Piano World Home Page

Pianoteq 6!

Posted By: Pete14

Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 01:32 PM

Coming soon to a forum near you.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 01:42 PM

What's new/improved?
Posted By: dmd

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Pete14
Coming soon to a forum near you.


And you know that how .... ?
Posted By: Pete14

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 04:43 PM

It seems like they release a new version every two years around this time (May).
Posted By: Doritos Flavoured

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 04:47 PM

ok, I'm all ears. smile
Posted By: login

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 06:04 PM

Hope it is close, want to hear the improvements and I hope they have an intro offer.
Posted By: Pete14

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 07:21 PM

When I upgraded to version 5, I got the U4 (upright) for free. This was part of a special offer.
I hope they have a similar offer when version 6 comes out. It would be great to get the new B model for free, or at a reduced price, with the purchase/upgrade to the new version.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 09:15 PM

I don't care about what offers it comes with - I just want it to blow my sox off!

Greg.
Posted By: ElmerJFudd

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/11/16 09:28 PM

Says who? Where is this Pianoteq 6?
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/12/16 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by ElmerJFudd
Says who? Where is this Pianoteq 6?


Says no one unfortunately. It's just wishful thinking on Pete14's part.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/28/16 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Pete14
It seems like they release a new version every two years around this time (May).


OK, it's near the end of May -- where's our new version release?
Posted By: sempianist

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 05/28/16 08:02 PM

The newest upgrade/bug-fix for Pianoteq 5 was released last month (22nd april, Version 5.6.2). It seems that they renew the program every 2-3 years... Maybe we should wait 2017 for Pianoteq 6?
Cheers
Semih
Posted By: Clavier_watcher

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/09/16 10:37 AM

Is it true they have a summer sale for Pianoteq? To me Pianoteq gets rather pricey considering I am only really interested in the simulators of C18/19 pianos which have to be added onto the cost of the basic program. I am more pleased with the simulations of these old pianos than the ones of pianos that I am only too familiar with and have been hashed to death in sample packs.
Pianoteq 2 sounds seemed to be based on a bell tone, and it sounds to me like they have done a lot of effective work recently to make it sound like a true string instrument.
Posted By: Fleer

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/09/16 03:12 PM

A new Rhodes mkII was added to Pianoteq's Electric Pianos bundle.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/09/16 04:09 PM

Quote
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/10/16 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by ElmerJFudd
Says who? Where is this Pianoteq 6?


Said a beta tester, as they broke their NDA.
(see other forums)
Posted By: Edb123

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/11/16 06:07 PM

Hopefully Pianoteq 6 will be getting released as an iPad app - it's another potential revenue stream for modartt

£7.99 seems reasonable to me

Posted By: Clavier_watcher

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/11/16 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Edb123
Hopefully Pianoteq 6 will be getting released as an iPad app - it's another potential revenue stream for modartt

£7.99 seems reasonable to me


Are you for real wink ... Modartt certainly aren't in the business of making themselves cheap. The program is only 40MB or so, you're paying for algorithms, yet they still charge at least 100 euro plus another 100 for ten period museum instrument models.
For what it's worth, I think their policy is wrong. I think they should just release one instrument without some of the tweaking people forget about after the first hour... at a far cheaper price.
Posted By: Kbeaumont

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 02:27 PM

Quote
For what it's worth, I think their policy is wrong. I think they should just release one instrument without some of the tweaking people forget about after the first hour... at a far cheaper price


Well that pretty much describes "Stage" which I think is an excellent value. An iPad & Android version with just one instrument for $19.99 and in app purchases of additional instruments would sell a lot more than the desktop versions!

Posted By: dmd

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by R_B
Originally Posted by ElmerJFudd
Says who? Where is this Pianoteq 6?


Said a beta tester, as they broke their NDA.
(see other forums)


Ah .... if only it were true.
Posted By: Charles Cohen

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Kbeaumont
Quote
For what it's worth, I think their policy is wrong. I think they should just release one instrument without some of the tweaking people forget about after the first hour... at a far cheaper price


Well that pretty much describes "Stage" which I think is an excellent value. An iPad & Android version with just one instrument for $19.99 and in app purchases of additional instruments would sell a lot more than the desktop versions!



Even "Stage" (which I own) has several different modelled pianos. And I suspect it needs more CPU speed than most iPads, and Android devices, offer.

It's not "consumer electronics", or mass-market software. Most beginning piano students won't be interested. Few customers, and substantial development costs, lead to its high price (relative to typical iPad / Android apps).

I'm sure Modartt would be happy to have millions of customers, and lower prices.

Posted By: Clavier_watcher

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Kbeaumont
Quote
For what it's worth, I think their policy is wrong. I think they should just release one instrument without some of the tweaking people forget about after the first hour... at a far cheaper price


Well that pretty much describes "Stage" which I think is an excellent value. An iPad & Android version with just one instrument for $19.99 and in app purchases of additional instruments would sell a lot more than the desktop versions!


Ah, no, you failed to grasp my point that I was interested in the instruments and not in the tweaks. Why would I be interested in the tweaks? Pianoteq lets me do things I would never bother to in real life- changing the length of the strings, the hardness of the hammers, the position of the hammers, aliquot strings, blah. Cute if I'm a nerd, but no more. I'm only interested in a piano simulator with a low resource overhead, not a build-a-piano simulator. I think this is a case of the mathematicians who designed this not seeing the wood for the trees. They might be very proud of how they've modelled these things, but it simply means little to me.
I'd rather have the option of one instrument I wanted than 2 tweakable instruments I don't want for 100 euro and then instrument packs on top.
Say I have a DP I already play in various tunings in hardware but want something with a seamless touch response rather than 4-levels of samples. I can turn to Pianoteq, but I get instruments I don't want, and features I don't want, for a bit too much money for just some relief from my hardware piano. It's not nimble and flexible enough as a product to me.
What may be playing on Modartt's mind about not releasing a mobile app is that what they have is something potentially unique in the studio for professional recording artists that has remained uncracked only due to its obscurity.
Posted By: login

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 08:37 PM

They could sell it for 50 USD (stage) on iPad, people interested in this kind of apps will expend the money. It is not a rare price for "pro" music apps.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/13/16 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Clavier_watcher
Ah, no, you failed to grasp my point that I was interested in the instruments and not in the tweaks. Why would I be interested in the tweaks? Pianoteq lets me do things I would never bother to in real life- changing the length of the strings, the hardness of the hammers, the position of the hammers, aliquot strings, blah. Cute if I'm a nerd, but no more. I'm only interested in a piano simulator with a low resource overhead, not a build-a-piano simulator. I think this is a case of the mathematicians who designed this not seeing the wood for the trees. They might be very proud of how they've modelled these things, but it simply means little to me.

Though I was never able to get a likable sound out of the Stage version.

Only the Standard version, which made the adjustments accessible and allows loading full user presets, allowed me finding a decent setting.

Otherwise I agree with you, we are here to play piano, not to become a piano technician.
Posted By: Kbeaumont

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/14/16 02:27 AM

There is very little you can tweak in the Stage version. Reverb, volume & eq pretty much the same as my FA-08.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 06/14/16 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kbeaumont
There is very little you can tweak in the Stage version. Reverb, volume & eq pretty much the same as my FA-08.


Plus:

Velocity curve
Dynamic Range
Pedal assignments
Damping Duration
Key Release Noise
Sustain Pedal Noise


Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/29/17 09:11 PM

Was thinking if there was any reason to put 30% discount for standard Pianoteq 5

Had a quick play with MS excel using data on PT's website about updates: proves nothing, but suggests it won't be long before Pianoteq 6 is released!

[img]http://www.instagram.com/p/BXJSD9Yg7xw/?taken-by=dougmarkham78[/img]
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/29/17 09:14 PM

Yes, it is now SUMMER in the northern hemisphere.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/29/17 09:38 PM

Measuring the time from the last change (eight months), conclusion is that version 5.81 is the last in version 5. Now we are guessing, fall or winter, maybe spring ?
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/29/17 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Measuring the time from the last change (eight months), conclusion is that version 5.81 is the last in version 5. Now we are guessing, fall or winter, maybe spring ?


Release dates of Pianoteq versions 3, 4, and 5 have been February, April, and May.

I suspect due to the increasing number of instruments within the pianoteq brand, it will progressively take longer and longer to prepare the next versions.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 12:02 AM

Probably, this is what I`m afraid of, but one step at the time, we are here now and Pianoteq 6 is close, I can not wait smile
Posted By: Buckster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 02:24 AM

I love Pianoteq (I have 5 Standard) - but somehow find the tone and sound of my daughters FP-30 more satisfying
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 06:58 AM

It's been over a year since I read that. Somebody was even betting on another thread it was going to be just another couple of months.
No version 6 yet. This is just the usual summer discount, and discounting before the new release doesn't make any sense in Pianoteq's case, because AFAIK they're offering free upgrading even for major version changes within 1 year from purchasing.
Anyway, I'm waiting with great interest for the new version. Still haven't decided if PT or CFX is the way to go. But I cannot try and see if the CFX's playability mimics a real piano close enough (though the sound seems flawless).
Posted By: jefinho

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 08:54 AM

It may take a while indeed. Since you're in doubt between the CFX and PT, I recommend the CFX for sound and perhaps even playability (if your system is fast enough). I own both PT and the CFX, and personally I think PT still sounds a bit fake if you compare it to sampled pianos. However, the Blüthner comes pretty close to the real deal.

Can't wait for version 6! Who knows I will completely switch to PT.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by jefinho
Since you're in doubt between the CFX and PT, I recommend the CFX for sound and perhaps even playability (if your system is fast enough). I own both PT and the CFX, and personally I think PT still sounds a bit fake if you compare it to sampled pianos.

+1
CFX is as playable as Pianoteq and as shocking as it might sound to some people, I actually find CFX more playable than Pianoteq. It’s been reiterated many times how modeled pianos are very playable while sampled are not but I think to some degree it’s an oversimplification. Playable means you’re in control of the instrument, you get inspired playing it and you have desire to play more. Well, I get that with CFX and not with Pianoteq.

Originally Posted by jefinho
Can't wait for version 6! Who knows I will completely switch to PT.

I’ve been telling this myself for the last 5 years and versions... I am losing faith already.
Posted By: Fscotte

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 11:42 AM

Pianoteq is simply not worth the price they ask, even with the discount.

It's a $50 package IMHO. Frankly you get two pianos, the Steinway D and the Kawai. I can't stand the sound of the K2 no matter what I do with it. The Steinway has about 2 settings that sound good to me. Frankly, you get one usable piano for $319.

Who cares if you can manipulate it to death. I just want a single awesome sounding piano that is easy to play. There's many good sampled pianos that do just that for far less.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
It’s been reiterated many times how modeled pianos are very playable while sampled are not but I think to some degree it’s an oversimplification. Playable means you’re in control of the instrument, you get inspired playing it and you have desire to play more. Well, I get that with CFX and not with Pianoteq.

That's exactly my view. I think most PT users, particularly beginners, would be surprised at how 'unplayable' they would find most APs. When I hear a PT performance I hear a sound which is uncontroversial, easy to manipulate, unexciting, almost invariably smoothed over with gobs of reverb - audio's most effective sticking plaster. And that's aside from its shortcomings in failing to achieve realism. A decent upright/grand has a characterful sound which is not always so easy to tame, not as 'playable' as one might hope. The better sample libraries get remarkably close, even if that entails having to develop the technique/s to get the best out of them.

I'm also suspicious of a retail model which tempts the 'completist' into buying - at very high cost - all the accessories in the expectation that therein lies the rainbow's end.
Posted By: lolatu

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Fscotte
Pianoteq is simply not worth the price they ask, even with the discount.

It's a $50 package IMHO. Frankly you get two pianos, the Steinway D and the Kawai. I can't stand the sound of the K2 no matter what I do with it. The Steinway has about 2 settings that sound good to me. Frankly, you get one usable piano for $319.

Who cares if you can manipulate it to death. I just want a single awesome sounding piano that is easy to play. There's many good sampled pianos that do just that for far less.

You can get the Stage version for €99. What you're buying is really a platform, rather than a specific piano sound.

I agree that the included pianos D4 and K2 are not much good, but you also get a whole load of historical pianos and various other instruments for free. The Grotrian and Bluethner packs at €49 each are a lot better, and very enjoyable.

Also the Pianoteq standalone software is much better than any other software piano out there.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 02:37 PM

If you're referring to the PT user interface ... yes, it's quite good in ways that many others are weak and hard to use.

PT's interface is also overblown. There are far too many irrelevant adjustments. Fortunately most can be hidden.
Posted By: scorpio

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 02:43 PM

Maybe I am naive. I am looking forward to Pianoteq 6. I enjoy Pianoteq.

Based on these comments, I question what I hear. When I come home from
my lesson on a Steinway, the D4 sounds just like the one I left. Is this
foolery?

I also find that Pianoteq is not easy to tame at all. The Yamaha digital I had
and my current Kawai MP11 are so much easier to play than Pianoteq.

But you guys are the experts in dealing with piano sounds. Every time
Pianoteq comes up, I question my reality. I really don't know.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by CyberGene
It’s been reiterated many times how modeled pianos are very playable while sampled are not but I think to some degree it’s an oversimplification. Playable means you’re in control of the instrument, you get inspired playing it and you have desire to play more. Well, I get that with CFX and not with Pianoteq.

That's exactly my view. I think most PT users, particularly beginners, would be surprised at how 'unplayable' they would find most APs. When I hear a PT performance I hear a sound which is uncontroversial, easy to manipulate, unexciting, almost invariably smoothed over with gobs of reverb - audio's most effective sticking plaster. And that's aside from its shortcomings in failing to achieve realism. A decent upright/grand has a characterful sound which is not always so easy to tame, not as 'playable' as one might hope. The better sample libraries get remarkably close, even if that entails having to develop the technique/s to get the best out of them.

I'm also suspicious of a retail model which tempts the 'completist' into buying - at very high cost - all the accessories in the expectation that therein lies the rainbow's end.

One of the interesting things about Modartt's business model is that they are not focusing only on generating an accurate acoustic piano experience; rather, they are focused upon creating a variety of modelled instruments that they can sell as a bundle or as an add-on. From their perspective, how much is there really to be made selling one amazing product: there are only so many potential users, and the average price a user might be willing to spend on one modelled piano (no matter how good) limits profitability, hence limiting R&D budgets. Instead, having a greater diversity of products in different package options increases cross selling and generates new market.

Who is investing this big in modelling? Only Korg, Roland and PHYSIS create hardware that uses full modelling, and then only for a limited number of instruments. It seems to me that Pianoteq are being more ambitious by modelling percussive instruments, e-pianos, legacy instruments and more acoustic piano models.

I'm not surprised that sampling has kept up with modelling, especially when bits of modelling are being combined with sampling. However, when looking at the potential of modelling, that is far higher than sampling. Today, weather forecasts are generated from modelled systems because other approaches can't capture the complexities. Weather modelling has taken 40 years to manage a decent 5 day forecast and accurate 2-day forecasts. I think Pianoteq modelling will only develop in small evolutions and may take a while to really utilise modelling's potential.

Whether you presently prefer a sampled VST over Pianoteq or not, it's clear that competition is rising. Do Pianoteq keep expanding the product catalogue, or do they consolidate? I think Pianoteq 6 will include more new piano models. Unless sampling gets so far ahead, I don't see a good economic argument for Pianoteq to focus on making the D4 tonnes better.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by scorpio
Maybe I am naive. I am looking forward to Pianoteq 6. I enjoy Pianoteq.

Based on these comments, I question what I hear. When I come home from
my lesson on a Steinway, the D4 sounds just like the one I left. Is this
foolery?

I also find that Pianoteq is not easy to tame at all. The Yamaha digital I had
and my current Kawai MP11 are so much easier to play than Pianoteq.

But you guys are the experts in dealing with piano sounds. Every time
Pianoteq comes up, I question my reality. I really don't know.


As we say in Bulgaria: if there are many cars that appear to be driving wrong-way, it's maybe you who are in the wrong way wink
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by scorpio
Maybe I am naive. I am looking forward to Pianoteq 6. I enjoy Pianoteq.

Based on these comments, I question what I hear. When I come home from
my lesson on a Steinway, the D4 sounds just like the one I left. Is this
foolery?

I also find that Pianoteq is not easy to tame at all. The Yamaha digital I had
and my current Kawai MP11 are so much easier to play than Pianoteq.

But you guys are the experts in dealing with piano sounds. Every time
Pianoteq comes up, I question my reality. I really don't know.

You are not naive, and believe me for something like Piano vst there are no experts anywhere. I also enjoy Pianoteq. There is no foolery for something you liked. In this case D4 included all modeling real parameters to sound like Steinway D. It is better with every version. Compare to only sound in samples (very subjective) D4 is x2 real piano. Most people here play Pianoteq only short time to try it from time to time or to little escape to something else and then bring not so good conclusions because of habit they adopt earlier. The same like me before. I give them 1 months to play only Pianoteq and then let them try to back to samples. Then they will realize that what was a piano horse earlier now behave more like a donkey and then will ask a question what happened ? Haha smile Just ride your horse.
Posted By: Alexander Borro

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by scorpio
Maybe I am naive. I am looking forward to Pianoteq 6. I enjoy Pianoteq.

