Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Digital Pianos - Electronic Pianos - Synths & Keyboards Modeling vs Sampling

As I mentioned VST libraries do not represent the start of the art of sampling technology. In fact no Kontakt library does.

Pedal implementation has absolutely nothing to do with the "modeling vs. sampling". With Pianoteq being the only PC implementation getting it mostly right, people like to come to this wrong conclusion and assume that's a feature of modeling. It isn't.

Please compare actual hardware instead of behind-the-curve PC implementations.

I'm sorry - I actually don't understand what you're getting at. I've shared my experience based on software (sampled vs modelled) that is available for me to try, and it looks like some people have found that interesting.

I think that's what forums are for?

Which hardware?

Seb, you’ve only tried sampled VST-s that are not among the good ones and don’t support repedaling or half-pedaling. You may want to try Garritan CFX with my own repedaling fix (there’s a thread about it). IMO it’s more playable than Pianoteq while also being drastically better sounding.

Yes, I second that! Or you can try the Ivory American Concert D. It's a sampled piano but the resonances are modeled. But to me, I hear no difference in this, versus the sampled resonances in the Ravenscorft 275. To me, these resonances are all the same. But the Ivory American Concert D is quite playable with a great tone. Dated, yes, but still good.

Noire and Ravenscroft claim to support half pedalling and repedaling - is this not the case? Does Garrison CFX support a continuous pedal with more than 3 values? If so, it's something I'd like to try!

I think this perspective is more prevalent in those who own an acoustic kor who have ready access) as a primary instrument. In that case, the realism of the DP just isn't as high a priority because they always have the real thing. For those who have a DP as their only piano, it's oftentimes much more important that the DP be as accurate a simulation as possible (because they don't have any other choice).

I haven't personally played Noire or Ravenscroft but from the other user's opinions I've read, it seems half-pedaling and re-predaling are not very well scripted.

As to number of half-pedaling steps in Garritan CFX, I've just tested it and I can't notice any stepping, so it is either fully continuous or has enough steps to be unnoticeable. Maybe Jeff Hurchala (the developer, but he only rarely participates on this forums) can confirm this. The problem with Garritan is it can't be tested as Pianoteq and there's chance that you won't like it either and there are people who are still impressed more by Pianoteq. There's also some noise in Garritan CFX which may be more pronounced and annoying through particular headphones/speakers that seem to accentuate it... But if you're feeling adventurous, the lite versions is $70 AFAIK, which isn't something that will make a huge dent in your pocket. It lacks the distant microphones and thus makes it sounding dry, compared to the full version which captures the real ambiance of Abbey Road studios, but Lite is more or less representative of what you may expect in terms of playability and timbre quality and you can later upgrade to the Full version. The full version is really worth it IMO, even if for the added distant microphones on the classic mic perspective. I don't even use the other two perspectives that come with Full.

The Ravenscroft can set a threshold where the half pedaling can take affect, and how this effect ends. So there are two midi values one can set. Personally, I think it's pretty good.

The modeling team is represented by Roland etc.
The sampling team is represented by Yamaha, Kawai, Clavia Nord and Dexibell etc.

Their digital piano implementations are all way ahead of what is available as PC software, with the latter being stuck in the late 1990s to the early 2000s. I mean Yamaha solved half-pedaling in toy keyboards like NP-32, while expensive software still struggles with it like 1990s digitals did.

Digital instruments get measured them by what they advertise. There we have pictures of concert grands everywhere, regardless if brochures by hardware manufacturers or VSTi vendors. So that is the expectation they have to meet. I've never seen VSTi UI, which comes with the picture of a Casio keyboard. Even Pianoteq advertises "Steinway D".

So if they fall short, that is rightfully mentioned.

Are you claiming that the sampling technology is the current crop of digital pianos is better than software alternatives?

If so this is demonstrably absolute rubbish!

I think he refers just to the half-pedaling thing. Most digital pianos engines have good implementations of the half-pedaling.

But then most (all?) digital piano have such short sustains (probably to hide looping?) that it's kind of useless....

Only if they get measured by what they advertise. I think we've just seen here in this thread that not all people do so.

And that's fine. The point is that everyone has different criteria and standards, depending on their needs.

+1

As with any acoustic piano, playing and listening intently to the musical response is the key to unlocking the magic of Pianoteq. I feel like the musical depths of Pianoteq ought to be undeniable.

Objections to the core quality of the sound are certainly understandable, and even objectively quantifiable per the paper, but I've found even acoustics to have various flaws that I eventually overlook. I find the Pianoteq Bechstein, Steingraeber, U4, and others, to be quite enjoyable in practice.

Pianoteq instruments also vary in age -- generally the more recent or highly updated ones are superior.

That's not my experience with my Kawai DP (CN37). It has such a long and powerful sustain that you have to learn to use the pedal with great care if you want to get a nice sound. And if you want you can even make the sustain longer (or shorter) by changing a parameter in the options.

Is looped sustain as big a problem as many say it is? Can't we just drown it in reverb, LOL?

The thing with Pianoteq is, if you play a comparison of let's say the Modern U and the U4, the Modern U sounds better. But that's kind of a sterile comparision that focuses on one very specific (albeit important) aspect. For me, for daily practice, Pianoteq is still the best solution in my current setup.

I'd think in theory it could be done very well, maybe even with some clever effect that makes the looped parts sound a bit different so the repeating of parts of the sound wouldn't be as noticable.

Still of course, unlooped is best. I think looped samples in 2020 is just not necessary, and a cheap solution.

The looped samples on my yamaha cp33 were terribly noticable.