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

Actually I agree with you on that. I have entirely forgotten about reverb. I was thinking about things like pedaling, half-pedaling and resonances that are spot-on.

But yes, the real ambiance in Garritan CFX (and other libraries with distant mics) is another area which is lacking in modeled pianos (and any other digital/software piano with algorithmic reverb).

Regarding to the playability and how the VST responds to the touch, it is all tweak-able by the velocity curve. From my experience, different VSTs really need a different velocity curve if using the same keyboard. And if you switch to another keyboard, you need another velocity curve. I do think that this affects a lot more than whether it is sampled or modeled. For example, 20 velocity layers in Garritan CFX is already a lot but how to map these 20 layers is the key.

Now going back to the original question, for digital pianos and VSTs, we have a few different approaches:
1. DP manufactures with about 5 velocity layers with interpolations
2. Most sampled based VSTs with 8-36 layers that people usually like here, but without interpolations (Ravenscroft, Ivory II ACD, Garritan CFX, Embertone Walker 1955, etc.)
3. Brute force sampled VSTs with huge layers (~70 layers in VSL Synchron Pianos, and ~100 layers in VSL Vienna Imperial)
4. "fully modeled" solutions such as Pianoteq and Roland. Theoretically it should have 127 layers.

A lot of people noticed that these numbers are only on paper and more velocity layers really did not mean better playing experience. We also have a lot of variations here, such as how well those layers interpolate, and how well is the model in Pianoteq. How do we map those 70 layers of timbers in VSL Synchron Pianos to the 127 midi levels, how to map midi levels with loudness, and how to map "hammer velocity" to a midi level.

My personal impression is that interpolations tend to make the sound less detailed and lifeless, and fully model solution is not able to create a realistic attack sound at this point though the versatility of the sound is good. I do think that the "brute force" sampled solution by VSL has its edge at this point if sampled, implemented and scripted well.

In terms of pedaling, Pianoteq wins hands down followed by hardware DPs. Software VSTs are lagging behind. In terms of reverb, I agree with Gombassa and CyberGene that the real reverb is so much better than the artificial one, and it actually hides some "defects" of the sampled VSTs (sympathetic resonance, pedalling, note release, etc)

Reverb is definitely a challenge, however Pianoteq doesn't do so bad, from a piano player perspective.

If you want Pianoteq to sound really bad -- turn off reverb. That also helps demonstrate how well Modartt is actually doing. You don't have to care about anything other than the default reverb settings while playing.

For production purposes, you can reposition mics easily and use an external reverb, but that is optional, depending on your mix and depending on what you want to achieve in your recording.

I think Pianoteq mic positioning + Valhalla Room does a remarkable job here, for example:



I definitely hope that reverb is something that's revisited in Pianoteq 7 though, as it could have a tremendous payoff in how Pianoteq is perceived by critics.

I don't think the reverb is "bad" or unpleasant sounding on most any modern VST/hardware implementation. It's just that to my ears, nothing holds a candle to Garritan CFX (and presumably some other far-mic'd VSTs like VSL) in terms of actually sounding authentic/realistic. CFX really sounds like you're in and being recorded in the space, as opposed to just having a nice reverb effect applied to the tone.

The downside of course is that you can't really modify/customize that authenticity if you're not a fan of it or want a different ambiance. IMO, it does this one thing really, really well, but of course ya gotta like that one thing to have it be worth it.

That's the impression i always got of vsl vst's as well, because in most of their demo's you hear alot of far mics, I don't know why they do that. To me that echoing sound isn't nice at all.


I was happy to find the close mics are close, as they should be. And then you have mid mics, which are... well, mid, as they should be. A vsl piano doesn't have to sound anything like these far mic'ed deno's.

Pianoteq is a great modeled harpsichord. But Pianoforte modeling, well...

Which harpsichord do you recommend in Pianoteq? There are several options but I haven't really explored them.

Pianoteq even lets you play them with pianoforte-like dynamic expression -- might make for something interesting if you find the right music to play.

According to the Ivory page :

“Sample Interpolation Technology used for ultrasmooth velocity and note transitions”

Then Synthogy Ivory’s pianos are among the few VST (the only?) which use interpolation and avoid any velocity layers gap.

Kontakt enables velocity crossfade (see https://www.adsrsounds.com/kontakt-tutorials/creating-key-and-velocity-crossfades-old/ ) but this doesn’t mean many Kontakt librairies use this feature. I suppose we can even have phase cancellation if samples are not well aligned.

I only tried the free KiViR instruments.


Indeed Synthogy ACD allows you to reduce the number velocity layers to save memory and interpolates between them. Also its half-pedaling is at least half-decent. Sadly the Steinway they recorded is just not a very great instrument.


That's exactly the "playability" issue Software users talk about all the time. Low-end digital pianos only provide a single layer and are still pretty playable. However the latter sometimes leads to the "banging the keys" phenomenon when single-layer players switch to an acoustic piano.

How can I measure the sample length on my piano? How did you do that? Did you connect it to an oscilator and analyze the ouput graph?

I know, in the end what matters the most is "how it sounds to my ears". But I'm just curious about this.

Read the DPBSD thread by dewster. (Go to the "master sticky" thread. There you'll find a link to the DPBSD thread.)
In the first few posts dewster explains his measurement techniques. You might find an answer there.
For me, though, the point is moot ...

I just received an email from NI regarding Cremona Quartet and it mentioned "phase-aligned stereo samples". I don't know if that means on cross-fade, or it's just marketing speak for "we know how to record in stereo". Reminded me of this thread anyhow.
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/cinematic/cremona-quartet/?content=5515

edit: it does say "Phase aligned velocity crossfades on long articulations".

phase-aligned probably mean that they apply calculated delays to samples recorded with different pairs of stereo mics, i.e. ambience mics sound with, say, 20ms delay to close ones. This will result in more pleasant echo/ambience/reverb thanks to proper transition between, and mix of, close and ambient sample velocitiess.