Based on these comments, I question what I hear. When I come home from
my lesson on a Steinway, the D4 sounds just like the one I left. Is this
foolery?

I also find that Pianoteq is not easy to tame at all. The Yamaha digital I had
and my current Kawai MP11 are so much easier to play than Pianoteq.

But you guys are the experts in dealing with piano sounds. Every time
Pianoteq comes up, I question my reality. I really don't know.

You are not naive, and believe me for something like Piano vst there are no experts anywhere. I also enjoy Pianoteq. There is no foolery for something you liked. In this case D4 included all modeling real parameters to sound like Steinway D. It is better with every version. Compare to only sound in samples (very subjective) D4 is x2 real piano. Most people here play Pianoteq only short time to try it from time to time or to little escape to something else and then bring not so good conclusions because of habit they adopt earlier. The same like me before. I give them 1 months to play only Pianoteq and then let them try to back to samples. Just drive your car where you want.


There was a period where I used pianoteq pretty much always for a year or more, nothing else, very occasionally ivory ACD, I have not touched pteq in months now for some time. I look forward though to what the future may bring.

I am still of the view there is a place for both and one can enjoy both for different things qualities they have. Perhaps we have phases, depending on the repertoire we play and what we want out of the instrument.

In the last 6 months or so however I have been firmly planted in sample land once again, and I have no desire to open up pteq for anything. Especially after having adding the CFX lite too last month, but I've not spend much time with CFX as yet, using the ravens mostly at the moment and loving that. The CFX time will come no doubt.

Initial impressions of the CFX however ....

Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 04:52 PM

Thats OK, I watch both worlds and will try and play everything that I found to inspired me no matter engine. My door is not close for sampling, just not inspiring to me at the moment and I think I have all samples pianos. I play only classical and there is no compromise with playability for me. Ravenscroft is not my idea of piano and when I put it against Pianoteq, he beat Ravenscroft every time in a terms of sound, playability, functioning, etc, but thats me. That little difference in playability is a lot for me.
Posted By: Frédéric L

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 05:26 PM

Quote
I'm not surprised that sampling has kept up with modelling, especially when bits of modelling are being combined with sampling. However, when looking at the potential of modelling, that is far higher than sampling. Today, weather forecasts are generated from modelled systems because other approaches can't capture the complexities. Weather modelling has taken 40 years to manage a decent 5 day forecast and accurate 2-day forecasts. I think Pianoteq modelling will only develop in small evolutions and may take a while to really utilise modelling's potential.


I suppose sampling photos from satellite is limited because we can only predict yesterday's meteo. When using a piano we can assume the C4 from yesterday is the same than the C4 from today and the yesterday record is what we need.

Then we can get 88 perfect recorded notes... when using chords or worse 220 strings excited by sympathetic resonance... it become harder since we can't record every combination of notes, and the recorded damper pressed notes can't switch easily to plain notes while we release the pedal (I know 2 VST which use damper pressed records and have this issue).

Perhaps an hybrid solution (modelisation+records) is the best way (the Pianoteq patent talk about attack records).

Anyway, when comparing two products, only what I hear while playing matters. wink
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by scorpio
Maybe I am naive. I am looking forward to Pianoteq 6. I enjoy Pianoteq.

Based on these comments, I question what I hear. When I come home from
my lesson on a Steinway, the D4 sounds just like the one I left. Is this
foolery?

I also find that Pianoteq is not easy to tame at all. The Yamaha digital I had
and my current Kawai MP11 are so much easier to play than Pianoteq.

But you guys are the experts in dealing with piano sounds. Every time
Pianoteq comes up, I question my reality. I really don't know.

You are not naive, and believe me for something like Piano vst there are no experts anywhere. I also enjoy Pianoteq. There is no foolery for something you liked. In this case D4 included all modeling real parameters to sound like Steinway D. It is better with every version. Compare to only sound in samples (very subjective) D4 is x2 real piano. Most people here play Pianoteq only short time to try it from time to time or to little escape to something else and then bring not so good conclusions because of habit they adopt earlier. The same like me before. I give them 1 months to play only Pianoteq and then let them try to back to samples. Then they will realize that what was a piano horse earlier now behave more like a donkey and then will ask a question what happened ? Haha smile Just ride your horse.


Spot on. Pianoteq, or even most other software pianos are so different from the pianos embedded in your console; they're bound to sound alien at first. And the Roland or Yamaha sound you initially loved so much that you bought it, will become . . . puerile after a time.
But banish the software usurper, and you'll begin to love your resident donkey again.
It's worth noting that the Grotrian seems to be a decent step up from the D4 which may indicate substantial improvements to come. I use it more and more; it's good on trills.
I'm now just waiting for Roland to build a piano controller based on the PH50 keyboard . . . . .

Posted By: o0Ampy0o

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by jefinho
Since you're in doubt between the CFX and PT, I recommend the CFX for sound and perhaps even playability (if your system is fast enough). I own both PT and the CFX, and personally I think PT still sounds a bit fake if you compare it to sampled pianos.

+1
CFX is as playable as Pianoteq and as shocking as it might sound to some people, I actually find CFX more playable than Pianoteq. It’s been reiterated many times how modeled pianos are very playable while sampled are not but I think to some degree it’s an oversimplification. Playable means you’re in control of the instrument, you get inspired playing it and you have desire to play more. Well, I get that with CFX and not with Pianoteq.

Your signature indicates you are using the Lite version of CFX. If you get all of this satisfaction from the Lite version have you no desire to see how much better it might be with the full version? Looking at the comparison chart all the full version appears to offer are additional mic positions. Are those of no interest to you?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 08:30 PM

Full version only offers more mic perspectives compared to the lite. However the only perspective I am interested in is the binaural head mic. In another thread I’ve compared a rendering I did playing a Chopin prelude with Lite and then others exported it with various software pianos, including the binaural head and it didn’t sound like it’s worth the high price. Beside, the full version is not downloadable, I need to order a USB-flash drive from Garritan and it ships from US while I live in Europe so there’s huge cost involved when counting import taxes and shipping. The other way is to order the full version from Thomann, but then I can’t have the upgrade price from Lite to Full but need to purchase Full at the full price. All that is too much of a hassle to me and I am already so happy with Lite that I don’t find it worth it.
Posted By: o0Ampy0o

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/30/17 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Full version only offers more mic perspectives compared to the lite. However the only perspective I am interested in is the binaural head mic. In another thread I’ve compared a rendering I did playing a Chopin prelude with Lite and then others exported it with various software pianos, including the binaural head and it didn’t sound like it’s worth the high price. Beside, the full version is not downloadable, I need to order a USB-flash drive from Garritan and it ships from US while I live in Europe so there’s huge cost involved when counting import taxes and shipping. The other way is to order the full version from Thomann, but then I can’t have the upgrade price from Lite to Full but need to purchase Full at the full price. All that is too much of a hassle to me and I am already so happy with Lite that I don’t find it worth it.

Is there something you recall which you could hint at to track down this thread? I would like to hear this performance processed by several plugins. I searched your post history and could not find where this was done.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 06:09 AM

Software piano comparison
Posted By: o0Ampy0o

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by CyberGene

Thank you for the detailed response and link follow up. That was interesting. If the MIDI file were still around I would add a few more to that list.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 12:43 PM

I'm glad I have opened this can of worms - as if it weren't already open smile
Thank you jefinho, CyberGene and everybody else who provided extensive comparisons and expressed their preference!

I have played for a few months now the Pianoteq Bluthner on trial, with some changes to make it brighter and I love it.
I have tried different libraries in the past, but wasn't pleased with any of their response (pedaling, half-pedaling, repedaling, lifting the sustain, resonances, uneven and unrealistic velocity response and dynamic range).
Sadly, the CFX doesn't have a demo, so I have no possibility to try it. How does it handle everything listed above?
I play mainly classical, mid to high difficulty. The playability is what concerns me most.

I was waiting for a sale for quite a while now, hoping to make up my mind. About this - in the past weren't the PT instrument packs on sale too?
I see the CFX Lite is also on sale on sweetwater for 60$ (vs 175e ±50e the Bluethner).

A question for everybody owning both PT and CFX (lite):
Strictly for playing authenticity (velocity uniformity and realism, pedal response, resonances) what would be your pick?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 01:06 PM

I own both Pianoteq and CFX and really prefer CFX as I said. There's one CFX fix that is needed though. The re-pedaling out of the box is way too unforgiving so after a mail exchange with the CFX main developer I was given instructions on how to change a configuration file to make re-pedaling timings as I wanted and I've published those settings here on the forum, so let me know if you can't find them.

With that particular fix CFX is extremely playable and I use it mainly to play Chopin (ballades, nocturnes, preludes, waltzes, the easier etudes, etc.) where I apply a lot of half-pedaling, repedaling, subtle touch, etc. The only thing I don't quite like in CFX is the softest samples kind of have some slight noise to them in the background which I think might be due to the recording equipment/preamps/mics or whatever. Other than that, it's a lovely piano.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by mcoll
I'm glad I have opened this can of worms - as if it weren't already open smile
Thank you jefinho, CyberGene and everybody else who provided extensive comparisons and expressed their preference!

I have played for a few months now the Pianoteq Bluthner on trial, with some changes to make it brighter and I love it.
I have tried different libraries in the past, but wasn't pleased with any of their response (pedaling, half-pedaling, repedaling, lifting the sustain, resonances, uneven and unrealistic velocity response and dynamic range).
Sadly, the CFX doesn't have a demo, so I have no possibility to try it. How does it handle everything listed above?
I play mainly classical, mid to high difficulty. The playability is what concerns me most.

I was waiting for a sale for quite a while now, hoping to make up my mind. About this - in the past weren't the PT instrument packs on sale too?
I see the CFX Lite is also on sale on sweetwater for 60$ (vs 175e ±50e the Bluethner).

A question for everybody owning both PT and CFX (lite):
Strictly for playing authenticity (velocity uniformity and realism, pedal response, resonances) what would be your pick?


For 60$, if I were so interested, I might just buy it, try it, and if I didn't like it, sell it on eBay to recoup 40$.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 07/31/17 02:07 PM

@CyberGene: Thank you for the detailed answer. I remember you posting the details for the mod and I'll be sure to make them if I go for the CFX.

@ Doug M.: I'm not sure it's reselable, and even if it was, before going through the hassle, I would really like to hear the opinion of people who have experienced both. I know it's not a lot of money in some countries, but incomes vary, to the point where the price of PT may equate to one's monthly income, so trying to get a good idea of each product may be more important than you think smile
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/12/17 02:06 PM

To come back to the debate that I launched: I have purchased CFX lite for 60$ that same night. Unfortunately, I haven't had that much time, but have played it a couple of hours by now.
This is definitely the best sample I ever played, but even so, I have to say that I feel the same as slobajudge and scorpio (and others). CFX isn't quite there as far as playability goes. And pianoteq maybe isn't there for sound (although with some models I feel it's quite close). Both preferences are perfectly valid, and it will vary from person to person. It appears mine lies with pianoteq.

The CFX does sound absolutely great, but it has its flaws. First of all, my buffer is set to 64, I have a very good SSD and 16gb RAM, end even so, I feel the difference in latency between PT and CFX. I have adjusted to it, but it's most apparent in works such as Asturias and Cm Prelude from WTC I. Secondly, there's the resonances, which aren't up to the same level, though very good compared to other samples. The pedal noise is a bit weird, because it is heard every time you pass a certain point with the pedal, but it is heard with the same intensity, regardless of the speed you depress the pedal with. I have also perceived the "white noise", as CyberGene called it, in piano-pianissimo samples and it's quite bothersome in the moonlight sonata for instance. There's also the lack of staccato - this cannot be achieved. I think the dynamic range is unrealistic at default setting and I'm not pleased with what I've come up with. And other aspects that don't come to mind. I will thoroughly read the CFX threads to see what settings others use and make further adjustments.

All this being said, when playing for an audience or recording, I think the CFX does a fantastic job. It does indeed sound great. But when playing for myself, PT was a lot more realistic in feeling, it made me feel like I was in front of a real grand. This is immersive too and the sound is fantastic, but the way it plays isn't at the same level. I can be immersed when playing the CFX too, just not the same though.

In conclusion, although I don't regret the buy and I think it will get plenty of use, I wish I would've tried it before hand and put my money towards Pianoteq. Last year they had an anniversary 30% for standard as well as for any instrument pack. For the time being, I made my buy, but I will wait for such a sale again, because I'd go for Bluethner +/- Model B, or maybe some other piano. When I tried them, the Model D and the K2 sadly didn't convince me.
Posted By: newer player

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/12/17 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by mcoll
The CFX does sound absolutely great, but it has its flaws. First of all, my buffer is set to 64, I have a very good SSD and 16gb RAM, end even so, I feel the difference in latency between PT and CFX.


With a buffer of 64, round-trip latency should be quite low; I measured round trip latency of well under 6ms from keystrike to sound output on my headphones for Garritan CFX (44.1 kHz with buffer set to 64). Pianoteq is very efficient so getting this performance from Garritan CFX required some optimization with LatencyMon software & RME ASIO drivers.

- I'm sure you already know, if you can boost the sample rate (say from 44.1kHz to 88.2 kHz) without crackles, your latency will drop significantly. Free LatencyMon software and good ASIO drivers might help you optimize.

- For an experiment, if you move from loudspeakers to headphones, that should knock off another 3-4ms of latency, as sound travels about 3ms per metre.

Originally Posted by mcoll
I think the dynamic range is unrealistic at default setting and I'm not pleased with what I've come up with. And other aspects that don't come to mind. I will thoroughly read the CFX threads to see what settings others use and make further adjustments.


Many users have posted their settings. Make sure to fix the pedaling with CyberGenes simple patch. I

Philip Johnston recorded some nice pieces with the settings below. You will see his dynamic range at 89%. He also said he adjusts the velocity curve based on what he is playing; it seems most other users keep the default and a few something very close to default. Interestingly, not sure Philip is actually monitoring his playing with Garritan CFX

http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...garritan-cfx-lite-59-95.html#Post2666876
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 06:01 AM

Yes, the latency is indeed very low, still, it doesn't feel as immediate as Pianoteq or the internal engine. I'm playing using headphones and a pretty good interface (Alva nanoface) with dedicated asio drivers. Maybe I'll try taking it to 88.2khz, but I doubt the CPU will take it without crackles.
Anyway, the comparison was between cfx and pt, using the same settings. And it probably has more to do with the way the sound is generated and the immediacy of playing it back, than with the actual latency in itself.

Fixing the pedalling was the first thing I did, thank you for the suggestion! I'm sure I would've found it simply weird on the default setting, I've experimented the described behaviour in other samples.

As for Philip, he"s an amazing player, better than I ever dream to be. I've followed all his recordings. I'd be really interested for him to test PT and share impressions smile
But he invests a lot of time in the recordings, for just that purpose - recording - whereas I am interested in playing the vst. If my memory serves me right, his recordings are put together playing the n3 internal sound engine and afterwards using the midi with the cfx. Adjusting the velocity according to the piece is an interesting concept, and makes sense in this scenario, but I'm not sure I'd go that route for actually playing the vst. It's unrealistic, especially if you want your experience to be as 'real' as possible. More 'real' for listeners, less 'real' for playing. As for the dynamic range, I'm thinking it undergoes some compression afterwards, because for live playing, even the default 50 seems unrealistic to me (I think I've set it at 37,notbsure), but maybe that's just me. It may be that the dynamic range is more accentuated in some mic perspectives and less obvious in others, but that's just me speculating.

Thank you very much for the settings link! I intend to thoroughly read through other's settings and experiences with the cfx to get the best out of it.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 09:57 AM

As a point of reference it might be useful to compare latency to that experienced in a physical piano, which is NOT instantaneous.
e.g. all that is involved from key strike to sound received; action delay, hammer flight time, string vibration, sound board vibration and the coincidences of the overtones to produce the final sound.
I doubt that all of this takes less than 6 ms
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 10:27 AM

That's what I compare it with. Subjectively. I have no interest in measuring end to end latency, topics already exist for this. Beyond a certain point it's more than adequate. However, comparing to the response on a real piano (latency-wise), PT is more similar to the real th8ng than CFX in my case. That's all. I'm sure there are some who achieved a better latency, but not many.
My initial question has been answered very well by others, whom I wholeheartedly thank, as well as by myself, after purchasing.
Bottom line, everybody has their preference which is perfectly valid. Mine is that PT doesn't have the impeccable sound of the CFX, notwithstanding resonances, and CFX isn't there yet when it comes to playing realism. Were I to cast the dice again, I would do so in the other direction.
I most likely will, when they have another sale which will include instrument packs too.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 01:01 PM

On my setup (Mac Mini with USB-MIDI interface, using the internal audio), I can have a latency down to buffer size of 32 without problems, however it feels very unnatural, very direct and keys feel like "hard". I use a value of 128 that enters an ever so slight and non perceptible latency that however makes keys feel natural and "soft". Can't explain it really well but I am very convinced there's an optimal latency that isn't necessarily the lowest possible one. See for example how there's a "piano technician" setting on newer Kawais (and I believe Roland and Yamaha too) to simulate the slight mechanical delay that comes from the time needed for the hammer to reach the string after it is being thrown. This time isn't zero (and is furthermore dependent on the velocity with which you press the keys).

