Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Pianoteq 6!

One of the interesting things about Modartt's business model is that they are not focusing only on generating an accurate acoustic piano experience; rather, they are focused upon creating a variety of modelled instruments that they can sell as a bundle or as an add-on. From their perspective, how much is there really to be made selling one amazing product: there are only so many potential users, and the average price a user might be willing to spend on one modelled piano (no matter how good) limits profitability, hence limiting R&D budgets. Instead, having a greater diversity of products in different package options increases cross selling and generates new market.

Who is investing this big in modelling? Only Korg, Roland and PHYSIS create hardware that uses full modelling, and then only for a limited number of instruments. It seems to me that Pianoteq are being more ambitious by modelling percussive instruments, e-pianos, legacy instruments and more acoustic piano models.

I'm not surprised that sampling has kept up with modelling, especially when bits of modelling are being combined with sampling. However, when looking at the potential of modelling, that is far higher than sampling. Today, weather forecasts are generated from modelled systems because other approaches can't capture the complexities. Weather modelling has taken 40 years to manage a decent 5 day forecast and accurate 2-day forecasts. I think Pianoteq modelling will only develop in small evolutions and may take a while to really utilise modelling's potential.

Whether you presently prefer a sampled VST over Pianoteq or not, it's clear that competition is rising. Do Pianoteq keep expanding the product catalogue, or do they consolidate? I think Pianoteq 6 will include more new piano models. Unless sampling gets so far ahead, I don't see a good economic argument for Pianoteq to focus on making the D4 tonnes better.

As we say in Bulgaria: if there are many cars that appear to be driving wrong-way, it's maybe you who are in the wrong way

You are not naive, and believe me for something like Piano vst there are no experts anywhere. I also enjoy Pianoteq. There is no foolery for something you liked. In this case D4 included all modeling real parameters to sound like Steinway D. It is better with every version. Compare to only sound in samples (very subjective) D4 is x2 real piano. Most people here play Pianoteq only short time to try it from time to time or to little escape to something else and then bring not so good conclusions because of habit they adopt earlier. The same like me before. I give them 1 months to play only Pianoteq and then let them try to back to samples. Then they will realize that what was a piano horse earlier now behave more like a donkey and then will ask a question what happened ? Haha Just ride your horse.

There was a period where I used pianoteq pretty much always for a year or more, nothing else, very occasionally ivory ACD, I have not touched pteq in months now for some time. I look forward though to what the future may bring.

I am still of the view there is a place for both and one can enjoy both for different things qualities they have. Perhaps we have phases, depending on the repertoire we play and what we want out of the instrument.

In the last 6 months or so however I have been firmly planted in sample land once again, and I have no desire to open up pteq for anything. Especially after having adding the CFX lite too last month, but I've not spend much time with CFX as yet, using the ravens mostly at the moment and loving that. The CFX time will come no doubt.

Initial impressions of the CFX however ....

Thats OK, I watch both worlds and will try and play everything that I found to inspired me no matter engine. My door is not close for sampling, just not inspiring to me at the moment and I think I have all samples pianos. I play only classical and there is no compromise with playability for me. Ravenscroft is not my idea of piano and when I put it against Pianoteq, he beat Ravenscroft every time in a terms of sound, playability, functioning, etc, but thats me. That little difference in playability is a lot for me.

I suppose sampling photos from satellite is limited because we can only predict yesterday's meteo. When using a piano we can assume the C4 from yesterday is the same than the C4 from today and the yesterday record is what we need.

Then we can get 88 perfect recorded notes... when using chords or worse 220 strings excited by sympathetic resonance... it become harder since we can't record every combination of notes, and the recorded damper pressed notes can't switch easily to plain notes while we release the pedal (I know 2 VST which use damper pressed records and have this issue).

Perhaps an hybrid solution (modelisation+records) is the best way (the Pianoteq patent talk about attack records).

Anyway, when comparing two products, only what I hear while playing matters.

Spot on. Pianoteq, or even most other software pianos are so different from the pianos embedded in your console; they're bound to sound alien at first. And the Roland or Yamaha sound you initially loved so much that you bought it, will become . . . puerile after a time.
But banish the software usurper, and you'll begin to love your resident donkey again.
It's worth noting that the Grotrian seems to be a decent step up from the D4 which may indicate substantial improvements to come. I use it more and more; it's good on trills.
I'm now just waiting for Roland to build a piano controller based on the PH50 keyboard . . . . .

