Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
There seems to be quite a few misunderstandings about the difference between Modeling and Sampling, which are quite different technologies for Digital Pianos. Today, full modeling is only offered by Roland and Viscount/Physis (originally developed by the latter for their organs)
Interesting. Thanks for the link. The conclusion is that modeling is still not very convincing because of missing features in the model as well as inability to understand and model dissipation.
I think the Pianoteq guys have made a lot of progress since that paper was written, and of course we know nothing of the equations Roland are using. Anyway, I am sold on my Roland LX 706 engine.
Life is a smorgasbord, and I want to taste everything.
Modeling VS sampling battle reminds me of old Sega helicopter games, "LHX Attack Chopper" and "Desert Strike".
LHX - ugly picture, but 3D and closer to reality
Desert Strike - better picture, but no real 3D, no imitation of real chopper
The choice is yours.
If you wonder what may happen if you start learning piano as an adult (at the age of 33, for example) - subscribe my channel and let's find this out together:) YoutubeChannel
Modeled piano sound is like Pixar movie - cool but you can see (yet) it is not real.
Sampled piano sound is more real, but there is no full immersion (yet), and how cool it is depends on how good the team and the script are.
Acoustic piano sound is real like your life is, but you have to pay the real price, agree that it is what it is, and it will grow older and take a lot of beating.
Last edited by VladK; 09/18/2006:16 PM.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. (falsely attributed to Plato) Vlad, Adult beginner
(It's the best tool yet invented for structured writing.)
The article may be written directly with LaTeX. With some tools like StudioTeX or www.overleaf.com, it is more practical than it used to be.
About piano synthesis, both approaches have their advantages, and people won’t agree on which is better. The comparison of helicopters game is quite nice.
I have listened to a bunch of comparisons recently, and I can tell you that 90% of the people wouldn’t hear the difference of a recorded Steinway D, a good sample library and Pianoteq.
In reality though it doesn’t really matter. If you want the real model D sound, cough up the 200k an buy one. If you are like me and that’s a bit much, you will have to make a compromise of some kind.
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording. But when you buy a Steinway (or any acoustic piano) you listen to the piano, not to a recording. Approximately 100% of people can hear the difference.
Interesting. Thanks for the link. The conclusion is that modeling is still not very convincing because of missing features in the model as well as inability to understand and model dissipation.
Within the constraints of consumer (and professional) products, there is nothing that surpassed wave memory synthesis based on sample recordings so far.
The only thing "pure physical modeling" had going was memory constraints of past wave memory synthesis technologies, but memory became cheap and plenty now, so that issue is a thing of the past now. Even flash memory became so cheap now, that people store hundreds of gigabytes of VSTi libraries on it.
For leading manufacturers of synthesizer hardware sample transformation is on par with "pure physical modeling", as they obviously employ modeling algorithms as well. (VSTi sample libraries are behind there, but they don't represent the state of the art. Just as Pianoteq doesn't represent the state of the art of "pure physical modeling".)
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording. But when you buy a Steinway (or any acoustic piano) you listen to the piano, not to a recording. Approximately 100% of people can hear the difference.
Corona didn't do this forum any good. There is an influx of new accounts, who quickly became self-appointed experts on acoustic and digital pianos. You can read this kind of BS every day now on every thread.
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording. But when you buy a Steinway (or any acoustic piano) you listen to the piano, not to a recording. Approximately 100% of people can hear the difference.
Not really, because the reason why people use VSTs is because they can’t afford the 200k for a Steinway. So you will have to get the next best thing, and that is a recording.
And it you compare the VST to a real piano it will loose every time. So the only fair comparison is with another recording.
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording. But when you buy a Steinway (or any acoustic piano) you listen to the piano, not to a recording. Approximately 100% of people can hear the difference.
Not really, because the reason why people use VSTs is because they can’t afford the 200k for a Steinway.
No, this is not the reason why people use VSTi plugins. You don't have a clue what's going on in that market.
The reason why people spend thousands of dollars on a collection sample libraries is because setting up a Steinway grand for recording is a day long hassle and plugins offer a shortcut saving precious time.
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording. But when you buy a Steinway (or any acoustic piano) you listen to the piano, not to a recording. Approximately 100% of people can hear the difference.
Not really, because the reason why people use VSTs is because they can’t afford the 200k for a Steinway.
No, this is not the reason why people use VSTi plugins. You don't have a clue what's going on in that market.
The reason why people spend thousands of dollars on a collection sample libraries is because setting up a Steinway grand for recording is a day long hassle and plugins offer a shortcut saving precious time.
Jupp, and the reason is (surprise): Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Btw., you know nothing about me. Better limit the assumptions of what I know and don’t know a little bit.
Edit: Time in that case of a production is just the same as money. Something that is rather limited for producers that can’t afford Steinways anyway.
That's a false comparison. With a digital you listen to a recording.
It's comparing a real recording of a piano with a recording of a real piano. 🤔
For the comparison to be good, ou have to compare recording of Steinway to recording of recorded Steinway. I guess that if you put mic in a room where Steinway and DP stand and record Steinway sound (name it A) and DP's sound (filling the room thru built-in speakers or monitors, no matter, and name it B) most people will prefer A.
If you wonder what may happen if you start learning piano as an adult (at the age of 33, for example) - subscribe my channel and let's find this out together:) YoutubeChannel
Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Not true about Pianoteq. It’s a very recognizable metallic sound.