But in any case latency has never been an issue to me with sampled libraries even when I started using them like 15 years ago or so, I mean the there are no technical limitations to achieve audibly instant latency with CFX if that's what you're after. If you however have an irritably noticeable latency, something is definitely wrong with the audio settings.
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by R_B
As a point of reference it might be useful to compare latency to that experienced in a physical piano, which is NOT instantaneous.
e.g. all that is involved from key strike to sound received; action delay, hammer flight time, string vibration, sound board vibration and the coincidences of the overtones to produce the final sound.
I doubt that all of this takes less than 6 ms


This is complicated somewhat by how acoustic pianos work. From what I've seen, depending on how hard you strike the keys, the hammer hitting the string can occur before the key bottoms out, or slightly afterwards (though I understand it is as close to instantaneous as the human ear generally perceives).

Despite the real-world physics involved, I think that software pianos in general are still at a stage where they benefit from trying to minimize any latency at all (i.e., they're not instantaneous enough yet where it makes sense to try to introduce additional latency to simulate key strike velocity).
Posted By: prout

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by R_B
As a point of reference it might be useful to compare latency to that experienced in a physical piano, which is NOT instantaneous.
e.g. all that is involved from key strike to sound received; action delay, hammer flight time, string vibration, sound board vibration and the coincidences of the overtones to produce the final sound.
I doubt that all of this takes less than 6 ms
We had a long and involved discussion of AP latency here last year. Here is the link

In the paper cited in the thread, it is shown that the tested pianos - S&S C, Yamaha disclavier, Bose SE290 - showed latencies of -4ms to +5ms, meaning that the sound occurs up to 4 milliseconds before the key bottoms out, and up to 5ms after the key bottoms out, depending on whether the pianist is playing ff or pp.

It could be said, IMHO, that the average latency of an AP is 0.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 06:00 PM

Nothing easier. Just add an extra sensor and leave it to Pianoteq :))
Kidding, I don't think that's feasible and still have a reasonably accurate velocity measurement.
However, in the case of something like the kawai novus which will soon be available, the behaviour should be the same as in acoustics if I'm not mistaken. It has an kawai millennium action, only without the felt on the hammers, but with the same weight, and optical sensors measure the hammer strike, not the bottoming of the key.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/13/17 07:02 PM

Nord never really reveal what their "virtual hammer action technology" means, but since it was announced with their first triple sensor action, I assume they probably model this hammer delay behavior correctly. In a triple sensor action there's a sensor that is located somewhere along the travel of the key before it touches the bottom, so a high velocity strike (if detected by this first sensor) can be made to trigger the sample earlier than waiting for the key to hit the bottom.

Really, you should try to alter the latency from the lowest possible to a bit slower in steps and see what I mean. Way too low latency makes the action react too direct, as though the keys hit a hard bottom, whereas a bit higher latency makes the keys feel soft bottoming. This is really weird but it makes a noticeable difference to the key feeling and shouldn't be underestimated. It's worth experimenting with.
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 08/14/17 12:51 AM

I think even on regular 2-sensor systems, the bottom sensor trips before the key bottoms out on the keybed. I tested this before on a Yamaha GH action by blocking the keylip.

But those free ms definitely make a noticeable difference, particularly if you can hear the thump of the key bottoming out. On a fast DP you will hear the note strike before you hear the thump. On a slow one, you hear that thump first.

Every then, I find there is still a wide latitude within this range before it affects my playing. I do prefer the more immediate strike.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 12:02 PM

Just picked up this on YouTube: PIANOTEQ vs 6

Trialled by Phil Best.



Demo in English [video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=KNhOyyGACJc[/video]

Demo in Italian



Look how close this graph was to the release.

Release prediction graph (red line indicates vs. 6)


6.0.0
**All 49 instruments available in Pianoteq have been overhauled (the pianos, EPs, percussions, etc, including KIVIR).
**VST3 plugin format support has been added (plugin formats supported in Pianoteq 6: VST2, VST3, AU, AAX (64-bit), LV2).
**A MIDI playlist is now available.
**The MIDI auto-recording and archiving is improved and more configurable.
**The MIDI Mappings feature is more configurable -- MIDI Mapping can now be either global, or preset specific.
**Audio export in MP3 or FLAC format has been added.
**New tuning tool (available in Pianoteq Std and Pro only).
**A simple chord detector has been added.
**The Linux version is now available for ARM architectures

Seems like they've gone for consolidation/improvements on existing instruments rather than bringing in new ones.

Instrument demos (vs 6)

Listen to the YC5---it has changed considerably for the better.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 12:29 PM

Hehe, it looks like the Model D has been authorised as well smile
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by mcoll
Hehe, it looks like the Model D has been authorised as well smile


Happy days
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 12:44 PM

Now maybe an introductory sale? 3hearts
Otherwise I'll have to stay put, given the very recent purchase of the CFX.. frown
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by mcoll
Now maybe an introductory sale? 3hearts
Otherwise I'll have to stay put, given the very recent purchase of the CFX.. frown


What would be useful now is:
1) A comparison of the Pianoteq 5 instruements vs the Pianoteq 6 instruments so we can hear the improvements.
2) A comparison video of Garritan CFX concert grand full version vs all Pianoteq 6 main pianos vs. a selection of Roland modelled pianos vs the Physis H1 vs and all popular sampled hardware digital pianos (Kawai, Nord, Korg, Yamaha, Casio, etc).

How will Pianoteq 6 measure up?
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 01:13 PM

Interesting. The Model B sounds nice. And the K2. These impressions are from Phil Best's video. But that is always my first impression. The fatigue soon sets in though. I've come to the conclusion that there's something false about the tail of the attack. It's tuning is too unwavering as the note develops and to my ears PianoTeq always sounds a bit false in the upper midrange as a result.

But like I said, they do sound good on first listening. Very passable. I look forward to more demos...
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 01:49 PM

Thanks for the heads up. I just bought the Grotrian over the weekend. It's very nice and completes my collection of all their acoustics. But I only run the Stage version so it was an easy upgrade.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 01:55 PM

I got Pianoteq 4.5 when I first bought it; the upgrade to 5 was free, but it took some time before my old lappie would handle it, which it now does.
I'll just pretend I've got the new one. It's easier . . . . .Mind, I'd like the U3, but I can't play that at all at all . . ..just won't have it. Anybody else have this problem? I'm loathe to buy it when the free sample doesn't work . . .
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 01:56 PM

Why do they do this to me? I was thinking of spending a hundred on the last VSTi (not a promise!) and eyeing the Wavesfactory Mercury on anniversary sale, then this happens.

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 03:21 PM

---
Pianoteq 6, just released today, is a major upgrade.

All of the instruments have been updated, and the acoustic pianos in particular, even the ones I used to ignore in favor of the more recent Model B and Grotrian Concert Royal, all now sound magnificent. Even the "ideal" acoustic piano K2, not modeled from an actual acoustic, now sounds very convincing. The Bluthner concert grand with its "aliquot" system (extra resonating strings), sounds incredibly lush and rich, and the U4 upright reminds me so much of my beloved Yamaha studio upright piano.

All of the pianos sound richly detailed, nuanced, and extremely realistic, and the two Steinways, the Model D (the character of which I loved but did not find convincing in comparison with the Grotrian in Pianoteq 5) and the shorter studio grand Model B, have both been improved to the extent that they now have the official authorization from Steinway & Sons.

There are also many new features in Pianoteq 6, and many improved features. All in all, an extremely impressive upgrade of what was already a very fine virtual-instrument application. Very pleased.
Posted By: newer player

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 03:35 PM

Downloading the trail now. . .
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
---
Pianoteq 6, just released today, is a major upgrade. All of the instruments have been updated, and the acoustic pianos in particular, even the ones I used to ignore in favor of the more recent Model B and Grotrian Concert Royal, all now sound magnificent. Even the "ideal" acoustic piano K2, not modeled from an actual acoustic, now sounds very convincing. The Bluthner concert grand with its "aliquot" system (extra resonating strings), sounds incredibly lush and rich, and the U4 upright reminds me so much of my beloved Yamaha studio upright piano.

All of the pianos sound richly detailed, nuanced, and extremely realistic, and the two Steinways, the Model D (the character of which I loved but did not find convincing in comparison with the Grotrian in Pianoteq 5) and the shorter studio grand Model B, have both been improved to the extent that they now have the official authorization from Steinway & Sons.

There are also many new features in Pianoteq 6, and many improved features. All in all, an extremely impressive upgrade of what was already a very fine virtual-instrument application. Very pleased.


I always thought the K2 was modeled from a Kawai, but they didn't have any official license so they couldn't say so. Some of the variations of the K2 are very nice.
Posted By: Pete14

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 04:01 PM

This time around it took them over 3 years to finally release an upgrade. I hope the lower end has been improved. I believe that Pianoteq gurus once admitted that the lower end was the most difficult region to get right, and I agree with them.
So yes, 3 years in the making should bring about a huge-yet-also-subtle-but-not-too-muddled lower end.
Posted By: kapelli

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 04:19 PM

Still sounds mudded and flat.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by kapelli
Still sounds mudded and flat.


I would probably question (not doubt, mind you, but at least question) your audio chain and headphones, or the ears they are attached to. smile

This latest version of Pianoteq and its updated instruments, to my ears anyway, sounds extremely crisp, detailed, resonant, nuanced and rich across the entire keyboard range, including the bass end.

The Pro version of Pianoteq, which I upgraded to previously with Pianoteq 5, allows for extensive and finely-controlled customization of nearly all aspects of the various instruments. The audio files produced by the piano instruments are so convincing that I would not be able to reliably distinguish them from recordings of actual, physical acoustic pianos, and it seems to me that it would be fairly difficult for others to do so.

However, in every group of people there will always exist some with differing or opposing views, and some who make a proud practice of being contrarian for its own sake. smile
---
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 04:40 PM

If anyone wants to do an A/B comparison, I rendered a MIDI of Chopin's Revolutionary Etude with the same preset in both Pianoteq 5 & 6 for the D4, Grotrian, K2, YC5, and Bluthner. No other effects added. Source MIDI included. WAVs are 96000hz/24-bit.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl9rrq8neppcgsu/AAAt24ePkKrSCJJ6QlJ_Wfk0a?dl=0

Not sure if the first note being awkwardly loud on the attack is a rendering issue with my DAW or not.

I should probably do this for the EPs as well with a different MIDI.

I don't have the Model B, so I can't render a WAV of that one. Sorry.
Posted By: ArtlessArt

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 04:54 PM

Sorry if this is has already been covered. But I'm thinking of getting this, but not sure the hardware needed to run it. The Pianoteq FAQ doesn't go into the specifics. So far I have:

- ES110
- Mackie CR4 studio monitors
- ASUS Laptop 4 cores, 8gb RAM
- Behringer UCA222 on order

Would this suffice or do I need to a more beefed up soundcard?
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:10 PM

That sounds like a great setup.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
If anyone wants to do an A/B comparison, I rendered a MIDI of Chopin's Revolutionary Etude with the same preset in both Pianoteq 5 & 6 for the D4, Grotrian, K2, YC5, and Bluthner. No other effects added. Source MIDI included. WAVs are 96000hz/24-bit.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl9rrq8neppcgsu/AAAt24ePkKrSCJJ6QlJ_Wfk0a?dl=0

Not sure if the first note being awkwardly loud on the attack is a rendering issue with my DAW or not.

I should probably do this for the EPs as well with a different MIDI.

I don't have the Model B, so I can't render a WAV of that one. Sorry.


Ah do detect just a hint of ambience in Pianoteq 6 which seems not to be there in 5 . . . smile
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:46 PM

I've just downloaded the Pianoteq 6 Trial and tested it with all the presets of Steinway D and then some of the presets in Steinway B and Grotrian. I believe I should be eligible for Pianoteq 6 Pro license since I own a Pro license since the end of 2013, so should be eligible for a free upgrade but couldn't find how to do it.

Anyway, it seems there's indeed an improvement in the sound. But on the other hand there's still the slightly metallic sustain that has always been there. However the fatigue started kicking in again frown I switched to my favorite CFX at the end and it was better and more realistic.

I have a great respect for Modartt guys and don't want to spoil their parade, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. There are just people that love the modeled sound and others that get the fatigue and unfortunately I am within the latter group. But there's definitely an improvement!
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
If anyone wants to do an A/B comparison, I rendered a MIDI of Chopin's Revolutionary Etude with the same preset in both Pianoteq 5 & 6 for the D4, Grotrian, K2, YC5, and Bluthner. No other effects added. Source MIDI included. WAVs are 96000hz/24-bit.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl9rrq8neppcgsu/AAAt24ePkKrSCJJ6QlJ_Wfk0a?dl=0

Not sure if the first note being awkwardly loud on the attack is a rendering issue with my DAW or not.

I should probably do this for the EPs as well with a different MIDI.

I don't have the Model B, so I can't render a WAV of that one. Sorry.


Thanks for uploading this!!!

Seems like the Grotrian v.5 and v.6 and the K2 v.5 and v.6 aren't very much different; whereas, the D4 and YC5 seem to have been improved quite a bit. You missed the Bluthner v.5 ;-)
Posted By: newer player

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
Originally Posted by kapelli
Still sounds mudded and flat.


I would probably question (not doubt, mind you, but at least question) your audio chain and headphones, or the ears they are attached to. smile

This latest version of Pianoteq and its updated instruments, to my ears anyway, sounds extremely crisp, detailed, resonant, nuanced and rich across the entire keyboard range, including the bass end.


Be nice.

I think PianoTeq 6 really nailed down the timing and dynamics on this. Up and down the keyboard plays exactly as my mind "envisions" and that is quite fun.

In hindsight, I suppose it is very difficult to "fully" address the non-linearity of the recording-mastering-sampling process whilst a model can be fully sorted (well for the factors that are utilized in the model). The timing, dynamics, tone of some sampled VIs seem a bit haphazard and I never quite know if it is my playing or the VI.

Latency is absolutely imperceptable on my mid-range laptop with headphones. If you find it too fast, you could just increase the buffer size I suppose. That is an effortless "problem" to solve.

The lower registers sounded like those of a cheap toy on first play with my main (good) headphones. Sounded much better when I tried with different headphones, earbuds, and some cheap computer speakers / big subwoofer. The (good) earbuds were just a bit shy on bass but sounded fine. The cheap (free) computer speakers sounded quite good. Not perfect but perhaps good enough.

I think the free trial is worth 15 minutes. If you don't like the sound try different headphones, earbuds and speakers as that seems to matter a lot for some reason.
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:56 PM

This particular new feature seems to open the door to something people here seem to have often expressed an interest in, which is making possible a stand-alone Pianoteq-based keyboard:

"Pianoteq 6 facilitates your workflow by adding compatibility with the VST3 format and the ARM architecture (Linux version only, for example on Raspberry Pi 3 boards). VST3 is the latest plug-in platform developed by Steinberg, and is supported by many audio hosts. Compatibility with the ARM architecture means that Pianoteq 6 can be used with RISC based CPU's used in smaller Linux based consumer electronic devices."
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 05:58 PM

I don't buy the idea that my HD-650 that sound nothing short of stunning with whatever you throw at them, including hardware pianos, software pianos and all styles of music, suddenly become the reason why I don't like Pianoteq sound and I should switch to some other headphones wink
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I don't buy the idea that my HD-650 that sound nothing short of stunning with whatever you throw at them, including hardware pianos, software pianos and all styles of music, suddenly become the reason why I don't like Pianoteq sound and I should switch to some other headphones wink


Do you amplify the HD650s?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:02 PM

Depends on how I use them. I amplify them with Apogee Groove from my MacBook Pro, however they get enough power from my Mac Mini and I use them straight out of the computer's headphone output.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Depends on how I use them. I amplify them with Apogee Groove from my MacBook Pro, however they get enough power from my Mac Mini and I use them straight out of the computer's headphone output.


Well, I guess without comparing the Apogee Groove to other DAC/headphone amps or to high quality audio-interfaces like the RME Babyface Pro, it's difficult to assess if your issue is the headphone amp. I assume you're plugging the HD650's into the Apogee Groove rather than sending an ouput to the ES8? I was told the ideal headphone impedance for the MP7 headphone amp to power (and likely for the ES8) is 100 ohms.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:16 PM

I have a total of three headphone amplifiers: the Apogee Groove, a custom made solid-state audiophile grade JFET amplifier and a hybrid tube-amp. I've compared all of them with HD-650 and other headphones I have and I know the differences are too little to matter. Believe me, it's not the amp or headphones the reason I don't like Pianoteq, I've tested it also with my HD-595, DT-770 Pro, Apple airbuds and whatnot.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
You missed the Bluthner v.5 ;-)


Thanks for catching that. I've added it now, as well as the Mk.I, Mk.II, and Clavinet D6.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I have a total of three headphone amplifiers: the Apogee Groove, a custom made solid-state audiophile grade JFET amplifier and a hybrid tube-amp. I've compared all of them with HD-650 and other headphones I have and I know the differences are too little to matter. Believe me, it's not the amp or headphones the reason I don't like Pianoteq, I've tested it also with my HD-595, DT-770 Pro, Apple airbuds and whatnot.


