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

Licensing a logo is one thing. That's pay for play.
But where does Steinway say that they can hear no difference between their S&S D and a PT D?

I don't think that Steinway would allow just anyone to use the Steinway & Sons trademark and logo on any product, simply because they were willing to pay for it.

Do any of the virtual instruments sampled from a Steinway have the permission and imprimatur of Steinway & Sons to use their logo and trademark, as Pianoteq does?

I have been using the PianoTeq 6 demo since release and come to appreciate how well it plays.

Latency is very low. But most impressive is the consistently "tight" response; every note and velocity is exactly what my brain expects, just like a real piano. I think that is helping to improve my practice sessions and technique (significantly).

Blatently unscientific stats but I think the free trial is worth trying out for a week.

Thanks for the link. If the CPU can handle the Pianoteq load - it's the deal of the century. A Pianoteq Sound Module the size of a smart phone for around US$100-$150!!!

I notice they have an add-on card with balanced XLR ports:
https://www.hifiberry.com/shop/boards/hifiberry-dac-pro-xlr/

And there are touch screens for the Raspberry Pi in different sizes (3.5, 5.5, 7 inches). Here's a 3.5 inch one - https://www.adafruit.com/product/2441

We don't know whether any of them have asked; or if they did, how much $ Steinway wanted. So, there's really no conclusion to be drawn there.

BTW, in the Nord Piano library, the Steinway is the only grand they mention by name. I don't know if that means they got permission as well, or if something else is going on there, but it is curious that the other sampled grands (i.e. Yamaha, Kawai, Bosendorfer) have been alluded to in various ways, but never named outright, afaik.

Well, one can certainly see the reasons, marketing and otherwise, for an official permission or license to be sought from Steinway & Sons, and an inference can be drawn between such an imprimatur being granted, or being absent, from any particular virtual instrument modeled or sampled from a Steinway piano.

Yes, the desirability is obvious. That doesn't mean that every company has asked, nor that anyone who was turned down failed simply because their product wasn't good enough. It could have been a financial or marketing decision Which is why I disagree that...

You're assuming that everyone else (including Moddart for Pianoteq 5) asked and was turned down. We just don't know that for a fact. And even if they were indeed turned down for 5 and approved for 6, that doesn't mean they for the first time passed someone's threshold for "good enough." It could be a change in a marketing decision on Steinway's part to permit this sort of thing. Or it could be the first time Moddart asked, or the first time they were willing to pay the fee. Who knows?

Well certainly. Who knows how a cake appeared on a table, fully decorated and looking splendid, with the baker looking tired, his or her apron splattered with flour? It could have happened in any number of ways, including by random chance or even magic.

However, despite a variety of reasons, some more improbable than others, it is possible to make some reasonable inferences.

except I provided non-magical, perfectly reasonable alternate scenarios. Unless you work for Steinway or Moddart, there's no obvious reason to think your explanation is overwhelmingly more likely.

Sure. And as every TV detective learns, the most obvious conclusion is not always the right one. But often (especially in real life) they are.

I think the imprimatur was needed because without it, nobody would actually realise it was a Steinway D.

You're wrong of course, but that's probably the best contrarian's answer yet.

We'll you seem to start to make things personal. I know nobody give a d..mn if I would buy PT or not, but the discusion was how close PT6 is to the real thing. And when you start banging the bass notes somewhere down from c3 to c2 (assuming c4 = middle C) it doesn't sound completely natural to me , but has this modelled character , as with Rolands or any other modelling attempt. Lowest octaves (c1) and higher octaves sound surprisingly better in that respect.

It is not a problem at all to enjoy playing the new PT6 presets , which I've been doing a lot now. It really works very well and I do like it !! But if there is any room for improvement , or comment on the realism on the sound compared to what they pretent to represent , then a few lower octaves fall through IMHO when played loud (ff , fff). Turning up and down hammer noise is not the same as changing the attack as it is created as integral part of the modelling algorithms, its sounds more like turning the volume of a simple attack sample up and down. Better leave that at preset loudness , cause if you turn it down and play higher notes you might be in for an unpleasant surprise (hearing only the modelling engine taking part of the attack phase , without the added hammer sample sounds...we'll try it ;-) .

So yes , PT6 is good, yes it quite enjoyable to play, no these comments are not PT bashing , but dismissing all comments as mostly BS from people who don't know what they are hearing , or can't get themselves to play ANY instrument in a musical way is a little too easy. You can have both - use and enjoy PT for what it is AND still have some comments about room for improvement , perceived imperfections. In the meantime I'll just dig into PT6 some more; as others said it is good enough to not be bothered about some of the imperfections at all and just play the heck out of it, which I agree with. Doesn't mean these little itches do not exist and I think this forum is one of the places where they are usually put under the looking glass and discussed (until infinity !! ;-)

Still would have LOVED it , if it was an iOS app as well ! Current mobile hardware is fast enough, period. Me guess more a marketing than technical decision. Unfortunately.

Many people have urged Pianoteq to produce a version for iOS. However, I believe from discussions at Pianoteq.com that for the time being, it is indeed more of a technical problem than a marketing decision, including the general-application interface-building tools, which I believe are not available for iOS, and which are not produced by Pianoteq. In addition, touch-screen accessibility and functionality needs to be developed and tested. The Pianoteq developers are a small, devoted group, and I believe that they have many tasks and priorities that are ranked higher than an iOS port of the app at this time.

Yes, but I just don't agree that your conclusion is more "obvious" than the others.

Or let's flip it the other way. They do NOT have permission to use the names of some of the other piano models they provide. Does that necessarily mean, for example, that Kawai and Yamaha think the Pianoteq versions of their pianos are bad? And as I alluded to before, are you so certain that Steinway thought the version of their piano in Pianoteq 5 was bad?

Just wondering . . . if Pteq 5 D4 was so realistic, . . .would I have bought it for serious practice? Dammit, I only bought the Vintage (Bechstein) Selection 2 because it sounded so dreadfully like the real thing (awful) it was no more than a novelty that I got to really like. (Shrug)

If I were with Steinway and had been tasked with the decision or were part of a group to make that assessment, my opinion would have been to withhold corporate sanction of the Pianoteq 5 Model D. Pianoteq's Model B, released much later, showed major improvement in the realism of the model, and approached an acceptable threshold. With Pianoteq 6, the instrument algorithms and models have been further developed and extensively beta-tested over the last couple years, and both the Steinway Model D and the Steinway Model B have been brought up to the same standard that exists in the most recent Pianoteq model, the Grotrian Concert Royal.

At this time, if I worked for Steinway, I would be of the opinion that the Pianoteq model has improved to the extent that it would benefit both Modartt and Steinway to license the Steinway logo and trademark name for use with Pianoteq. My personal opinion is that the models have reached an exceptionally high level of realism and, perhaps as importantly, custom configurability. I believe that there is room for improvement, but as is often said, the last 5% of a goal can require about 95% of the effort and time.

It wasn't. But the Pianoteq 6 Steinway Model D is.

The Pianoteq 5 D4 was disappointing to me as well, even though I recognized the potential. I loved certain aspects of the sound, but not others, and I ignored it most often. But I am very happy with the improvements in the updated Steinway D for Pianoteq 6.



The Bechstein was and remains my favorite of the Pianoteq historical pianos.