Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Everything that goes through your mind about this piano

I'd say about the pianist too, but it's the technicians forum, so...only if you want to.

clip on clyp


Not trying to set anybody up, won't disclose anything that would embarrass anyone unless asked through PM. I promise! Like if someone says this sounds like Horowitz when in fact it's my grandmother, or thinks this is a Bösendorfer imperial when it's my friend's Steinmann upright. Ok, I made it up, it's not grandma.

It's not a piano. It's synthesized.

Did you write the music yourself?

Yes, my composition! But took me longer than usual, normally it takes me less than half an hour unless it's a symphony, but this time I spilled the midi notes all over the floor and had to pick them up one by one.

It's an amateur pianist; that narrows it down to about 8 billion, so I'll make no further prediction on that. The piece is obviously Debussy's Claire de Lune. I'm not sure about synthesized in the sense of artificially modelled (vs sampled and played back); it sounds more realistic than cutting edge models. It does sound strange, though, and I'm not convinced that all three strings are in use for each note here.

Sorry, I didn't say "Everything that goes through your mind about this piano" Like, why I know its a synth. I only listened for maybe 20 seconds, btw.

1. The percussiveness of the attack does not change with how hard the note is struck.
2. The timbre of the note does not change with how hard the note is struck.
3. The unisons are dead, as if there is only one string per unison. No change of timbre as the sound develops.
4. The mixture of the notes just sounds artificial, not like what happens when they are combined in a real soundboard.
5. The lower bass doesn't have the complex tone that a real piano has.
6. The tuning is too perfect.
7. The voicing is too even, and not quite like a real piano, anyway.
8. And last, it went through my mind about what you are trying to prove. Looking for entertainment in other's ineptness?

Thanks Karvala for responding. I'll wait for others that might choose to answer.

First I wrote this as I also read for 20 letters of the second reply:
Ok, then I take it back, I thought you were sarcastic. But yeah, 20 sec if you were concentrating on tone, not impossible to miss what piece it was.

But then I saw I was right. You jump to conclusions though I stated "Not trying to set anybody up, won't disclose anything that would embarrass anyone unless asked through PM. I promise!"

I just wanted some opinions totally without bias. If I'd explain why that would not be possible. So not trying to prove anything, and the ineptitude of people doesn't entertain me, it makes me sad.

I suspected what piece it was after the first two notes and certain after the third. Asking if you wrote it was just being playful.

But here is the thing, looking at it from a tuner's perspective. Suppose the first responding post from a piano tuner said something like, "Oh, that piano sounds lovely. It's a Fazioli, isn't it? How I wish I could tune, regulate, and voice a piano that well. Tell us, please, who your technician is! I am hoping I could start a conversation with him and learn to do what he does." And then it comes out that it was synthesized. Regardless of your statement of "Not trying to set anybody up, won't disclose anything that would embarrass anyone unless asked through PM. I promise!" It could have been very embarrassing and you would still be morally responsible regardless of your disclaimer.

You asked "Everything that goes through your mind about this piano ". First, it isn't a piano so forget about wanting something unbiased. The title of the Topic is deceitful. If you asked about the "recording" that would have been different, or if you had asked what do you hear, instead of "what goes through your mind". Possible results from the Topic and the reason for it were part of went through my mind. - you did ask and I did tell you. I hope you are not going to tell me what should have gone through my mind. Let's leave it there. No need to go further. Let others respond now.

Everything you say makes sense. But has nothing to do with my disclaimer. I promised to not tell the Fazioli is a software or a spinet etc. which means no irrefutable proof shows how wrong that tuner is. How would that come out then? There is no way to know.
The only way someone could make a fool of himself is by making outrageous statements like, "This is the best version I ever heard, or it sounds like Argerich or something like that. And only because everybody else knows that's insane without needing me to confirm. But that happens everyday, whenever someone makes a statement about anything there is a risk that someone else thinks he is nuts. So it's one's responsibility to not sound crazy.
About sampled libraries, I believe, with the risk to make a fool of myself, that in many situations it's very difficult to discern between a real piano and a "synthesized" one. You would need to look for other clues then sound. A sampled piano is a recording of a real piano, so we listen to a recorded piano in all instances. A "synthesized" one can masquerade a real one sometimes. Depends on the complexity of the whole thing. A real piano can sound like a sampled one too.

The "what's going through your mind" is just a language thing. But you seem to tell me what goes through mine. Which is to deceive people. Nice!

You are not encouraging others to reply

Then don't.

Sounds like my Grandma playing my Korg.

Best laugh I've had in a loooong time. Thanks!!!

The low tenor has small piano honk.

My very first thought was, "I don't click on links". So I didn't.

"quote" button seems to be broken. Comments on your comments:

(1,2) I thought high end MIDI pianos had different samples depending on velocity, so attack and timbre should vary.
(3) could be fixed by slight detuning the samples, or use real trichord samples?
(4) I don't know how to improve, I think that would be hard.
(5) If sample based this should not be the case.
(6) Should be trivial to fix in the computer program. (Or just use a real piano for samples?)
(7) Again if samples are from a real piano, voicing should be like a real piano?

I confess I don't hear any of this, and it sounds just like a real piano to me.

Kees

Kees:

Thanks for the response. The 7 points I mentioned were really in retrospect. First, I quickly realized that it was not a real piano, then I picked out the things that were definable. There may have been others that were just intuitive.

I strongly doubt this was sample-based. I haven't heard many, but those that I heard I could tell that they were real piano tones, yet something was still amiss. The unisons on one I remember were pretty good, but there were a couple outside what is acceptable to me. And that seemed soooo strange. Why weren't these notes re-tuned and re-sampled? And some 5ths and 4ths weren't as consistent as one would hope. But since I knew it was a keyboard with sampled tones, I guess I expected the best of both worlds. This was a while ago.

Sometimes I will hear a recording on the radio I am pretty sure is a sampled based but still partially synthesized keyboard. The high treble is often too good to be true and there is that blending of tones thing, too. But if you can produce a product that satisfies 99% of the customers, why expend more to gain very little additional market share? And like many things, that other 1% will have no choice when what they prefer is just no longer available at a reasonable price. You know, one size fits all.

Thanks Karvala and DoelKees for responding. Now because of low interest in the subject I take down the file.