Guess you've not been able to tweak PT pro to deal with the slightly metallic sustain. Do you hear it on all the models?
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I've just downloaded the Pianoteq 6 Trial and tested it with all the presets of Steinway D and then some of the presets in Steinway B and Grotrian. I believe I should be eligible for Pianoteq 6 Pro license since I own a Pro license since the end of 2013, so should be eligible for a free upgrade but couldn't find how to do it.


Open up Pianoteq 5 then click on -Help- at the top left of the screen then go to -look for updates-. That should work.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:27 PM

I've tried tweaking it of course, also using other people presets. There's just a specific modeled character I find in V-Piano and new Roland fully modeled pianos which I guess is something intrinsic to the modeling process.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Originally Posted by Doug M.
You missed the Bluthner v.5 ;-)


Thanks for catching that. I've added it now, as well as the Mk.I, Mk.II, and Clavinet D6.


Awesome!

Definitely seems a very subtle improvement in the Bluthner too. The Clavinet has definitely improved noticeably; however, didn't notice much difference in the Mark I or II. The W1 is noticeably different, even with the distortion.

Was quite surreal listening to the Chopin on the Clavinet ;-)
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I've tried tweaking it of course, also using other people presets. There's just a specific modeled character I find in V-Piano and new Roland fully modeled pianos which I guess is something intrinsic to the modeling process.


Well, if you describe it fully and others agree with you and add comments, this might reach the ears of the software engineers at Roland and Modartt! I guess you've played acoustic grands and not had this issue?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 06:55 PM

Hi Doug, I've been a member of their beta-testing team around 2013 (the NDA has expired so I am allowed to disclose this now), so yes, I've given a lot of comments and feedback about what I've found unsatisfactory in Pianoteq.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 07:12 PM

My first impression that the Steinway D has a lots of improvements and sounds excellent, and probably the most notice improvements you will hear. It is number one now for me in Pianoteq.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 07:22 PM

Garritan CFX compact, player perspective, default preset.
Posted By: kapelli

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
Originally Posted by kapelli
Still sounds mudded and flat.


I would probably question (not doubt, mind you, but at least question) your audio chain and headphones, or the ears they are attached to. smile

This latest version of Pianoteq and its updated instruments, to my ears anyway, sounds extremely crisp, detailed, resonant, nuanced and rich across the entire keyboard range, including the bass end.

The Pro version of Pianoteq, which I upgraded to previously with Pianoteq 5, allows for extensive and finely-controlled customization of nearly all aspects of the various instruments. The audio files produced by the piano instruments are so convincing that I would not be able to reliably distinguish them from recordings of actual, physical acoustic pianos, and it seems to me that it would be fairly difficult for others to do so.

However, in every group of people there will always exist some with differing or opposing views, and some who make a proud practice of being contrarian for its own sake. smile
---


Auralic Aries mini, Exogal Comet, Roksan Caspian m2 amp and Usher floorstanders. Is that good enough? grin grin grin

I was also never a fan of Pianoteq, due too their boxy bass and not sparkling top. Maybe I just expect too much.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by kapelli


I was also never a fan of Pianoteq, due too their boxy bass and not sparkling top. Maybe I just expect too much.



Yeah, you probably expect that your digital piano will grow in front of your eyes into acoustic and sounds specially for you.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 07:45 PM



Yeah, this really underlines the differences.

The CFX whilst being an improvement on other sampled pianos is considerably less dynamic which especially shows up during the quiet sections (1.53 to 2.10).

The tone of the Pianoteq sounds are inferior to the Garritan CFX despite the noticeable improvement between v.5 and v.6. I think both have plenty of room for improvements.

That said, the last few chords on Pianoteq instruments (the loud bass) is much better than the CFX.
Posted By: Alexander Borro

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 08:02 PM

I tried the 6 demo just for fun, played the same pieces back to back on 5 ( I own 5 standard ) and 6 mostly on the model B, but dabbled with the other briefly , not yet tried the D4, which I never really liked

My initial impression with the Model B... I'd put it as a subtle improvement, without doing any blind tests, to see if I can tell the versions apart or anything of the same pieces, but just under casual playing that there is a slight difference in timbre and/or voicing for the better, but in a nutshell, a small bit of evolution in 6 from 5 is how I feel about it with the B, not a revolution. On the other side of the coin, it still sounds like characteristic pteq in many ways as well ( to me anyway)

I hope I didn't upset too many die hard fans laugh

It is a cheap upgrade and probably I'll get it at some point in support for their efforts. Also, perhaps when I get my modelling playing phase back again one day, but for now, overall, the samplers is where I feel happiest.

It is good to see them chipping away at it, and keep working on it bit by bit to bring it a little further each time.


Gooo Modart thumb
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Alexander Borro
My initial impression with the Model B... I'd put it as a subtle improvement ...

The Model B and the Grotrian Concert Royal pianos, as the most recent and previously the most developed and refined of the Pianoteq piano instruments, have the least noticeable improvements over those in Pianoteq 5. The most dramatic and noticeable differences and improvements can be heard in the Steinway Model D, the Bluthner, and even in Pianoteq's own "ideal" piano (not modeled strictly from an existing acoustic piano), the K2. The U4 upright is also much improved, as is the YC5, modeled on a Yamaha grand.

All in all, a great deal of development and a very convincing sound with all of the Pianoteq pianos in their current form.

To address kapelli's comment about "boxy bass and not sparkling top, those and nearly every other aspect of the sound are easily changed and customized in Pianoteq standard and especially, in even a note-by-note way, in Pianoteq Pro: you can have as "unboxy" a bass and as "sparkling" a top as you prefer. Pianoteq's versatility, configurability and customization of the instruments is one of its greatest strengths, in my opinion, especially when compared to the more limited options available with sampled piano libraries.

Just a personal opinion.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
If anyone wants to do an A/B comparison, I rendered a MIDI of Chopin's Revolutionary Etude with the same preset in both Pianoteq 5 & 6 for the D4, Grotrian, K2, YC5, and Bluthner. No other effects added. Source MIDI included. WAVs are 96000hz/24-bit.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl9rrq8neppcgsu/AAAt24ePkKrSCJJ6QlJ_Wfk0a?dl=0

Not sure if the first note being awkwardly loud on the attack is a rendering issue with my DAW or not.

I should probably do this for the EPs as well with a different MIDI.

I don't have the Model B, so I can't render a WAV of that one. Sorry.


Would anyone owning a modelled Roland be willing to run this MIDI file and record an audio output wave file so we can compare PT v.6 with Roland modelling?
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

Would anyone owning a modelled Roland be willing to run this MIDI file and record an audio output wave file so we can compare PT v.6 with Roland modelling?


Haha, sure, I'll run it through my RD-2000 when I get home from work.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Originally Posted by Doug M.

Would anyone owning a modelled Roland be willing to run this MIDI file and record an audio output wave file so we can compare PT v.6 with Roland modelling?


Haha, sure, I'll run it through my RD-2000 when I get home from work.


That would be interesting. I'm just listening to my MP7 sounds. The EX grand plays does a nice job with your Chopin MIDI file, although I presumably need Cubase to record the audio?
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 10:17 PM

I was waiting for V7, but I'm bumping that to 8.

Greg.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
I was waiting for V7, but I'm bumping that to 8.

Greg.


I suggest you to wait for V1 in the next life. Plenty of time to finally prepare yourself.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 11:27 PM

I think at the current rate of improvement, I'll be waiting for version 23. The rate of progress is disappointing to say the least. The two octaves below middle C still sound completely artificial to in the four instruments I can test (D, K2, Bluethner, Grotrian). More generally, the same flaws in the approach are still apparent, and in some situations even more apparent than before.

Someone needs to tell Moddart that pianos do not have a simple linear mapping of frequency to timbre for any given amplitude across the entire range of the keyboard. It seems quite obvious that this is the problem they are grappling with; at the top end, it invariably sounds too thin, which is why some people complain about it being "plinky plonky", while at the lower end, it invariably sounds too fat and flabby, which is why people complain about it sounding artificial and muddy. It's exactly the same problem that piano implementations in general midi patches have been dealing with for years. If you brighten the tone by, for example, hardening the hammers, you improve the bass but weaken the upper notes; if you darken the tone, you do the opposite. All the time there is a one-size-fits-all approach, this is going to remain a problem for Pianoteq in my view. They really need to give up some of the high principles and adopt a more practical approach.

The second major problem is that the decay resonance is unnaturally pure. It decays in a beautifully linear but wholly unrealistic fashion, and the purity of the tones (aka lack of convincing timbre) gives rise to auditory beats (in the acoustic sense) that are very noticeable and much more exaggerated than I've ever heard in an acoustic piano, or indeed a sampled piano. My immediate sense is that this particular problem has actually gotten worse in Pianoteq 6, and I personally find it very distracting now.

The one area that has seen some significant improvement and which is to be welcomed is the amplitude-timbre mapping, which was hugely exaggerated before (playing quietly sounded like una corda pedal), but has been reined back to a more realistic level now.

So yes, in terms of the overall sound there has been marginal improvement, but I think it's hard to claim it's anything more than that. After 3 years, to have two of the three central problems essentially unaddressed is very disappointing to me, and makes me question just how serious Moddart actually are about the whole enterprise. I honestly believe that at this rate, those of us dissatisfied with the core sound of Pianoteq (and I appreciate many are happy with it, and that's good) will still be making the same complaints in version 10, maybe even version 15.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 11:31 PM

Alright, I've added a bunch of RD-2000 samples to the Dropbox directory. These were recorded & exported at 48000hz/24-bit/Stereo because I realized I had the Pianoteq plugin set to 48000hz, so exporting the other ones at 96k was a waste of disk space.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl9rrq8neppcgsu/AAAt24ePkKrSCJJ6QlJ_Wfk0a?dl=0

All RD-2000 patches are the default presets, with the Master Volume set at 12o'clock, and recorded using the RD-2000's built-in audio interface. S01 to S06 are modeled pianos, and 0001 and 0007 are from their SuperNATURAL tech.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/06/17 11:50 PM

I hear you, karvala. And I agree.

I've never driven down to the detail you offer, such as pitch-to-timbre mapping or decay resonance purity.

To me it's simply that Pianoteq sounds like a piano in another room. The piano is just not "here". It's somewhere "over there". (That, and the faulty fakey-sounding treble notes.)

I've tried every demo version of Pianoteq starting with 2.x.
Version 2 was unbelivably, intolerably, incredibly terrible.
Version 3 was better. Merely terrible.
Version 4 was much better, finally "okay-ish". But not as good as any of my other pianos.
Version 5 offered no real improvement.
(Versions 4 and 5 are the ones I described above: the piano that's just not here, it's over there.)
The ever-declining rate of improvement is disappointing. So when you say you'll be waiting for version 23 ... I hear that.
Originally Posted by karvala
I think at the current rate of improvement, I'll be waiting for version 23. The rate of progress is disappointing to say the least. The two octaves below middle C still sound completely artificial to in the four instruments I can test (D, K2, Bluethner, Grotrian). More generally, the same flaws in the approach are still apparent, and in some situations even more apparent than before.

Someone needs to tell Moddart that pianos do not have a simple linear mapping of frequency to timbre for any given amplitude across the entire range of the keyboard. It seems quite obvious that this is the problem they are grappling with; at the top end, it invariably sounds too thin, which is why some people complain about it being "plinky plonky", while at the lower end, it invariably sounds too fat and flabby, which is why people complain about it sounding artificial and muddy. It's exactly the same problem that piano implementations in general midi patches have been dealing with for years. If you brighten the tone by, for example, hardening the hammers, you improve the bass but weaken the upper notes; if you darken the tone, you do the opposite. All the time there is a one-size-fits-all approach, this is going to remain a problem for Pianoteq in my view. They really need to give up some of the high principles and adopt a more practical approach.

The second major problem is that the decay resonance is unnaturally pure. It decays in a beautifully linear but wholly unrealistic fashion, and the purity of the tones (aka lack of convincing timbre) gives rise to auditory beats (in the acoustic sense) that are very noticeable and much more exaggerated than I've ever heard in an acoustic piano, or indeed a sampled piano. My immediate sense is that this particular problem has actually gotten worse in Pianoteq 6, and I personally find it very distracting now.

The one area that has seen some significant improvement and which is to be welcomed is the amplitude-timbre mapping, which was hugely exaggerated before (playing quietly sounded like una corda pedal), but has been reined back to a more realistic level now.

So yes, in terms of the overall sound there has been marginal improvement, but I think it's hard to claim it's anything more than that. After 3 years, to have two of the three central problems essentially unaddressed is very disappointing to me, and makes me question just how serious Moddart actually are about the whole enterprise. I honestly believe that at this rate, those of us dissatisfied with the core sound of Pianoteq (and I appreciate many are happy with it, and that's good) will still be making the same complaints in version 10, maybe even version 15.

Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:14 AM

[bit OT]
Just stumbled on an example of a piano sound that is most certainly "here" (it's a real piano though):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkWfSo2WFGE

Bloody terrific.

Greg
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:19 AM

I upgraded the Stage version to 6 and tried it out this evening. My first impressions:

Latency is improved. I didn't think it was bad before, but there is almost no noticeable lag now when I mix the onboard sounds of the CP4 with Pianoteq.

Unfortunately, to my ears, the new sound is louder and harsher than 5, especially after doing a new custom velocity curve, which wasn't much different than the old curve from 5. I feel that there's a conundrum here - if I do the custom curve, everything sounds loud and in my face. If I don't do a custom curve, everything sounds muted and dull. I'm starting to think the custom curve routine is flawed. The pedal configuration works on this version, so that's an improvement. There must be some happy medium for velocity. It looks like this will require some tweaking. I'm kind of down on the idea that I need to purchase the full version just to tweak up a setting that I like.
Posted By: scorpio

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:34 AM

Thank goodness Pianoteq 6 has been released! Now all the haters have a reason to remind us, yet again, how much they dislike Pianoteq. We heard you the first millionth time. My suggestion is to include your Pianoteq dislike in your signature panel, it would save everyone some time. Oh but maybe that would defeat your purpose. Too funny.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by David Farley
I upgraded the Stage version to 6 and tried it out this evening. My first impressions:

Latency is improved. I didn't think it was bad before, but there is almost no noticeable lag now when I mix the onboard sounds of the CP4 with Pianoteq.

Unfortunately, to my ears, the new sound is louder and harsher than 5, especially after doing a new custom velocity curve, which wasn't much different than the old curve from 5. I feel that there's a conundrum here - if I do the custom curve, everything sounds loud and in my face. If I don't do a custom curve, everything sounds muted and dull. I'm starting to think the custom curve routine is flawed. The pedal configuration works on this version, so that's an improvement. There must be some happy medium for velocity. It looks like this will require some tweaking. I'm kind of down on the idea that I need to purchase the full version just to tweak up a setting that I like.


The velocity diagram is everything. You can make it less harsh, less loud from there. You can flatten out the lower velocities to achieve a smoother playing technique on quiet passages. Since Pianoteq and others are made for different pianos, you just got to accept the need for this. I enjoy doing it . . . .
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by scorpio
Thank goodness Pianoteq 6 has been released! Now all the haters have a reason to remind us, yet again, how much they dislike Pianoteq. We heard you the first millionth time. My suggestion is to include your Pianoteq dislike in your signature panel, it would save everyone some time. Oh but maybe that would defeat your purpose. Too funny.

They can`t forgive Modartt for such a good piano in 50mb vs tons of GB and still can`t be compete as an instrument. So they cry and wrote his `expert` opinion about Pianoteq. At the same time every little they play Pianoteq, but hush, they don`t want anybody to knows that. They can`t understand that there is no reason to choose one vs the other technology. I hope that we all want better and more realistic digital piano no matter technology.
Posted By: kapelli

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by scorpio
Thank goodness Pianoteq 6 has been released! Now all the haters have a reason to remind us, yet again, how much they dislike Pianoteq. We heard you the first millionth time. My suggestion is to include your Pianoteq dislike in your signature panel, it would save everyone some time. Oh but maybe that would defeat your purpose. Too funny.

They can`t forgive Modartt for such a good piano in 50mb vs tons of GB and still can`t be compete as an instrument. So they cry and wrote his `expert` opinion about Pianoteq. At the same time every little they play Pianoteq, but hush, they don`t want anybody to knows that. They can`t understand that there is no reason to choose one vs the other technology. I hope that we all want better and more realistic digital piano no matter technology.


Not everyone have to love Pianoteq, the fact that someone doesnt like it's sound signature, does not mean it's bad and weak by objective values.
Posted By: Charles Cohen

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by David Farley

. . .
Unfortunately, to my ears, the new sound is louder and harsher than 5, especially after doing a new custom velocity curve, which wasn't much different than the old curve from 5. I feel that there's a conundrum here - if I do the custom curve, everything sounds loud and in my face. If I don't do a custom curve, everything sounds muted and dull. I'm starting to think the custom curve routine is flawed. The pedal configuration works on this version, so that's an improvement. There must be some happy medium for velocity. It looks like this will require some tweaking. I'm kind of down on the idea that I need to purchase the full version just to tweak up a setting that I like.


