Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Acoustic Steinway Model B vs Pianoteq Model B

I don't know why people get so upset about this. We completely acknowledge that they have a clever approach with minimum storage and calculation power requirements at the customer side, which still able to almost reproduce a piano. That is an impressive achievement on its own.

But I'm questioning the need for that in the current day and age, where a simple phone app is larger than the Pianoteq distribution package.

The solution without arrogance is simple: Ask them. It will be really good to know how they do it.

I didn't say it's a sampled piano, you're quoting me wrong.


It's this kind of ad hominem sarcasm that got you banned last time, do you remember?


They have never answered about how they technology works and I've asked them many times. As a matter of fact I have exchanged communications with Philippe Guillaume, I've been part of the beta testing team and I have a deep respect for his knowledge but that doesn't mean he should explain their technology to anybody outside Modartt.

Why don't you answer the question, why I need a virtual piano, which download size is smaller than a typical phone app?

Because I see no reason why the install size of Ptq has to be a fraction of my Intel Wi-Fi driver, which takes around 400 MB. And don't let me start on web browsers or other utility software installed on any modern PC.

In 2018 it's a completely useless metric to assess the quality of a virtual instrument. If the installation package would grow by factor ten from 40 to 400 MB improving the sound from virtual "almost piano" to virtual piano. I would take that any day. I have 500 GB of SSD space and many TBs of hard drive space to spare.

Sorry if I do that.


Yeah, I remember, it was hard for 30 days, but your arrogance is still here. It is not hard to respect art.

Deeply sorry for my mistake, but from your posts I cannot see that respect. There is no reason for me to defend Modartt in any case, but can`t stand negativity without reason.

I am no against, anything that will improve piano I vote for. I am with you. At the moment my favorite piano is Emberton Steinway with 180gb.

Well, count me as indifferent because I don't really care how it works.
I only care about how it sounds.

Thats is a lot to digest in a thread just about comparing two audio samples.
That are quite far reaching interpretations of the notion of "audio compression".

@Cybergene,
You are reaching some hefty conclusions, deduced from "no knowledge" and "no time to study" a patent description, be it applicable or not.

I do not see any "fanatical defense" by "avid proponents", but there are quite a lot of satisfied Pianoteq users, who barely are able to understand that kind of strange criticism.

For me personally Pianoteq just works and it sounds very good for its price. The technology by Pianoteq also seems to be worth a cooperation for quality manufactures of accoustic grand pianos, e.g. Steinway, Grotrian, Blüthner and Steingräber.

You seem to mistake criticism for disrespect. Besides, even if you think I am arrogant and have no respect of anything you like, you need to report me if you think it's against the rules.

Anyway, I've always had my arguments when criticizing Pianoteq. And sorry, but software is not art per se. It's just a software and no software is perfect. I don't have to show respect for software, especially when I find faults in it.

Because it is not topic of this thread. I'd suggest you create another thread for this topic.

I have clearly stated that's the case. It's a disclaimer of sort. If you believe I am wrong, please feel free to correct me based on the patent document, not on my admittance I might be wrong.


I was referring to some other threads in the past, including ones where slobajudge was using insults against me and other forum members which ultimately led to him being banned for 30 days.

P.S. You're also quoting me wrong. I didn't say I have "no time". I said I didn't have enough time for detailed review but I still had time to go through the patent. And I didn't say I have "no knowledge". I said it requires mathematical knowledge. I have a degree in physics and have had many separate mathematics course including calculus, differential equations, computational physics, numerical analysis. I haven't practiced that so I am no the best at understanding that in a blink but it's far from "no knowledge" which I didn't say.

That's what we are here for. :-)


Remember MOD files? They worked by storing audio samples of instruments and reproducing whole pieces by replaying and mixing them at various pitches. A mix of WAVE and MIDI. Reaching impressively low file sizes at reasonably high audio quality in the 1980s already before MP3 audio compression was even considered possible.

This approach could be subsumed under "audio compression" as well, involving a human doing all the work to put the file together. Not that different from what digital instrument makers do.


You have to accept the fact, that humans like different things about the rich tone of a concert grand piano. It has something for everyone. And some "modeled" instruments fail to capture what some people like about it.

I haven't brought up the topic of file size. That was someone else.

Cybergene,

Again, both is not topic of this thread here, in which OP has stated a clear and simple question.
Why do you not directly address the forum member of your choice, but use generalising statements instead. Claming and Disclaiming is nothing but a tedious cat and mouse game.

It will ruin my way of existence. Not me.

I was elaborating on someone else posting the patent. You can't simply forbid me from answering someone else's post even if it's offtopic. And it's not offtopic IMO, it's related to comparing a real piano and a modeled piano and we're discussing the way the modeled piano works. It's up to moderators to decide whether that needs to be separated in another thread. I don't believe so.

As to my remark about Pianoteq proponents and their way of defending the software, my apologies. That was probably offtopic indeed.

Truth be told, I didn't create this topic to say Pianoteq is the best, everything else sucks, nor to encourage the opposite view where Pianoteq sucks, no matter what.

I simply found this interesting, since this is the best A - B comparison I've seen, done by the same pianist. I was curious if people would guess right and what were the impressions (good as well as bad).

I don't think there's a point to such heated talks, since both sampled and modeled approaches have their qualities, and to each their own. But if anybody considers this off topic productive though, so be it.

Pianoteq could become useless if the sampled pianos worked well. But they don't except a few of them. Even some new sampled pianos don't have half pedaling. I said that before on another thread: I also hear that the sound is a little synthetic on Pianoteq, but it plays so well that I prefer it to the most of sampled pianos. The amount of Gb is not a problem anymore but honestly, except the Garritan CFX, which sampled piano has no flaws with velocity jumps, pedaling, noises...?

D'you guys EVER practice?

Guilty as charged...
I probably spend way more time around here than I do practicing, at least lately.