accuracy.

Greg.

I read the whole thread yesterday, today I reflected on SOME of it.
The poor performer without a clue who can only make a couple of different velocities kept coming to mind (too close to home, perhaps I only make 7).

Then the path from finger strike to hammer strike, the piano's action.
I don't see any of that as "frictionless" and with friction comes stiction, so I wonder how many different velocities a hammer can actually achieve in a physical piano - even if the performer could achieve some arbitrarily HUGE number of different finger strike velocities, whether by skill or by accident.
A really STICKY action might result in some very small number, less "sticky" (on a "well played in" piano) could result in significantly more.
I have NO IDEA where this would scale relative to the MIDI standard of 127, or to 255, 1023, or 2047 (or 7).

This COULD be fairly easily measured, though I don't have the facility for it.

I guess it would be worth knowing though ?

I had a go at repeatedly striking velocity #64 on an old Yamaha PSR-230 keyboard. (cheap unweighted action). Note that the dynamic range was good - 12 to 127, and I had to play very strongly to reach 127. I was looking at a MIDI monitor throughout the test.

Here is the histogram:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2exufk9.png

127 steps might be more than enough for this particular keyboard and/or myself, in the specific (and very constricted) conditions of this test. Will repeat on a DP keyboard at some stage.

Greg.

I think that difficult velocity control is specifically one of the shortcomings of many unweighted actions, and is one of the reasons they tend to be so poor for piano playing.

@anotherscott: I'm sure you're right, and as I said, I'll repeat the test on a DP when I can. In the meantime if anyone else would like to do the test and upload the MIDI file, I'll analyze it and upload the histogram.

Note that I wasn't 100% focused for the entire test. It was extremely boring.

Greg.

V-piano and pianoteq only? There is another physical modeling technology that is worthy of attention. Its DRAKE by Generalmusic. As known Generalmusic is gone as a manufacturer, but their products are still available (Promega, RP & PRP pianos, RP-X module). My first encounter with the DPs was GEM RP-810 and I could not tear myself away from that natural sound. Much later I discovered that the piano was based on physical modeling. Now I have GEM RP-X piano module, it uses only 64MB of samples (50 voices sound list), physical modeling does the rest. I've heard V-piano performance and IMHO my GEM RP-X sounds no worse than a V-piano.
Here is a Fazioli Grand sound from my GEM RP-X:

https://www.box.com/s/41291d01f02d604bdfed

As for the samplers-romplers, all the worthy ones are for laptops only. But laptops tend to become obsolete. While the old familiar hardware friend will please you forever...

Wow...that must be the best bargain in piano sounds ever!
$599.00 at musicians friend for that module!
Maybe I will add it to my CP5...

Hmm....

How do the EP's sound?
The piano demo sounded great!

I cannot find it anywhere else online other than Musicians Friend...interesting...

Sound is great!!! Thank you!
But at 2:49 - is it polyphony or playing problem? Repedaling?
3:50-3:53 - repedaling is abscent! It isnt good.

I found (bought) it on musicstore.de. Use google & youtube.
Here is EP's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=654tyDiaEMg
Some people try RP-X and return it cause it sounds too sharp and bright by default. Midi velocity converter is the solution (custom velocity curves). Bear in mind that you can change tons of sound parameters like attack, release, decay, tremolo, vibrato, portamento, 4 reverb parameters, parameteric EQ etc. for each voice from your PC. Also you can merge up to 4 voices in one performance.
Ok, I have to make a thread on RP-X .

Yep, do that. Sounds interesting, I was under the impression it was mostly based on samples.

Edit: odd, look at this, seems 3 people have returned it. That's an unusually high number, wonder what the reason was.

Edit2: sorry link not working, just search for "RP-X" on Musicstore.

I returned my RP-X.

I liked it, it had a better piano sound than what I had been using, but not sufficiently better to bring around and wire up more gear. If it had better EPs, that might have put me over the edge to keeping it. (The EPs are pleasant, but not the most realistic, especially in the "bark").

The stretching is very audible if you listen for it, though honestly, in live playing, you rarely hear that anyway.

I sometimes found the string resonance to be too heavy when playing in mono, and couldn't find a way to reduce the effect.

Overall, I'd rank the RP-X as a bit better than the Yamaha MOX, and not as good as the Nord Bosendorfer, for example.

But as always, these things are subjective...

As you allude to there, the RP-X falls into the category of the Roland FP-4F/RD-300NX/FP-7F/RD-700NX and Yamaha CP1/CP5/CP50 of being hybrid sampling+modeling. The V-Piano, PIanoteq, and forthcoming Physis are strictly modeling, I believe.

Ok, I've taken a look on Nord Bosendorfer on youtube.
IMHO, it has nothing to do with the original one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYQtFlbjwM

Just another sampling hardware.
Yep, the RP-X is rather hybrid sampling + modeling.
At least it has no mad price.

I have owned the RP-X and the PRP800. If the darn thing hadn't crapped out on me, I'd still be playing the PRP. I would rank the playing experience (sound, not action) alongside Roland's SN. In fact, in some ways it felt more alive. Timbre variation was more limited, but other than that it was more enjoyable to play than any other non-SN DP I've owned. I also loved the EPs. They didn't quite have the authentic nuances, but there was absolutely no layering, stretching or looping going on, which rendered them closer to the original in response than most alternatives.

Funnily enough, I didn't warm to the RP-X as much as the PRP. That may indeed have had something to do with velocity curves, although I think the RP-X was also set up slightly differently to the PRP, soundwise. All that is adjustable as has been pointed out above.

That may be, but it's still a good DP sound. Have you seen this thread?

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1530919

It's interesting not just because of the Nord samples and comments, but also that it's being compared with the hybrid sampled/modeled CP5.


Better than most, I'd say. I also like it better than the semi-modeled Roland FP-7F et al.


Yeah, Nord is not a budget line! Though I don't think there's anything cheaper than an Electro 3 that has as good a piano and as good of an organ. (Though you'd still have to connect another controller regardless, to have weighted and unweighted actions to play them from.) The sample library and ability to load your own samples is cool too. So while not cheap, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a bad value.

I had a GEM RP-X module.

Got rid of it. It's nothing special and it MUST be pointed out, it is sample-based. To call it modelled is very misleading. There are modelled elements such as string resonance but the base piano tones are completely sampled. It played MUCH too loudly at low velocities and I found the timbral change across all velocities a bit limited. I hated the Fazioli but the Steinway was quite nice and woody and had some subtleties in there, but as I say, it was really nothing special.