Not to teach Grandma to suck eggs (because DF knows way more than I do):

There are three interacting controls in Pianoteq:

. . . the velocity curve;

. . . the "Dynamics" setting;

. . . the "Volume" setting;

and if mixing with another sound source (e.g. CP5),

. . . the mixing ratio.

Tweaking one, could easily force you to tweak others to keep everything in balance.

The relationship between "loudness" and "tone quality" is tricky. I think that "tone quality" is determined by Pianoteq's MIDI velocity (after transformation by the "velocity curve"), and "loudness" is controlled by Pianoteq's MIDI velocity and the "Dynamics" setting.

So setting the "Dynamics" setting a bit lower, would give you a less-loud sound in "ff" passages, but keep the "brashness" of a hard-hit piano string.

Of course, the "pp" passages wouldn't be quite as soft . . . . <G>

Might be worth a try.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:16 AM

About sound and complaints about it, little demo from Pianoteq forum user NathanShirley, I recommend to read his post also, for the moment in the video you will think it is a real piano. Incredible !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=39&v=ABUZhJCNONY
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:25 AM

Tested the same presets and they just don't sound good to my ears when played. Besides, this menuet contains relatively short notes. Switch to a more romantic style with long held notes and the inherent metallic and unnatural sustain/decay becomes apparent.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Tested the same presets and they just don't sound good to my ears when played. Besides, this menuet contains relatively short notes. Switch to a more romantic style with long held notes and the inherent metallic and unnatural sustain/decay becomes apparent.


You did it man, incredible again for the different reason, I bet there is no piano on this planet that will satisfied you, go to play something else, please...
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:32 AM

You took it personally, didn't you? laugh
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:38 AM

No, just admire you, I have smile on my face at the moment, I hope you don`t have some kind of depression, I want to help you smile
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:39 AM

Is this the same Slobajudge?

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?pid=942312#p942312

Quote

I agree with above statement that Pianoteq is very musical intrument. It is very live digital instrument, but I dont agree that sound from Pianoteq has anything with the sound of real Steinway or any acoustic piano which sound we should expect to hear (close as possible) as a models in this program. Rather it is something that is digitally similar to piano or should I say its sound like Pianoteq. At the moment either you love it or not. Dont get me wrong, it is beautiful if we look from different angles from real piano. For me it is unique instrument and I love tech.specs. of Pianoteq but I dont like the sound of it. I still wait for the next version with much more `similar` sound to real piano. Yeah, I know, am ready for attack, but please dont bother me with stories about dynamics, sympathic resonance, and others live digital feautures, because I already said that I like that part of Pianoteq, but at the and its a sound of piano that we hear and want, or maybe as a GRB said he prefer Pianoteq. I respect that as a opinion for two different instruments.


What's so wrong if some of us still have a similar opinion now that you yourself back then? Must we all follow in lockstep? (assuming it was you - ignore this if it's not, of course)

Greg.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:43 AM

Yes, I admit, it took me a long time to finally realized that I am wrong, so this is a probably reason for me to help you. smile Forgive me because I am persistent
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:03 AM

I tested Pianoteq 6 yesterday without doing a side-by-side comparison and I didn't notice any major improvements the modeled sound. They seem to be as subtle as the improvements during the lifetime of version 5 with the release of new instrument models.

I did notice the improved latency however. From these priorities I still get the vibe, that the product isn't aimed at pianists, but at synthesizer enthusiasts, like most PC software. For example the default pedal curve in each preset is still setup to emulate an "almost" foot switch, not a continuous pedal. The response to a fully depressed sustain pedal is artificially clean with no need to control resonances at all. I know I could be fiddling with the settings for hours again, but I don't do that anymore.

The sound itself has slowly moved from playable, but entirely artificial (not a piano) to something that resembles a "bad" piano-like sound. Something you might playtest in a store an then move on, because you don't like the sound. I think it fell behind of what modern digital pianos have in store now.

I realize Pianoteq has an audience and I'm not part of it. A few years ago I had to chose if I go with a PC-software-only setup and I'm glad I chose that safe route and got a digital piano. My next instrument will most likely be a hybrid one. I still occasionally toy around with virtual instruments, but I don't see myself using them for serious solo piano practice in the future.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Yes, I admit, it took me a long time to finally realized that I am wrong, so this is a probably reason for me to help you. smile Forgive me because I am persistent


You mean it took ages for you to get used to the way PT sounds.
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:50 AM

Hi guys,

Please, this "mine is better than yours" discussion is tiring.

The improvement over the v5 is huge and that was also the same when the v5 came out from the v4,5.

This recording from Nathan Shirley is great. Really you forget you are on a virtual piano, and also I recommand you to hear a piece of him called "Transfiguration", it is great too.

Pianoteq 6 with its different models, great sound (ok maybe not perfect), integrated metronom, chord recognition, vast and precise sound modeling, internal audio export option, superb responsiveness, perfect pedal behaviour, perfect una corda sound... is a very mature product that will satisfy a lot of people, even the most demanding players. It is a great tool to play music and to work on, even on modest machines.

Some still prefer other products and that's normal. Some libraries (CFX, Ravenscroft, Becshtein are also great products) sound great and have maybe more sex appeal and sound character.

Now for those who think they could adopt Pianoteq in its v23 or more, I would like to just remind that this v6 sounds at least good enough to the ears of some people at Steinway, Grotrian, Bluethner who have given their authorisation to use their name on it.

Have a nice day,

SK
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by stamkorg
I would like to just remind that this v6 sounds at least good enough to the ears of some people at Steinway, Grotrian, Bluethner who have given their authorisation to use their name on it.

Is it possible Steinway et al are being paid for their blessing?
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by stamkorg
I would like to just remind that this v6 sounds at least good enough to the ears of some people at Steinway, Grotrian, Bluethner who have given their authorisation to use their name on it.

Is it possible Steinway et al are being paid for their blessing?


Maybe, I suspect there is a kind of payement for every licence buyed, I don't know. But that's true for all the brands of virtual pianos.
Posted By: lophiomys

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:05 AM

IMO it would be perfectly possible.

On the other hand, would it be plausible,
that small Modartt would have enough resources to pay off big Steinway?
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by lophiomys
IMO it would be perfectly possible.

On the other hand, would it be plausible,
that small Modartt would have enough resources to pay off big Steinway?

A royalty rather than a payoff.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by stamkorg

Maybe, I suspect there is a kind of payement for every licence buyed, I don't know. But that's true for all the brands of virtual pianos.

I wouldn't be so sure that all vstis are paying up or even need to. For example, Galaxy Vintage D doesn't bear the source's name. Only the blurb claims simply and honestly that it's a sampled Steinway. Similarly Wavesfactory Mercury is a Fazioli. VIlabs Ravenscroft was also a promotion for a relatively unknown piano manufacturer so some of the development costs might have been stumped up by RC themselves.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
About sound and complaints about it, little demo from Pianoteq forum user NathanShirley, I recommend to read his post also, for the moment in the video you will think it is a real piano. Incredible !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=39&v=ABUZhJCNONY

In the description of the video, it says:

The settings were adjusted to replicate the sound of a classical recording, with mics placed at a distance to the piano. Valhalla Room reverb was added to replicate the sound of a concert hall.

This implies the Pianoteq Standard or Pro was used for the video, since Stage doesn't have adjustable mics. That, and the fact Valhalla Room reverb was used, hardly make this video representable for Pianoteq Stage, which most potential buyers of Pianoteq would get, at least myself.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by TheodorN

The settings were adjusted to replicate the sound of a classical recording, with mics placed at a distance to the piano. Valhalla Room reverb was added to replicate the sound of a concert hall.

This implies the Pianoteq Standard or Pro was used for the video, since Stage doesn't have adjustable mics. That, and the fact Valhalla Room reverb was used, hardly make this video representable for Pianoteq Stage, which most potential buyers of Pianoteq would get, at least myself.

Shrewd choice on the part of PT. Valhalla Room is a peerless plugin at any price (IMHO) - and it's cheap!
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
Originally Posted by slobajudge
About sound and complaints about it, little demo from Pianoteq forum user NathanShirley, I recommend to read his post also, for the moment in the video you will think it is a real piano. Incredible !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=39&v=ABUZhJCNONY

In the description of the video, it says:

The settings were adjusted to replicate the sound of a classical recording, with mics placed at a distance to the piano. Valhalla Room reverb was added to replicate the sound of a concert hall.

This implies the Pianoteq Standard or Pro was used for the video, since Stage doesn't have adjustable mics. That, and the fact Valhalla Room reverb was used, hardly make this video representable for Pianoteq Stage, which most potential buyers of Pianoteq would get, at least myself.


Nonsense. Period.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
In the description of the video, it says:

The settings were adjusted to replicate the sound of a classical recording, with mics placed at a distance to the piano. Valhalla Room reverb was added to replicate the sound of a concert hall.

This implies the Pianoteq Standard or Pro was used for the video, since Stage doesn't have adjustable mics. That, and the fact Valhalla Room reverb was used, hardly make this video representable for Pianoteq Stage, which most potential buyers of Pianoteq would get, at least myself.

That's why this is for enthusiasts. The Pianoteq standalone application for Linux never sounds like those demos. So for virtual instruments need a sophisticated DAW setup with an experienced audio engineer to get anywhere.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by TheodorN
In the description of the video, it says:

The settings were adjusted to replicate the sound of a classical recording, with mics placed at a distance to the piano. Valhalla Room reverb was added to replicate the sound of a concert hall.

This implies the Pianoteq Standard or Pro was used for the video, since Stage doesn't have adjustable mics. That, and the fact Valhalla Room reverb was used, hardly make this video representable for Pianoteq Stage, which most potential buyers of Pianoteq would get, at least myself.

That's why this is for enthusiasts. The Pianoteq standalone application for Linux never sounds like those demos. So for virtual instruments need a sophisticated DAW setup with an experienced audio engineer to get anywhere.


Nonsense no.2. Congratulations.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:42 AM

Slobajudge, your discussion skills are admirable. At least when someone criticizes your God, Pianoteq.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:44 AM

Dire tonic, the reverb was only part of my arguments, and actually the least significant one. The adjustable mics were the most important thing, and, as I said, they're not a feature of Pianoteq Stage.

Edit Adding my reply to JoeT, so there won't be three replies in a row from me. To be fair, no VSTi, sampled or modelled, sounds the same in demos, as in our personal headphones.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
Slobajudge, your discussion skills are admirable. At least when someone criticizes your God, Pianoteq.

Do I need to reply for nonsense no 3 ? Do you read anything that I wrote here or earlier ? No, obviously, anyway if you don`t like it just skip this topic.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by TheodorN
Slobajudge, your discussion skills are admirable. At least when someone criticizes your God, Pianoteq.

Do I need to reply for nonsense no 3 ? Do you read anything that I wrote here or earlier ? No, obviously, anyway if you don`t like it just skip this topic.

I can't speak for TheodorN but I tend not to read anything showing evangelical bias (tho I made an exception here!).
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
Slobajudge, your discussion skills are admirable. At least when someone criticizes your God, Pianoteq.

Yeah, that entry on the ignore list was well earned. Now I'm still fine with Pianoteq and who it is aimed at. There clearly is a market for it with lots of happy customers. However if someone asks for digital piano and gets the "Avoid those inferior instruments and get a controller with the best piano software ever" spiel pointing at a professionally engineered video demo, that's a bit misleading and I'm going to point that out just like you.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:00 AM

Do you know what is funny JoeT ? If Modartt put real acoustic Steinway D behind the sound and tell everybody that it is a new digital Steinway D, you and your brothers here will be still talking the same about it. You are right. You really need an audio engineer.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Do you know what is funny JoeT ? If Modartt put real acoustic Steinway D behind the sound and tell everybody that it is a new digital Steinway D, you and your brothers here will be still talking the same about it. You are right. You really need an audio engineer.


Nonsense. Period.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by stamkorg

This recording from Nathan Shirley is great.


Maybe so. But you've missed the most important aspect of his video. He wears a ring on his index finger. So that's enough of him as far as I'm concerned. I can"t think of a more horrifying sartorial no-no!
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Charles Cohen
Originally Posted by David Farley

. . .
Unfortunately, to my ears, the new sound is louder and harsher than 5, especially after doing a new custom velocity curve, which wasn't much different than the old curve from 5. I feel that there's a conundrum here - if I do the custom curve, everything sounds loud and in my face. If I don't do a custom curve, everything sounds muted and dull. I'm starting to think the custom curve routine is flawed. The pedal configuration works on this version, so that's an improvement. There must be some happy medium for velocity. It looks like this will require some tweaking. I'm kind of down on the idea that I need to purchase the full version just to tweak up a setting that I like.


Not to teach Grandma to suck eggs (because DF knows way more than I do):

There are three interacting controls in Pianoteq:

. . . the velocity curve;

. . . the "Dynamics" setting;

. . . the "Volume" setting;

and if mixing with another sound source (e.g. CP5),

. . . the mixing ratio.

Tweaking one, could easily force you to tweak others to keep everything in balance.

The relationship between "loudness" and "tone quality" is tricky. I think that "tone quality" is determined by Pianoteq's MIDI velocity (after transformation by the "velocity curve"), and "loudness" is controlled by Pianoteq's MIDI velocity and the "Dynamics" setting.

So setting the "Dynamics" setting a bit lower, would give you a less-loud sound in "ff" passages, but keep the "brashness" of a hard-hit piano string.

Of course, the "pp" passages wouldn't be quite as soft . . . . <G>

Might be worth a try.



Thanks - I know very little but keep posting here anyway. I did have Version 5 tweaked nicely and I'm not sure what I did. (Unfortunately I was stupid and uninstalled 5.) What surprises me is that when I fire up a new install of Pianoteq and take their recommended settings, I get something that sounds so off. It makes me wonder if that's what Modartt thinks an acoustic is supposed to sound like (I can compare it to an acoustic in the same room as the digital).There is good stuff there, and it just happens that recently I've spent much more time playing in Pianoteq instead of using the onboard CP4 sounds. I go back and forth between getting tired of the one, and then tired of the other.
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by stamkorg

This recording from Nathan Shirley is great.


Maybe so. But you've missed the most important aspect of his video. He wears a ring on his index finger. So that's enough of him as far as I'm concerned. I can"t think of a more horrifying sartorial no-no!

It could be worse.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by David Farley
Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by stamkorg

This recording from Nathan Shirley is great.


Maybe so. But you've missed the most important aspect of his video. He wears a ring on his index finger. So that's enough of him as far as I'm concerned. I can"t think of a more horrifying sartorial no-no!

It could be worse.

[Linked Image]


Ha Ha! Yes, true!
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by TheodorN
Slobajudge, your discussion skills are admirable. At least when someone criticizes your God, Pianoteq.

Do I need to reply for nonsense no 3 ? Do you read anything that I wrote here or earlier ? No, obviously, anyway if you don`t like it just skip this topic.

I can't speak for TheodorN but I tend not to read anything showing evangelical bias (tho I made an exception here!).

You are talking for TheodorN, and I dont care if you dont read what you call `bias`, I think that your loving piano Garritan CFX is very good piano, I said that many times here and always recommend as a good option. But you don`t read, right ? And you still talking.
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by peterws
Originally Posted by David Farley
I upgraded the Stage version to 6 and tried it out this evening. My first impressions:

Latency is improved. I didn't think it was bad before, but there is almost no noticeable lag now when I mix the onboard sounds of the CP4 with Pianoteq.

Unfortunately, to my ears, the new sound is louder and harsher than 5, especially after doing a new custom velocity curve, which wasn't much different than the old curve from 5. I feel that there's a conundrum here - if I do the custom curve, everything sounds loud and in my face. If I don't do a custom curve, everything sounds muted and dull. I'm starting to think the custom curve routine is flawed. The pedal configuration works on this version, so that's an improvement. There must be some happy medium for velocity. It looks like this will require some tweaking. I'm kind of down on the idea that I need to purchase the full version just to tweak up a setting that I like.


The velocity diagram is everything. You can make it less harsh, less loud from there. You can flatten out the lower velocities to achieve a smoother playing technique on quiet passages. Since Pianoteq and others are made for different pianos, you just got to accept the need for this. I enjoy doing it . . . .


Yes - I definitely had this working right with Version 5 and now I have to figure out what I did. I can't believe the default settings are that off, though.

I'll have to spring for the full version soon so I can tweak everything...
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by slobajudge
Do you know what is funny JoeT ? If Modartt put real acoustic Steinway D behind the sound and tell everybody that it is a new digital Steinway D, you and your brothers here will be still talking the same about it. You are right. You really need an audio engineer.


Nonsense. Period.

Maybe. Is there any possibility for me to espect from you to admit something like that, no. Probably you are `expert` too.
Posted By: Chris Warren

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:48 AM

Having bought PT 5 last year, I can apparently download 6 for free. I won't be home for a few days so just wondered if anyone knows whether downloading 6 will "update" 5, or whether it's a totally separate install. I don't want to lose 5 if there's a problem with 6....
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Chris Warren
Having bought PT 5 last year, I can apparently download 6 for free. I won't be home for a few days so just wondered if anyone knows whether downloading 6 will "update" 5, or whether it's a totally separate install. I don't want to lose 5 if there's a problem with 6....

