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

This is interesting because I cannot understand how anyone could ever make that statement.

It sounds very close and working live from top to bottom. In fact, digital equipment around it vs acoustic sounds makes understandable difference rather then Pianoteq. What do you want more from digital piano ? You have some kind of depression EssBrace ? Play Pianoteq you will feel better.

Slobajudge, I think you are crossing some borders by constantly making comments about people "having depression" if they don't like Pianoteq. I believe moderators shouldn't tolerate this behavior and I am going to report you.

What, because I don't agree with you? The PianoTeq fans can sometimes seem to be more than fans; disciples almost. That kind of zeal for a product means there is no perspective. It also means such opinions are worthless because there is no balance in the points made.

No, I am just fascinated about your efforts to post lots of negative comments about it without any good rational explanations, so the logic conclusion is maybe there is some problems exist or you think that your digital piano will grow into acoustic anytime soon. Sorry for that.

Whatever, I reported you. You can go over your posts and my posts and see how detailed and "good rational explanations" I've given while you're just making personal accusations. This is the last time I'm responding to you and I'll keep reporting you if needed.

FWIW - The 'sound and playability' of the Pianoteq Model D and B are authorized by Steinway & Sons, which is a feat in itself. Though I wish we had more details on what that means exactly.

Also the listening experiences of different people may depend on the speakers. For example, I like Pianoteq through my headphones or my QSC K8s. The QSC K8s can move enough air that it becomes an experience. But my Bose home system loses enough oomph, that I'm left scratching my head.

I've also been messing around with sound exciters to build a 4x6 ft soundboard. The sound can be impressive when I press the exciters up against dry wall, especially with some sound re-enforcement from the QSC K8s. But I'm still reviewing all kinds of materials and shapes for the actual soundboard. Plus I'm still trying to get my head around the ramifications of running the sound of a "modeled soundboard" through an actual soundboard ...

Oh, I am sorry, don`t you cry, everything will be all right. I will buy for you any sample piano you want.

You know the upper mids of Ivory 2 ACD sound kind of brittle through my speakers. As Ivory 2 is comprised of hyper detailed samples of a real Steinway, I conclude that the problem must be my speakers. No one's going to say that $100,000 Steinway is a piece of crap. They might say the sample doesn't deliver the resonance or the responsiveness, or velocity layers - but they're not going to say it's a bad piano or say, "They're lying. It's not a Steinway."

But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.

You make a very good point.

In my case however I want to like it. I'm ready to be won over like pushing against an open door. I own the original modelled piano to this day. I also spent a fortune on a Roland V-Piano. I've listened to loads of PT demos. Just a few days ago I spent yet more money on a Roland FP-90. For modelling I'm a ripe fruit ready to be picked!

But still the sonic deficit remains. There is not enough deep detail in the sound to convince me it is a real piano. I get that they are all playable. I agree with that. I don't think they are night and day better for playability than good sampling. The better samplers (hardware and software) play very well but the modellers do behave quite convincingly when set up right. Just please...Roland...PianoTeq...give me those last couple of pieces of the jigsaw so I can suspend my disbelief and feel I am listening to a real piano.

Some people want to love milk, but they're lactose intolerant. It's a matter of taste.

Actually, I wouldn't blame your speakers, I would blame the Ivory 2 ACD. I have it, and the sampling really isn't all that great, contrary to its former reputation (which I sense has taken a bit of a drop since better VSTis came out).

More generally, though, it's a fair point about equipment. Of course, comparisons can and should be made between sampled and modelled pianos using the same equipment, and preferably good equipment. My setup is not stellar, but I have a 124dB DAC, a good quality neutral silent headphone amp, and various decent headphones of which the HD-600s are probably the most neutral and the HD-650s also pretty good, and I generally use those. It's entirely possible that this setup somehow favours sampled pianos over Pianoteq such that Pianoteq sounds less realistic to me. In fact, I'm sure that must be a contributing factor. But I'm not yet convinced it's the main factor.

Yeah, me too. I don't particularly like sampled pianos; I infinitely prefer sitting at a real acoustic piano, even with its inherent deficits and limitations. I would be absolutely delighted to have a modeled piano VSTi that I could use with a DP, customise to my own taste or just for variety, which would be fully responsive, with a small footprint and an infinite range of possibilities. I even do modelling work in my job on occasions, so I'm totally sold on the idea of the benefits of modeling and the fun of playing with a good model. I should be Pianoteq's target audience, I should absolutely love it. But I just can't get past the fact that, to me, it doesn't sound like a real piano. I really, really wish it did.