Your signature indicates you are using the Lite version of CFX. If you get all of this satisfaction from the Lite version have you no desire to see how much better it might be with the full version? Looking at the comparison chart all the full version appears to offer are additional mic positions. Are those of no interest to you?

Full version only offers more mic perspectives compared to the lite. However the only perspective I am interested in is the binaural head mic. In another thread I’ve compared a rendering I did playing a Chopin prelude with Lite and then others exported it with various software pianos, including the binaural head and it didn’t sound like it’s worth the high price. Beside, the full version is not downloadable, I need to order a USB-flash drive from Garritan and it ships from US while I live in Europe so there’s huge cost involved when counting import taxes and shipping. The other way is to order the full version from Thomann, but then I can’t have the upgrade price from Lite to Full but need to purchase Full at the full price. All that is too much of a hassle to me and I am already so happy with Lite that I don’t find it worth it.

Is there something you recall which you could hint at to track down this thread? I would like to hear this performance processed by several plugins. I searched your post history and could not find where this was done.

Thank you for the detailed response and link follow up. That was interesting. If the MIDI file were still around I would add a few more to that list.

I'm glad I have opened this can of worms - as if it weren't already open
Thank you jefinho, CyberGene and everybody else who provided extensive comparisons and expressed their preference!

I have played for a few months now the Pianoteq Bluthner on trial, with some changes to make it brighter and I love it.
I have tried different libraries in the past, but wasn't pleased with any of their response (pedaling, half-pedaling, repedaling, lifting the sustain, resonances, uneven and unrealistic velocity response and dynamic range).
Sadly, the CFX doesn't have a demo, so I have no possibility to try it. How does it handle everything listed above?
I play mainly classical, mid to high difficulty. The playability is what concerns me most.

I was waiting for a sale for quite a while now, hoping to make up my mind. About this - in the past weren't the PT instrument packs on sale too?
I see the CFX Lite is also on sale on sweetwater for 60$ (vs 175e ±50e the Bluethner).

A question for everybody owning both PT and CFX (lite):
Strictly for playing authenticity (velocity uniformity and realism, pedal response, resonances) what would be your pick?

I own both Pianoteq and CFX and really prefer CFX as I said. There's one CFX fix that is needed though. The re-pedaling out of the box is way too unforgiving so after a mail exchange with the CFX main developer I was given instructions on how to change a configuration file to make re-pedaling timings as I wanted and I've published those settings here on the forum, so let me know if you can't find them.

With that particular fix CFX is extremely playable and I use it mainly to play Chopin (ballades, nocturnes, preludes, waltzes, the easier etudes, etc.) where I apply a lot of half-pedaling, repedaling, subtle touch, etc. The only thing I don't quite like in CFX is the softest samples kind of have some slight noise to them in the background which I think might be due to the recording equipment/preamps/mics or whatever. Other than that, it's a lovely piano.

For 60$, if I were so interested, I might just buy it, try it, and if I didn't like it, sell it on eBay to recoup 40$.

@CyberGene: Thank you for the detailed answer. I remember you posting the details for the mod and I'll be sure to make them if I go for the CFX.

@ Doug M.: I'm not sure it's reselable, and even if it was, before going through the hassle, I would really like to hear the opinion of people who have experienced both. I know it's not a lot of money in some countries, but incomes vary, to the point where the price of PT may equate to one's monthly income, so trying to get a good idea of each product may be more important than you think

To come back to the debate that I launched: I have purchased CFX lite for 60$ that same night. Unfortunately, I haven't had that much time, but have played it a couple of hours by now.
This is definitely the best sample I ever played, but even so, I have to say that I feel the same as slobajudge and scorpio (and others). CFX isn't quite there as far as playability goes. And pianoteq maybe isn't there for sound (although with some models I feel it's quite close). Both preferences are perfectly valid, and it will vary from person to person. It appears mine lies with pianoteq.