Separate. You can still keep 5.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:55 AM

Slobajudge, you do Pianoteq an ill turn by not using any argumentation but instead attacking people and making biting remarks. This is very childish.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Slobajudge, you do Pianoteq an ill turn by not using any argumentation but instead attacking people and making biting remarks. This is very childish.

Sorry, specially for you I will make a serious study about it. Can I go now to play with childrens please ? smile
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Can I go now to play with childrens please ? smile


No need to go play with childrenS, you might as well go play with Pianoteq wink
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by dire tonic
I can't speak for TheodorN but I tend not to read anything showing evangelical bias (tho I made an exception here!).

You are talking for TheodorN, and I dont care if you dont read what you call `bias`, I think that your loving piano Garritan CFX is very good piano, I said that many times here and always recommend as a good option. But you don`t read, right ? And you still talking.

My post makes it quite clear I DON'T speak for TheodorN and let's be clear: I like rather than "love" the CFX. Currently I'm spending more time with the C.Bechstein and the WavesFactory Mercury. I like to chop and change.

As to your professed respect for sampling vs modelling, so many of your previous posts ridicule that claim. Yes, I'm still talking. Get used to it.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Warren
Having bought PT 5 last year, I can apparently download 6 for free. I won't be home for a few days so just wondered if anyone knows whether downloading 6 will "update" 5, or whether it's a totally separate install. I don't want to lose 5 if there's a problem with 6....


Very separate - e.g. I still have V2, V4 and V5 (several minor versions) installed.
It can be "interesting" to go back once in a while and run the older versions.
I skipped V3, but I think it is still available to registered users (and probably as a pirated torrent).
I may get tat one day, just to tinker with.

Right now I foresee a V6 raspberry pi version in my near future laugh
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:10 PM

I don't see how Steinway (or other piano maker) could demand any sort of payment from Pianoteq ... unless Pianoteq uses the maker's name in its products or advertising.

You pay the maker for a piano, but you don't pay him for the music it produces.
Quote
Maybe, I suspect there is a kind of payement for every licence buyed, I don't know. But that's true for all the brands of virtual pianos.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:10 PM

Folks, I'd like to point out that the argument about which is best---modelled vs. sampled---depends upon what you value.

Whilst modelling has improved its tonal qualities modestly, sampled piano libraries have only made modest improvements in number of velocity layers---both represent an evolution in technology, ergo, the choice for customers hasn't really changed viz modelling vs. sampling.


Values

Currently, for those who place less value on the accurate tonal reproduction of a Steinway etc., and value more the dynamic expressiveness, then Pianoteq and/or Roland/Physis modelling appeals more.

The real comparison to this segment of the market (to modelling enthusiasts) is certainly not CFX vs Pianoteq 6, because despite having 20 velocity layers, CFX isn't going to provide the player with an expressiveness equal to a modelled piano with 127 velocity layers.


The choice for modelling fans:

For some it will be: is it worth upgrading from Pianoteq 5 to 6.

For the remaining segment of modelling fans considering a new piano, they will want to know how Pianoteq 6 compares to other modelled offerings?
***Is Pianoteq 6's offering behind or ahead of Roland's at this stage?
***Does Pianoteq 6 compare well to Roland's modelling, or, is the better choice to purchase a Roland FP-90/RD2000 etc., with Pianoteq 6 for variation.


Does one (as a modelling fan) go for a Kawai controller (for the action) with Pianoteq 6, or is the PHA50 combined with Roland modelling a clear winner?

Sure, if you can't abide any of the modelling tones for various reasons, you will either use an acoustic or a sampled piano/VST---then wait for Pianoteq v.X (where X represents a version achieving a tone you can enjoy).


Final point to add to the discussion:

As the Nathan Shirley Minuet demonstrates, it is possible to modify Pianoteq to suit a particular style of music. Also, it's possible to modify sampled pianos greatly to suit a musical purpose!!!

I much preferred this Minuet to the MIDI file of Chopin played through the various Pianoteq 6 pianos. For that matter, the performance by Phil Best and the other Pianoteq 6 recordings (in the listen section of PTs website) are more enjoyable to listen to than the MIDI file of Chopin, even though the Chopin melody is more impressive. The underlying tonal quality of Pianoteq in these different recordings are similar---signature to Pianoteq.

My question regarding the Chopin MIDI file is: was it originally recorded using a sampled VST? If so, would it not be the case that the MIDI velocity levels of each note would play the same whether played back through Pianoteq or CFX?
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by dire tonic
I can't speak for TheodorN but I tend not to read anything showing evangelical bias (tho I made an exception here!).

You are talking for TheodorN, and I dont care if you dont read what you call `bias`, I think that your loving piano Garritan CFX is very good piano, I said that many times here and always recommend as a good option. But you don`t read, right ? And you still talking.

My post makes it quite clear I DON'T speak for TheodorN and let's be clear: I like rather than "love" the CFX. Currently I'm spending more time with the C.Bechstein and the WavesFactory Mercury. I like to chop and change.

As to your professed neutrality vis-a-vis sampling vs modelling, so many of your previous posts ridicule that claim. Yes, I'm still talking. Get used to it.

Respect, it is so nice to talking with you Dire my man.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:17 PM

I really do NOT know what to make of the Steinway endorsement of the D and B.

The company changed hands recently, whether or not that means that the new owners will do "any deal that is a deal" could be up for discussion.

One could speculate that it could foreshadow a "Digital Steinway" with embedded "Pianoteq on a chip" - perhaps with a mid-end (Essex or Boston) action ?
Profit is probably in the case work and finish - and of course the brand name (pride of ownership being what it is in some living rooms).

Ok, have at it - attack this post laugh
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

The real comparison to this segment of the market (to modelling enthusiasts) is certainly not CFX vs Pianoteq 6, because despite having 20 velocity layers, CFX isn't going to provide the player with an expressiveness equal to a modelled piano with 127 velocity layers.

Intermediate velocity values in sampled pianos are interpolated. In a decent library you won't hear the transition between any one velocity layer and its neighbour. Fairly easy for you to prove this for yourself.

Quote
For that matter, the performance by Phil Best and the other Pianoteq 6 recordings (in the listen section of PTs website) are more enjoyable to listen to than the MIDI file of Chopin, even though the Chopin melody is more impressive.

A comparison between a live performance and a rendered midi file borders on meaningless.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M.

The real comparison to this segment of the market (to modelling enthusiasts) is certainly not CFX vs Pianoteq 6, because despite having 20 velocity layers, CFX isn't going to provide the player with an expressiveness equal to a modelled piano with 127 velocity layers.

Intermediate velocity values in sampled pianos are interpolated. In a decent library you won't hear the transition between any one velocity layer and its neighbour. Fairly easy for you to prove this for yourself.


They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127. Smoothing out velocity switching doesn't imply that you get comparable expressiveness to a modelled instrument with 127 velocity levels.

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M.
For that matter, the performance by Phil Best and the other Pianoteq 6 recordings (in the listen section of PTs website) are more enjoyable to listen to than the MIDI file of Chopin, even though the Chopin melody is more impressive.

A comparison between a live performance and a rendered midi file borders on meaningless.



Agreed, although if the MIDI file were recorded on an instrument and played back, you'd expect a more expressive performance than if a score was turned into a MIDI file. I was wondering how the MIDI file was created?
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I don't see how Steinway (or other piano maker) could demand any sort of payment from Pianoteq ... unless Pianoteq uses the maker's name in its products or advertising.

You pay the maker for a piano, but you don't pay him for the music it produces.
Quote
Maybe, I suspect there is a kind of payement for every licence buyed, I don't know. But that's true for all the brands of virtual pianos.



The statement in their release that Steinway has "endorsed" the B and D is surely use of the maker's name in their advertising ?
I just HAVE TO BELIEVE that a "deal" has been made, the exact details of which will probably NOT be revealed (unless leaked).
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M
They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127.

Interpolation would entail both amplitude and timbre changes, so, yes, you'll get 127 volume levels and timbre changes interpolated from 20.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M
They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127.

Interpolation would entail both amplitude and timbre changes, so, yes, you'll get 127 volume levels and timbre changes interpolated from 20.


Not necessarily; rather, it would depend upon how the velocity layers are grouped. You've got 127 MIDI levels shared between 20 volume layers which is approximately 6 MIDI levels incorporated per volume layer. Then, the amplitude gap between the two volume levels is smoothed out. Only at the junction points between two groups do you have the smoothing out. This implies an amplitude variation between volume layers but not within them.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
I was wondering how the MIDI file was created?

Possibly a realtime recording but very much more likely, a realtime recording subject to editing (moderate to extreme) or, the darkest art of all, sculpted in a Daw using a Midi step editor. The Midi file is only going to provide a faithful representation of the performer's/editor's intentions if it's reproduced on the source instrument. Comparisons of a single midi file rendered on different VIs are commonplace - a few done here, in fact. It depends on the file. I think there's something to be gleaned but nothing definitive.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M
They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127.

Interpolation would entail both amplitude and timbre changes, so, yes, you'll get 127 volume levels and timbre changes interpolated from 20.


Not necessarily; rather, it would depend upon how the velocity layers are grouped. You've got 127 MIDI levels shared between 20 volume layers which is approximately 6 MIDI layers per group. Then, the volume between the two groups is smoothed out. Only at the junction points between two groups do you have the smoothing out. This implies an amplitude variation between velocity layers but not within them.

I couldn't be more sure that you've got the wrong end of the stick, either that or we're at cross-purposes. But how about this. I'll make up a recording of, say, the CFX, a single note, repeated 127 times ranging incrementally between velocities 1 and 127. Would you like to test your ability to spot the transitions?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 12:55 PM

It's a common notion that sampled pianos sound static, are not dynamic and are boring because they are recorded samples, whereas modeled pianos are much more varied. As a matter of fact I experience exactly the opposite. While it's true that sampled pianos utilize a finite number of recorded samples, bear in mind those are sample from the *real* thing. Even a single long note on a real piano is a living and evolving sound, a result of the almost infinite factors taking place in its generation, it's a small universe by itself. And when you play a sample, you hear exactly that. In contrast, the modeled sound is way too clean and perfect sound that doesn't seem to evolve, it won't include all possible factors and parameters there is because that's currently impossible with the current CPU-s and modeling technologies. As a result, when I play Pianoteq I experience a very static and monotonous character. I know some people might not agree with this but that's how I feel when comparing sampled and modeled pianos.
Posted By: Alexander Borro

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M
They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127.

Interpolation would entail both amplitude and timbre changes, so, yes, you'll get 127 volume levels and timbre changes interpolated from 20.


Doug, lets take my CASIO as a more extreme example, which has (IIRC) 4 velocity levels. To me it feels just as playable/smooth in volume transition over the the entire dynamic range that I can get out of it, despite the fact I don't nearly like it as much, is not nearly as colourful compared to a nice VST.

More to the point, if what you say is true (and if I am understanding you right), if my Casio with 4 layers were not interpolated smoothly for volume changes, I think the piano would be completely unplayable, feel unnaturally jumpy when controlling dynamics.

I always thought most VSTs make use of interpolation techniques for both volume and timbre in the way Dire Tonic says, so does the Casio AIR engine. I think that is a pretty standard approach these days.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M.
Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M
They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127.

Interpolation would entail both amplitude and timbre changes, so, yes, you'll get 127 volume levels and timbre changes interpolated from 20.


Not necessarily; rather, it would depend upon how the velocity layers are grouped. You've got 127 MIDI levels shared between 20 volume layers which is approximately 6 MIDI layers per group. Then, the volume between the two groups is smoothed out. Only at the junction points between two groups do you have the smoothing out. This implies an amplitude variation between velocity layers but not within them.

I couldn't be more sure that you've got the wrong end of the stick, either that or we're at cross-purposes. But how about this. I'll make up a recording of, say, the CFX, a single note, repeated 127 times ranging incrementally between velocities 1 and 127. Would you like to test your ability to spot the transitions?


I am not saying there are audible transitions, I'm saying that the number of volume levels in an instrument with 20 volume layers is not 127 equally spread across 127 MIDI levels. Even if all 127 MIDI levels are used across 20 volume layers, the smoothing out (using MIDI levels squeezed between say two volume layers) only joins two discrete amplitude levels.

For instance, if you play a note at a velocity mapped to MIDI level 90 (assuming the 14th volume level out of 20 starts at MIDI level 90), if you play another note at a velocity mapped to 96, that second note would be the same amplitude (assuming approximately 6 MIDI layers per group). Now lets say the next volume level (15th volume level) is mapped to some MIDI level above 97, the number of levels required to bridge the amplitude difference (enough for the human ear) to give the illusion of no velocity switching may not be that many. The actual number of MIDI levels in each of the 20 discrete volume levels would be less than 6 to allow more velocity levels to be squeezed in between each transition; however, if it were completely continuous, they could claim 127 volume levels rather than 20. They do not do this!

Also, I'd probably need a special instrument to distinguish 127 different volume levels perfectly, which would explain why they can get away with 20 volume layers abridged via interpolation. Now, I might have a problem consciously distinguishing; however, that doesn't mean the human ear and brain doesn't experience more dynamic subtlety when playing a modelled piano compared to CFX.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:27 PM

Let's just take this example, and I've corrected the terminology:-
Originally Posted by Doug M.
For instance, if you play a note at a velocity mapped to MIDI level 90 (assuming the 14th volume level layer out of 20 starts at MIDI level velocity 90), if you play another note at a velocity mapped to 96, that second note would be the same amplitude (assuming approximately 6 MIDI layers per group velocities per layer).

No, you would have 6 levels of amplitude, one for each of the 6 velocities in the layer.

Quote
Also, I'd probably need a special instrument to distinguish 127 different volume levels perfectly

"the proof of the pudding.....". To put it another way, where is the lack of expression if you can't discern it with your own ears?

Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Let's just take this example, and I've corrected the terminology:-
Originally Posted by Doug M.
For instance, if you play a note at a velocity mapped to MIDI level 90 (assuming the 14th volume level layer out of 20 starts at MIDI level velocity 90), if you play another note at a velocity mapped to 96, that second note would be the same amplitude (assuming approximately 6 MIDI layers per group velocities per layer).

No, you would have 6 levels of amplitude, one for each of the 6 notes in the layer.

Quote
Also, I'd probably need a special instrument to distinguish 127 different volume levels perfectly

"the proof of the pudding.....". To put it another way, where is the lack of expression if you can't discern it with your own ears?



Are you claiming that on your CFX you have 127 levels of amplitude?
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
Are you claiming that on your CFX you have 127 levels of amplitude?

I can't say with authority that Garritan have provided 127 levels, only that the software could easily cope with that. More to the point, the test I proposed for you would challenge you no less than a library that did effectively provide 127 levels of amplitude out of 20 layers.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M.
Are you claiming that on your CFX you have 127 levels of amplitude?

I can't say with authority that Garritan have provided 127 levels, only that the software could easily cope with that. More to the point, the test I proposed for you would challenge you no less than a library that did effectively provide 127 levels of amplitude out of 20 layers.


I'm afraid I don't really know enough (do you?) about this interpolation business (especially when you're playing through a controller rather than a MIDI file)? Why claim only 20 velocity layers if in fact you can generate 127 volume levels? What in fact does it matter if you have 4 velocity layers or 90 velocity layers if you can interpolate and still get 127 volume levels (matching the MIDI values)?

The way you could measure is to program one note to play at all MIDI values, then play this through the CFX VST and use some kind of sound level meter to distinguish the decibel reading for each MIDI value played through the CFX VST. I don't have a sound level meter set up for that.

Anyways, to get the discussion moving further than this...
There are many other factors that make Modelled pianos more expressive to play (not just volume levels). I believe this explains why Roland moved from sampling to modelling rather than sticking to the hybrid approach.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 01:53 PM

I took the MIDI from whatever the top Google result for "classical piano midi" was. smile

My thoughts:

I don't think there is one "right" solution for the perfect piano representation. When you play a piano, you are hearing so many different things: the soundboard resonating with the combined vibrations of all the strings, the depression of the keys, the movements of the hammers, the damper moving up and down, the reflection of the sound off the walls, and even more, I'm sure.

To expect a perfect piano sound to be generated from a stereo setup, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Think about how massive the "speaker" is on a piano. How can speakers even try to duplicate that, from a physics perspective?

I prefer playing on modeled pianos. Modeled pianos feel more responsive to control. The sympathetic resonance sounds better to me, as well. This is not to say at all, that it sounds like an acoustic piano. It doesn't at all. But, it's a lot of fun.

Whenever I play a sampled piano, I always feel there's something a little left to be desired. Maybe it's because no one records 128 velocity layers, or the sympathetic resonance of every possible combination of keys. It sounds real, but it doesn't feel real to play, like I'm controlling a puppet with strings or something. Some VSTs use "reverb" as sympathetic resonance as well, and it sounds terrible.