I have a copy of Ivory 2 ACD too and while I see no issues in the sample recording itself, the American D grand they chose to record doesn't really speak to me. I wouldn't buy that grand if they would offer it to me and would chose a Hamburg D instead.

However I also see no playability issues with modern piano samples. The Kawai EX sample inside my ES100 isn't their most recent one, but Harmonic Imaging still works fine with flawless velocity mapping, just with a too short decay. The 22 velocity layers of the ACD are more than enough too.

I simply can't hear the praised advantages of modeling unless I dig out the ancient AWM sample of my Yamaha Piaggero keyboard, which is just a single layer with a filter, stretched over three keys, with a fraction of a second attack recorded and obvious looping.

Me, too.
The interface is nice. (Yes, it has too many adjustments, but most can be hidden and ignored.)
The velocity curve is easy to use. (Galaxy should take a page out of PT's playbook on that one.)
And it's playability is superb.
But it just doesn't sound like any acoustic piano I've ever played.

Here's what I do and don't understand:

1. People have sonic preferences. What one person likes another might detest. That much I can understand. No further explanation is needed.

2. Pianoteq has a Steinway emulation that to me sounds nothing like a Steinway. Further, aside from reasonably good tones in the lower two octaves, it doesn't sound like **any** piano to me. Very thin in the middle two octaves, and very synthetic in the next two. So, regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes a Steinway, and regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes its PT emulation, I cannot fathom how anyone could say that the one is even remotely similar to the other.

Point 2 point is not about differing preferences, upon which we cannot agree.
It's about sameness or difference. And yet we cannot agree on that, either.
I find this strange and inexplicable.

Isn't it a bit.. radical claim, especially now when Steinway apparently approves the sound of it officially (whatever this means)? And isn't it a thing that, unlike said "difference in preferences", can be proved or disproved in a solid, scientific way? Like, perhaps, by generating a midi file from acoustic Steinway (I know there are ways to achieve it), while recording its sound; then generating output from Ptq6 with this midi as well (while tweaking velocity curve to correspond to keyboard of the original piano somehow), then do whatever frequency analysis magic on it and show that whatever differences are there, they are way below some reasonable margin of error? I'm not a sound engineer and know nothing about tools available there in this age and time, so not sure whether it's all makes sense. But have anybody tried something like this before? Have Modart present such studies of their own (I guess they should do it a lot, while working on the software)?

This has been said before ...

But I like your addendum ...
So what does it mean? Without a statement from Steinway (or even with), can we reach any conclusion?

And does it matter? It only matters what the user/buyer thinks.

Well, we don't know what they think. We only know what very narrow vocal minority represented on this forum thinks (without any offense intended). And we don't know to what extent we can trust anything said here by anybody, including myself People can have strong (sometimes, unconscious) prejudice against something, their equipment may be faulty, or they may be not very good in dealing with hardware or software. And you can't completely rule out possibility of competitors trying to decrease value of others products, in this age and time of huge advertisement companies openly hiring people to shift public profile of certain products and companies by passing as regular users on forums. And pianoworld is certainly would be in their list, being a huge community of pro musicians.

There is a well-established cult of tube sound lovers, for example, which goes beyond a mere affection to a "nice noise". People spend ridiculous amounts of money buying some specially shielded cables and specially crafted stands for them. Afaik, few proper researches and blind tests have been able to proof those investments actually change anything in the final sound, comparing to relatively inexpensive hardware. Yet, this business thrives even today. What teaches us that a lot of those issues with some sound may happen only in somebody's head.

That's why a solid, scientifically sound research has potential to put an end to this, showing there is little to no differences in both signals. Then some customer's opinion stops matter that much, unless there is a proof that it's shared by majority of customers with enough experience in the field.

In the world of food, there are such thing as supertasters who have an augmented ability to taste foods and are hypersensitive to bitter tastes. Maybe for piano sounds you Pianoteq naysayers are like supertasters. Unfortunately for the supertasters, they don't live as long because they don't eat their vegetables.

Somebody once said "You are what you eat"
I been eating veg for too long . . . . . . .