The CFX does sound absolutely great, but it has its flaws. First of all, my buffer is set to 64, I have a very good SSD and 16gb RAM, end even so, I feel the difference in latency between PT and CFX. I have adjusted to it, but it's most apparent in works such as Asturias and Cm Prelude from WTC I. Secondly, there's the resonances, which aren't up to the same level, though very good compared to other samples. The pedal noise is a bit weird, because it is heard every time you pass a certain point with the pedal, but it is heard with the same intensity, regardless of the speed you depress the pedal with. I have also perceived the "white noise", as CyberGene called it, in piano-pianissimo samples and it's quite bothersome in the moonlight sonata for instance. There's also the lack of staccato - this cannot be achieved. I think the dynamic range is unrealistic at default setting and I'm not pleased with what I've come up with. And other aspects that don't come to mind. I will thoroughly read the CFX threads to see what settings others use and make further adjustments.

All this being said, when playing for an audience or recording, I think the CFX does a fantastic job. It does indeed sound great. But when playing for myself, PT was a lot more realistic in feeling, it made me feel like I was in front of a real grand. This is immersive too and the sound is fantastic, but the way it plays isn't at the same level. I can be immersed when playing the CFX too, just not the same though.

In conclusion, although I don't regret the buy and I think it will get plenty of use, I wish I would've tried it before hand and put my money towards Pianoteq. Last year they had an anniversary 30% for standard as well as for any instrument pack. For the time being, I made my buy, but I will wait for such a sale again, because I'd go for Bluethner +/- Model B, or maybe some other piano. When I tried them, the Model D and the K2 sadly didn't convince me.

With a buffer of 64, round-trip latency should be quite low; I measured round trip latency of well under 6ms from keystrike to sound output on my headphones for Garritan CFX (44.1 kHz with buffer set to 64). Pianoteq is very efficient so getting this performance from Garritan CFX required some optimization with LatencyMon software & RME ASIO drivers.

- I'm sure you already know, if you can boost the sample rate (say from 44.1kHz to 88.2 kHz) without crackles, your latency will drop significantly. Free LatencyMon software and good ASIO drivers might help you optimize.

- For an experiment, if you move from loudspeakers to headphones, that should knock off another 3-4ms of latency, as sound travels about 3ms per metre.



Many users have posted their settings. Make sure to fix the pedaling with CyberGenes simple patch. I

Philip Johnston recorded some nice pieces with the settings below. You will see his dynamic range at 89%. He also said he adjusts the velocity curve based on what he is playing; it seems most other users keep the default and a few something very close to default. Interestingly, not sure Philip is actually monitoring his playing with Garritan CFX

https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...garritan-cfx-lite-59-95.html#Post2666876

Yes, the latency is indeed very low, still, it doesn't feel as immediate as Pianoteq or the internal engine. I'm playing using headphones and a pretty good interface (Alva nanoface) with dedicated asio drivers. Maybe I'll try taking it to 88.2khz, but I doubt the CPU will take it without crackles.
Anyway, the comparison was between cfx and pt, using the same settings. And it probably has more to do with the way the sound is generated and the immediacy of playing it back, than with the actual latency in itself.

Fixing the pedalling was the first thing I did, thank you for the suggestion! I'm sure I would've found it simply weird on the default setting, I've experimented the described behaviour in other samples.

As for Philip, he"s an amazing player, better than I ever dream to be. I've followed all his recordings. I'd be really interested for him to test PT and share impressions
But he invests a lot of time in the recordings, for just that purpose - recording - whereas I am interested in playing the vst. If my memory serves me right, his recordings are put together playing the n3 internal sound engine and afterwards using the midi with the cfx. Adjusting the velocity according to the piece is an interesting concept, and makes sense in this scenario, but I'm not sure I'd go that route for actually playing the vst. It's unrealistic, especially if you want your experience to be as 'real' as possible. More 'real' for listeners, less 'real' for playing. As for the dynamic range, I'm thinking it undergoes some compression afterwards, because for live playing, even the default 50 seems unrealistic to me (I think I've set it at 37,notbsure), but maybe that's just me. It may be that the dynamic range is more accentuated in some mic perspectives and less obvious in others, but that's just me speculating.

Thank you very much for the settings link! I intend to thoroughly read through other's settings and experiences with the cfx to get the best out of it.

As a point of reference it might be useful to compare latency to that experienced in a physical piano, which is NOT instantaneous.
e.g. all that is involved from key strike to sound received; action delay, hammer flight time, string vibration, sound board vibration and the coincidences of the overtones to produce the final sound.
I doubt that all of this takes less than 6 ms