That said, I use each for different purposes. If I'm playing live, I'll use a modeled piano, since it's probably a cocktail party or a band gig. If it were a classical gig, they'd probably have a piano there already. If I'm recording solo piano, or for a track with other acoustic instruments, I'll record the MIDI data while playing a modeled piano, and use a sampled piano for the actual track. If it's for a rock / electronic track, then I'll use modeled as realism isn't as important, in my opinion. If I'm practicing at home, it'll be the modeled pianos on the RD-2000 + headphones or studio monitors.

I think there is also a lot to be said about tweaking the keybed to the software. I know we can calibrated them for all the decent VSTs, but it's not the same as having Roland tweak their own keybeds to their own software, or any other company doing the same. There needs to be a good connection between the hardware and the software/firmware, otherwise it'll result in a bad experience for the player.

Finally, you can do a lot with EQ/compression/reverb if you have basic sound engineering skills. Even a mediocre piano can be made to sound half decent (but this may only be possible in post-production for many of you).
Posted By: Fscotte

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:04 PM

There's no mistake I seriously dislike Pianoteq, and version 6 is yet another reason why. I was thrilled to try out the latest hoping that they really made it revolutionary, but it seems only slight improvement were made in the tonal department.

It still sounds like it has the same issues, and all the overhauled pianos sound like they've had their EQ adjusted, which of course is something you can do with version 3/4/5.

Where I really hear the difference is from version 3 to version 5. It seems that was the big leap.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
I took the MIDI from whatever the top Google result for "classical piano midi" was. smile

To expect a perfect piano sound to be generated from a stereo setup, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Think about how massive the "speaker" is on a piano. How can speakers even try to duplicate that, from a physics perspective?

.


Quite simply, we have only two ears and two eyes! So we hear in stereo, and see in 3D vision.
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M
I'm afraid I don't really know enough (do you?) about this interpolation business (especially when you're playing through a controller rather than a MIDI file)? Why claim only 20 velocity layers if in fact you can generate 127 volume levels? What in fact does it matter if you have 4 velocity layers or 90 velocity layers if you can interpolate and still get 127 volume levels (matching the MIDI values)?

I believe I know enough, yes. Someone may correct me but I think the massive Vienna Imperial boasts 127 separate layers (or at least more than any other sample library.) AFAICT that in itself is a potential minefield of difficulty for realtime performance since the undoctored samples are unlikely to be as smooth in transition as those that are crossfaded with fewer layers. So layering matters to some more than others. Some would like the apparent attention to detail where every note has its own sample. Others will see the wisdom of compromise.
If you want more info on interpolation, there's extensive documentation on crossfading for the Kontakt engine. Check it out.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Fscotte
There's no mistake I seriously dislike Pianoteq, and version 6 is yet another reason why. I was thrilled to try out the latest hoping that they really made it revolutionary, but it seems only slight improvement were made in the tonal department.



This point is made now and doesn't need repeating multiple times (if Pianoteq are reading posts here, they've probably picked up on this sentiment). Either you like the tone (or don't dislike it enough to stick with sampling) or find it initially ok then later get frustrated by the metallic nature, or you just don't dig the tone at all.

Originally Posted by Fscotte
Where I really hear the difference is from version 3 to version 5. It seems that was the big leap.


Yes, this is logical too because they've been adding more and more instruments to the library since version 3, meaning it's taking them longer to release updates and each update seems to be small evolutions rather than big steps. The same point has been made a few times in this thread.

Modartts business model is to bring out more models because they can make more money selling many instruments, and re-invest that into their R&D. It's growing their business faster to do it that way i.e., rather than to concentrate on improving the modelling for one piano model only.

Also, I suspect that piano modelling advances evolve with basic R&D, which moves at the academic output rate. Maybe faster advances will occur if someone makes a breakthrough or if computer technology suddenly takes a leap forward.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic
Originally Posted by Doug M
I'm afraid I don't really know enough (do you?) about this interpolation business (especially when you're playing through a controller rather than a MIDI file)? Why claim only 20 velocity layers if in fact you can generate 127 volume levels? What in fact does it matter if you have 4 velocity layers or 90 velocity layers if you can interpolate and still get 127 volume levels (matching the MIDI values)?

I believe I know enough, yes. Someone may correct me but I think the massive Vienna Imperial boasts 127 separate layers (or at least more than any other sample library.) AFAICT that in itself is a potential minefield of difficulty for realtime performance since the undoctored samples are unlikely to be as smooth in transition as those that are crossfaded with fewer layers. So layering matters to some more than others. Some would like the apparent attention to detail where every note has its own sample. Others will see the wisdom of compromise.
If you want more info on interpolation, there's extensive documentation on crossfading for the Kontakt engine. Check it out.


Thanks for the link. I'm going to read about it. Heard many people refer to the Kontakt engine, but never really read about it!
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by peterws
Originally Posted by HSFlik
I took the MIDI from whatever the top Google result for "classical piano midi" was. smile

To expect a perfect piano sound to be generated from a stereo setup, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Think about how massive the "speaker" is on a piano. How can speakers even try to duplicate that, from a physics perspective?

.


Quite simply, we have only two ears and two eyes! So we hear in stereo, and see in 3D vision.


We do hear in stereo; however, there is a difference between the various sound reflections/absorptions and transmissions when comparing an acoustic grand to a stage piano with stereo speakers. I guess that's why Yamaha, Kawai and Roland have spent lots of time trying to place speakers, generate sound-boards etc to better mimic this.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
I took the MIDI from whatever the top Google result for "classical piano midi" was. smile

My thoughts:

I don't think there is one "right" solution for the perfect piano representation. When you play a piano, you are hearing so many different things: the soundboard resonating with the combined vibrations of all the strings, the depression of the keys, the movements of the hammers, the damper moving up and down, the reflection of the sound off the walls, and even more, I'm sure.

To expect a perfect piano sound to be generated from a stereo setup, is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Think about how massive the "speaker" is on a piano. How can speakers even try to duplicate that, from a physics perspective?

I prefer playing on modeled pianos. Modeled pianos feel more responsive to control. The sympathetic resonance sounds better to me, as well. This is not to say at all, that it sounds like an acoustic piano. It doesn't at all. But, it's a lot of fun.

Whenever I play a sampled piano, I always feel there's something a little left to be desired. Maybe it's because no one records 128 velocity layers, or the sympathetic resonance of every possible combination of keys. It sounds real, but it doesn't feel real to play, like I'm controlling a puppet with strings or something. Some VSTs use "reverb" as sympathetic resonance as well, and it sounds terrible.

That said, I use each for different purposes. If I'm playing live, I'll use a modeled piano, since it's probably a cocktail party or a band gig. If it were a classical gig, they'd probably have a piano there already. If I'm recording solo piano, or for a track with other acoustic instruments, I'll record the MIDI data while playing a modeled piano, and use a sampled piano for the actual track. If it's for a rock / electronic track, then I'll use modeled as realism isn't as important, in my opinion. If I'm practicing at home, it'll be the modeled pianos on the RD-2000 + headphones or studio monitors.

I think there is also a lot to be said about tweaking the keybed to the software. I know we can calibrated them for all the decent VSTs, but it's not the same as having Roland tweak their own keybeds to their own software, or any other company doing the same. There needs to be a good connection between the hardware and the software/firmware, otherwise it'll result in a bad experience for the player.

Finally, you can do a lot with EQ/compression/reverb if you have basic sound engineering skills. Even a mediocre piano can be made to sound half decent (but this may only be possible in post-production for many of you).


Thanks for that post!
I remember Phil Best commenting on YouTube that Pianoteq 5 and the V-piano had different qualities but he like both. Do you feel that Pianoteq 6 competes well with your RD2000's (despite the keybed comment)?
Posted By: Tom Fort

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:33 PM

I did think it was interesting that Phil Best had a Roland FP-90 that he was using in the Pianoteq 6 videos.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

I'm afraid I don't really know enough (do you?) about this interpolation business (especially when you're playing through a controller rather than a MIDI file)? Why claim only 20 velocity layers if in fact you can generate 127 volume levels? What in fact does it matter if you have 4 velocity layers or 90 velocity layers if you can interpolate and still get 127 volume levels (matching the MIDI values)?


Think about it like this: If you were to shout "Get off my plane!" at 127 different volumes, the tone of it would change gradually as you got from softer to louder. At the quietest, it would be a sweet (maybe) sounding whisper. At the loudest, your mouth might be wide open and you may get some throat growl in there.

To reduce the amount of work, you could just record/sample a "quiet" one, a "medium" one, and a "loud" one. You could assign the "quiet" one to velocities 0 - 42, the "medium" one from 43 to 90, and the "loud" one from 91 - 127. Then, you would adjust the volume for each such that the higher the velocity, the louder the volume. While the volume changes from 0-127, you only hear three different tones. The same thing happens when the hammer strikes the keys at different velocities. It's not just a volume change that you hear on an acoustic, but a tonal one as well.

Piano modeling tries to find a mathematical equation (highly complex, I'm sure) that captures all of these characteristics across the velocity range, and how the strings interact with each other. So, while the problem of velocity layers is eliminated, there's a more complex one of the modeling being realistic enough for the human ear to recognize as a piano.

I'll let you know what I think of the RD-2000 / Pianoteq combination after I try it out a little more. Haven't had much of a chance yet.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Fort
I did think it was interesting that Phil Best had a Roland FP-90 that he was using in the Pianoteq 6 videos.


Perhaps Phil likes the PHA-50 better than the PHAIII of the V-piano and the NW-GH of his CP4?
On his website it says he uses the FP-90 for live performance, so I guess he doesn't use Pianoteq much on stage.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
Folks, I'd like to point out that the argument about which is best---modelled vs. sampled---depends upon what you value.

Whilst modelling has improved its tonal qualities modestly, sampled piano libraries have only made modest improvements in number of velocity layers---both represent an evolution in technology, ergo, the choice for customers hasn't really changed viz modelling vs. sampling.

Sample-based synthesizer hardware can morph velocity layers since decades. There is no modeling needed for smooth layer transitions from pp to ff. Software libraries took very long to get this right (if at all).

Quote
Currently, for those who place less value on the accurate tonal reproduction of a Steinway etc., and value more the dynamic expressiveness, then Pianoteq and/or Roland/Physis modelling appeals more.

The real comparison to this segment of the market (to modelling enthusiasts) is certainly not CFX vs Pianoteq 6, because despite having 20 velocity layers, CFX isn't going to provide the player with an expressiveness equal to a modelled piano with 127 velocity layers.

I'm comparing Pianoteq, Ivory II American Concert D (22 velocity layers) and the Kawai EX built into my digital piano over the course of three years and the dated sample inside my DP became my favorite instrument. It sounds great, especially in the forte-fortissimo range, unlike Synthogy's Steinway (there might be great sounding Steinway Ds, but the instrument Synthogy chose to record was not one of those) and is perfectly playable just as Pianoteq's model.

Quote
I much preferred this Minuet to the MIDI file of Chopin played through the various Pianoteq 6 pianos. For that matter, the performance by Phil Best and the other Pianoteq 6 recordings (in the listen section of PTs website) are more enjoyable to listen to than the MIDI file of Chopin, even though the Chopin melody is more impressive. The underlying tonal quality of Pianoteq in these different recordings are similar---signature to Pianoteq.

My question regarding the Chopin MIDI file is: was it originally recorded using a sampled VST? If so, would it not be the case that the MIDI velocity levels of each note would play the same whether played back through Pianoteq or CFX?

Rendering MIDI files has nothing to do with playing piano at all.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Originally Posted by Doug M.

I'm afraid I don't really know enough (do you?) about this interpolation business (especially when you're playing through a controller rather than a MIDI file)? Why claim only 20 velocity layers if in fact you can generate 127 volume levels? What in fact does it matter if you have 4 velocity layers or 90 velocity layers if you can interpolate and still get 127 volume levels (matching the MIDI values)?


Think about it like this: If you were to shout "Get off my plane!" at 127 different volumes, the tone of it would change gradually as you got from softer to louder. At the quietest, it would be a sweet (maybe) sounding whisper. At the loudest, your mouth might be wide open and you may get some throat growl in there.

To reduce the amount of work, you could just record/sample a "quiet" one, a "medium" one, and a "loud" one. You could assign the "quiet" one to velocities 0 - 42, the "medium" one from 43 to 90, and the "loud" one from 91 - 127. Then, you would adjust the volume for each such that the higher the velocity, the louder the volume. While the volume changes from 0-127, you only hear three different tones. The same thing happens when the hammer strikes the keys at different velocities. It's not just a volume change that you hear on an acoustic, but a tonal one as well.

Piano modeling tries to find a mathematical equation (highly complex, I'm sure) that captures all of these characteristics across the velocity range, and how the strings interact with each other. So, while the problem of velocity layers is eliminated, there's a more complex one of the modeling being realistic enough for the human ear to recognize as a piano.

I'll let you know what I think of the RD-2000 / Pianoteq combination after I try it out a little more. Haven't had much of a chance yet.


Ah, so the 20 volume levels on the CFX are actually 20 different tonal characteristics. That makes sense, thanks!
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by Doug M.
Folks, I'd like to point out that the argument about which is best---modelled vs. sampled---depends upon what you value.

Whilst modelling has improved its tonal qualities modestly, sampled piano libraries have only made modest improvements in number of velocity layers---both represent an evolution in technology, ergo, the choice for customers hasn't really changed viz modelling vs. sampling.

Sample-based synthesizer hardware can morph velocity layers since decades. There is no modeling needed for smooth layer transitions from pp to ff. Software libraries took very long to get this right (if at all).

Quote
Currently, for those who place less value on the accurate tonal reproduction of a Steinway etc., and value more the dynamic expressiveness, then Pianoteq and/or Roland/Physis modelling appeals more.

The real comparison to this segment of the market (to modelling enthusiasts) is certainly not CFX vs Pianoteq 6, because despite having 20 velocity layers, CFX isn't going to provide the player with an expressiveness equal to a modelled piano with 127 velocity layers.

I'm comparing Pianoteq, Ivory II American Concert D (22 velocity layers) and the Kawai EX built into my digital piano over the course of three years and the dated sample inside my DP became my favorite instrument. It sounds great, especially in the forte-fortissimo range, unlike Synthogy's Steinway (there might be great sounding Steinway Ds, but the instrument Synthogy chose to record was not one of those) and is perfectly playable just as Pianoteq's model.

Quote
I much preferred this Minuet to the MIDI file of Chopin played through the various Pianoteq 6 pianos. For that matter, the performance by Phil Best and the other Pianoteq 6 recordings (in the listen section of PTs website) are more enjoyable to listen to than the MIDI file of Chopin, even though the Chopin melody is more impressive. The underlying tonal quality of Pianoteq in these different recordings are similar---signature to Pianoteq.

My question regarding the Chopin MIDI file is: was it originally recorded using a sampled VST? If so, would it not be the case that the MIDI velocity levels of each note would play the same whether played back through Pianoteq or CFX?

Rendering MIDI files has nothing to do with playing piano at all.



I felt my MP7 EX grand sounded great with the Chopin MIDI file.
Dire tonic and HSFlik have just explained about the smooth layer transitions thing: quite interesting!
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Think about it like this: If you were to shout "Get off my plane!" at 127 different volumes, the tone of it would change gradually as you got from softer to louder. At the quietest, it would be a sweet (maybe) sounding whisper. At the loudest, your mouth might be wide open and you may get some throat growl in there.

To reduce the amount of work, you could just record/sample a "quiet" one, a "medium" one, and a "loud" one. You could assign the "quiet" one to velocities 0 - 42, the "medium" one from 43 to 90, and the "loud" one from 91 - 127. Then, you would adjust the volume for each such that the higher the velocity, the louder the volume. While the volume changes from 0-127, you only hear three different tones. The same thing happens when the hammer strikes the keys at different velocities. It's not just a volume change that you hear on an acoustic, but a tonal one as well.


You forget about the sample crossfading/morphing interpolation. Most (if not all) samplers gradually blend the samples, so it's not only the volume that changes, it's also a smooth and gradual timbre variation. You can see in the DPBSD test that almost all of the tested hardware and software pianos utilize such a technique.

Not saying you've been mislead or anything but I can easily see how a false assumption like that could lead many people to incorrectly believe it's only modeled pianos that give you smooth velocity and timbre gradation, hence they must be better than sampled.
Posted By: pianophil

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

What would be useful now is:
1) A comparison of the Pianoteq 5 instruements vs the Pianoteq 6
instruments so we can hear the improvements.


Hi Doug,

thank you for your interesting suggestion. We have prepared a special
comparison page between Pianoteq 5 and Pianoteq 6.

Philippe
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
You forget about the sample crossfading/morphing interpolation. Most (if not all) samplers gradually blend the samples, so it's not only the volume that changes, it's also a smooth and gradual timbre variation. You can see in the DPBSD test that almost all of the tested hardware and software pianos utilize such a technique.

Not saying you've been mislead or anything but I can easily see how a false assumption like that could lead many people to incorrectly believe it's only modeled pianos that give you smooth velocity and timbre gradation, hence they must be better than sampled.


Thank you for the correction!

I think it's all personal preference, not necessarily one is better than the other, anyway.
Posted By: Tom Fort

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:35 PM

Very useful Philippe. Did you choose those pianos as you feel they show the most improvement from v5 to v6?

Will you be adding more instruments to the comparison page?

How hard was it to get the ARM version coded? Interesting to see what that might portend.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:41 PM

To me personally the biggest advantage of modeled pianos is in the resonances. In a sampled piano, you have one set of regular (no damper pedal pressed) samples and one with damper pedal. Then when you play with damper pedal pressed, you actually merge all the resonance from all recordings and that's bad. I know for sure (since I have discussed this with software piano developers) that some sampled piano manufacturers try to record only the resonance, by using mechanically modified pianos that damp the string immediately after the attack and leaving only the other strings to symphatetically resonate... and many other workarounds, that are still partially working. And some of the digital pianos utilize modeling for resonances such as the Kawai and Yamaha pianos.

But IMO I personally prefer the absolutely realistic timbre of the sampled pianos regardless of resonance artifacts/defects. My brain almost immediately detects the fakeness in the modeled timbre and once that kicks in, it spoils it for me and I can't play anymore. However the (not very well implemented) resonances in the sampled pianos are much harder to be detected by my brain, maybe they fool me. However I can play CFX for hours without getting any feeling I am playing a synthetic piano.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by pianophil
Originally Posted by Doug M.

What would be useful now is:
1) A comparison of the Pianoteq 5 instruements vs the Pianoteq 6
instruments so we can hear the improvements.


Hi Doug,

thank you for your interesting suggestion. We have prepared a special
comparison page between Pianoteq 5 and Pianoteq 6.

Philippe


Philippe Guillaume I presume?
Bonjour Philippe, many thanks for developing Pianoteq!!!

I especially love what you've done to the YC5! Thanks for the comparison, it's very helpful!
Posted By: pianophil

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Fort
Very useful Philippe. Did you choose those pianos as you feel they show the most improvement from v5 to v6?

Will you be adding more instruments to the comparison page?

How hard was it to get the ARM version coded? Interesting to see what that might portend.


The comparison was to show a few examples of improvement, and indeed we wanted to show what we were proud of. Getting the ARM version coded was quite a bit of work, but interesting work!
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 04:37 PM

Doug, I'm with Alexander and dt. The number of 'volume' levels does not relate to the number of 'velocity' layers within the sample. The volume is increased even when the same sample layer is played at rising velocity. Back in the day Yamaha used to use a single velocity layer but due to its proprietary filtering and other technologies created a passable timbral change (and of course volume change) between the softest key press and the hardest - all with one sample.

These days Yamaha, Kawai, Casio and others all have sample selection and reply engines that provide volume and timbral change at a resolution far beyond the simple number of sample layers. The Roland SN engine (sample based) only had four velocity layers but you will struggle to hear the velocity switching.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
To me personally the biggest advantage of modeled pianos is in the resonances. In a sampled piano, you have one set of regular (no damper pedal pressed) samples and one with damper pedal.

Which instruments have those?
Posted By: pianophil

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
[...]

Philippe Guillaume I presume?
Bonjour Philippe, many thanks for developing Pianoteq!!!

I especially love what you've done to the YC5! Thanks for the comparison, it's very helpful!


Yes, Philippe Guillaume. I am glad you enjoy the new YC5! And the comparison too.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:00 PM

Congratulations Philippe for version 6 ! Thank you for Pianoteq. From comparison difference between v5 and v6 is obvious. Good job !
Posted By: jackifus

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:07 PM

M. Guillaume,

a detail: on the comparison page first row: Schubert's Sonata No. 20
the Pianoteq 5 column is currently labeled "Steinway D Intimate", whereas I'm confident it should read "D4 Intimate"

best regards,

you make wonderful instruments.

Jack
Posted By: Frédéric L

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
To me personally the biggest advantage of modeled pianos is in the resonances. In a sampled piano, you have one set of regular (no damper pedal pressed) samples and one with damper pedal.

Which instruments have those?

On EWQL Geand Pianos and VSL Vienna Imperial, you have a damper pressed pedal set of samples. It is quite reamistic... excepted when you release the pedal with notes still pressed a continue to hear a full resonance. (But most scores don't do that I suppose).

On Ivory, resonances are computed, on TrueKeys, I have read they are sampled (I don't know how to record resonance without the main sound).
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
To me personally the biggest advantage of modeled pianos is in the resonances. In a sampled piano, you have one set of regular (no damper pedal pressed) samples and one with damper pedal.

Which instruments have those?


Well, for example Garritan CFX. It has a set of say 20 velocities per key, all keys, damper up, then the same with damper down (and I believe the same two sets also for una corda as well but need to check). The good thing is the resonance is absolutely fabulous, I've never heard something better, just because it's the real resonance of the real CFX. The bad thing is this isn't very clever when used for say half-pedal and stuff, nor for string resonance, etc. But it's still so lush and captivating I've never felt I need it to be better, so the illusion is good enough. As I said, it's a matter of personal preference. YMMV
Posted By: pianophil

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by jackifus

a detail: on the comparison page first row: Schubert's Sonata No. 20
the Pianoteq 5 column is currently labeled "Steinway D Intimate", whereas I'm confident it should read "D4 Intimate"


You are right, a stupid copy paste error, thank you Jack for pointing.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
To me personally the biggest advantage of modeled pianos is in the resonances. In a sampled piano, you have one set of regular (no damper pedal pressed) samples and one with damper pedal.

Which instruments have those?


Well, for example Garritan CFX. It has a set of say 20 velocities per key, all keys, damper up, then the same with damper down (and I believe the same two sets also for una corda as well but need to check). The good thing is the resonance is absolutely fabulous, I've never heard something better, just because it's the real resonance of the real CFX. The bad thing is this isn't very clever when used for say half-pedal and stuff, nor for string resonance, etc.

That might be great for rendering MIDI files, but I doubt it's going to work well with playing piano. I don't know of any sample-based digital piano which uses damper up samples.
Posted By: clothearednincompo

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT
I don't know of any sample-based digital piano which uses damper up samples.


For example Yamaha's "Stereo Sustain Samples" are already an old thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npA06upgw20
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 05:53 PM

I believe almost all of the big sample-based software pianos, even those from the GigaStudio era used to record pedal up and pedal down, and that's how they recreated damper pedal behavior. And you would be amazed how good that actually works. IMO it's better than most of the hardware digital pianos, except maybe for the most current generation of them. I still prefer playing the Garritan CFX rather than CA67 for instance. Never mind fully modeled Rolands whose sound signature I don't even like (similar to Pianoteq) or Yamaha whose keyboards are not my cup of tea.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeT

That might be great for rendering MIDI files, but I doubt it's going to work well with playing piano.

It's working really well for both playing and recording. In theory this shouldn't work and is wrong, but by using some scripting they make it behave relatively closer to how it works on a real piano. And the included bonus is you hear the actual resonance of the actual piano, not some model of a soundboard which can never be as good as the real thing.

Originally Posted by clothearednincompo
Originally Posted by JoeT
I don't know of any sample-based digital piano which uses damper up samples.


For example Yamaha's "Stereo Sustain Samples" are already an old thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npA06upgw20

Yep, actually many digital pianos with damper sustain resonance used to utilize recorded pedal-down resonances. It's in the last years that some of them switched to modeling. Not all of them though, some Yamahas and Rolands (RD-700SX for isntance) used some silly reverb DSP to emulate resonance and it's so pathetic...
Posted By: ArtlessArt

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 06:38 PM

Does anyone know when we can anticipate the next sale? Very keen to get the Stage version.
Posted By: jokke

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

They are interpolated meaning you get a smooth transition at the border between two velocity levels; however, you still only get 20 different volume levels not 127. Smoothing out velocity switching doesn't imply that you get comparable expressiveness to a modelled instrument with 127 velocity levels.


On an instrument with linear behaviour of interactions, your statement would be false, for example if a note could be thought as a sine wave of given amplitude -- interpolated "in between" volume levels would be identical to actual separate 127 velocity recordings.

This holds true also for any combination of sine waves, which can be used to construct ANY signal. But it breaks down if the resonances etc. interact non-linearly. On a piano that is likely true at least to a small extent, so I concur with your statement.

HOWEVER, I'm not certain a human ear can actually hear the differences between 20 volume levels interpolated to 127 and 127 actual different levels. Actually, my gut feeling is "quite likely not", despite what some people without true double blind A/B testing might say. In most cases, a signal approximated with 20 data points is so close to the original, that the non-linear parts make up something like 0.5 % of difference on the result.

I'm not saying that you can achieve 100 % realistic piano sound with 20 different volume levels, because there will be gaps elsewhere (I would think modeling a piano sound will handle those better than just adding up samples) but I'm quite sure the problem with realism lies somewhere else. The obsession about different recordings for ppp to fff is like the arguments of polyphony over 128 samples.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:30 PM

---
Well, there will always exist people who are critical of nearly everything, and some people seem inclined to be critical by nature. But it seems that the discussion has been diverted by critics to a different subject entirely.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
It's interesting reading all the criticism of Pianoteq in this topic, before the primary discussion was "shouted down" and suppressed by the critics, who then diverted it into another topic entirely.

...those inclined to be critical (often arbitrarily so) typically resort to ever more aggressive and fierce denunciation...


Who has been "aggressive" and "fierce" in their denunciation?
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 09:44 PM

Painted faced football fans shouting fight songs.

Shish Boom Blah!
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Who has been "aggressive" and "fierce" in their denunciation?


I don't think it is necessary (nor courteous) to refer to any particular individual(s) specifically.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
Originally Posted by EssBrace
Who has been "aggressive" and "fierce" in their denunciation?


Well, to be fair, I suppose that those who are characteristically inclined to be harshly, smugly or imperiously critical often see themselves instead as realists or even idealists, although they often merely suffer from the flaws of habitual pessimism or perfectionism.


That's nice. But what's the answer to my question? In my reading of this thread only one person (pro PianoTeq as it happens) has strayed just slightly towards aggression or fierceness. But who do you think has been aggressive or fierce?
Posted By: twl

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 10:57 PM

If I had to choose only one piano VST. It would be Pianoteq without question or hesitation.

I read intently criticisms of Pianoteq on this forum, and I personally find them useful in that I try to get a sense of what is being reported on. Since I own sampled VSTs that are highly thought of, CFX, Ivory II, ACD, Ravenscroft, I would play them, and it always ends up the same, I always go back to the Pianoteq D4 in particular.

The sampled VSTs I own could not be more different from each other, so Pianoteq to me is just another piano. The way how my setup is I do forget whether it's Ivory II German D or the Pianoteq D4 I left it on, I can't tell the difference unless I check.

It is interesting, and laudable that Bluthner, Grotrian and now Steinway presumably thinks highly enough of the Pianoteq models to put their imprimatur on them. However I did not need the Steinway stamp of approval to enjoy using and choosing the Pianoteq D4, which since I ugraded is now the Steinway D.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/07/17 11:28 PM


Originally Posted by twl
If I had to choose only one piano VST. It would be Pianoteq without question or hesitation.


That's how I feel as well, in no small part because of Pianoteq's flexibility and the detailed configurability allowed for and implemented in Pianoteq's modeled piano approach as contrasted with sampled piano libraries, and its high quality, especially considering its modest demands upon computer resources.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:25 AM

Fiddle faddle.
There's been nothing fierce here.
And your psychiatric viewpoint is suspect. smile
Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
When those inclined to be critical (often arbitrarily so) resort to more aggressive and fierce denunciation, it usually means that the object of criticism is not so easy to simply dismiss anymore, and they typically must manufacture arguments that are increasingly subjective and vague ... blah blah blah ...

So actually, harsh criticism is sometimes a form of praise.
That's just silly.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Fiddle faddle.
There's been nothing fierce here.
And your psychiatric viewpoint is suspect. smile
That's just silly.


Of course I don't wish to discourage anyone's freedom of expression, and I'm happy to see that in your case at least, I was successful. And after commenting about the discussion being diverted away from the primary topic, I don't want to contribute too much to that very problem myself.
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by scorpio
Thank goodness Pianoteq 6 has been released! Now all the haters have a reason to remind us, yet again, how much they dislike Pianoteq. We heard you the first millionth time. My suggestion is to include your Pianoteq dislike in your signature panel, it would save everyone some time. Oh but maybe that would defeat your purpose. Too funny.


I think a new major revision always merits scrutiny and re-evaluation, and some folks won't like it (or will continue to not like it). Who cares? Some people seem to perpetually hate on the Garritan CFX I really like, but that's fine too. Nothing is perfect (yet), but if it brings more joy and music into your life, it probably shouldn't matter what other people say.
Posted By: Terry Michael

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 06:35 AM

After playing with the update myself for a day I have to admit, I'm with Phil.

https://youtu.be/c_7_v9gsvsA
Posted By: lophiomys

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 07:50 AM

Personal preferences aside,

which other company or producer of digital pianos does publish a straight comparison on their website,
where you can directly and comfortably compare the differences of an "old" against the new product.
IMO that is speaking for itself.

I guess the "sampling industry" with their oldish ROMplers is in uproar about the serious competition arising from a small company in France!
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by lophiomys

I guess the "sampling industry" with their oldish ROMplers is in uproar about the serious competition arising from a small company in France!


Roland went fully modeled but as far as I can see people are still buying Kawai and Yamaha pianos. You should realize not everyone is satisfied with the current state of modeling. Each to their own. Modeling isn’t there yet to replace sampling entirely. Maybe that will happen some day and I’ll be more than happy if I have an entirely modeled piano that can bring me as much joy as the best sampled ones today, so I am expecting it eagerly.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 09:42 AM

It'd be interesting to see if those on the real piano forum have fierce opinions concerning their instruments . . . .I read of one who got tired of his Kawai grand, and another who intensely disliked a Steinway . . . .
Maybe we all need our hearing standardised, regulated, cleaned up and the batteries replaced.
Posted By: kapelli

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by lophiomys

I guess the "sampling industry" with their oldish ROMplers is in uproar about the serious competition arising from a small company in France!


Roland went fully modeled but as far as I can see people are still buying Kawai and Yamaha pianos. You should realize not everyone is satisfied with the current state of modeling. Each to their own. Modeling isn’t there yet to replace sampling entirely. Maybe that will happen some day and I’ll be more than happy if I have an entirely modeled piano that can bring me as much joy as the best sampled ones today, so I am expecting it eagerly.


Indeed, bass from Rolands is still boomy and boxy, while the highs and mids are best in class of all pianos. However, modeled pianos have some kind of strange dullness in them - it's not the fact being them dark like German pianos or bright as Fazioli, but they can be dull and metallic/bit harsh together. Totally opposite of what real piano attributes are - even if they are quite bright, there is not at all metallic sound, harsh, or wiped out tonality richness, which is still normal thing in modeled pianos.

I think there are still years to come unless modeling will be real competition. I was listening to V-grand few days ago, and while Roland get rid of metallic characteristic, so the bass response is worse. But, in the end, it all depends, in many areas they achieved great development, but in the same time in few it's a step back, or the best, sideways. Hopefully in the next generations they will be able to slightly improve those things.

And, finally, all pianos sounds different in real conditions, and while for Example Casio GP sound really good and Kawai SK-EX a bit dead via youtube, in real life it's the opposite. Casio sounds good only with the lid open, and Kawai is like real compared to Casio, tested CA67 and 97 vs GP400.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 11:42 AM

Wooden pianos also have limitations, although their supporters/owners usually describe that as "unique character".
They claim to love it, "warts and all".

To some extent you can emulate the imperfections of wooden pianos with the condition slider in pianoteq.
Several users have commented that they PREFER a little bit of degrade in that setting to better represent their wooden pianos that have settled a week or month after tuning.

It is all too easy to underestimate the pace of progress in computing - autonomous vehicles being a good example.

There is SO MUCH subjectivity in all this, bias/prejudice too laugh
Posted By: JFP

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 11:56 AM

Modelled piano's , sighhh,,, have tried them all and own several modelled software AP , including PT.

Problem is in the attack. Always in the attack (transient).
The attack has something dull /thin / unnatural / too much rounded quality to it. The rest I LOVE ; dynamics , control , sustain , resonance , intonation on modelled sounds - alle very enjoyable ! But the initial transient / attack has always been why I keep on going back and forth and back and forth between sampled and modelled.

I don't really understand why they don't simple put a very small /tiny sample at the start off the sound, just neatly in the initial attack and be done with it.
I think it woud solve so much of the always noticable 'modelled' character of the sound, that it would become instantly perfect instead of almost there, but still something is 'wrong'.

At first touch , the new PT piano's always impress en are very nice too play, but along the line this little creature in the back of your head keeps on telling you " why does it work so well and sound basically so good and STILL keeps on bothering me as if something is not right and becomes annoying in the long run".

This is not bashing PT - it's really good and plays nice , but if I have t pinpoint where the underlying problem with long term use starts to creep up , its that tiny little transient part of the sound. IMHO I think that the way that start is modelled / calculated and the algorithms used for that , have not dramatically changed over the years . Neither at Roland , Arturia or whatever other modelling attempt. So I would suggest - either develop or try a complete different approach for the attack modelling , or (perhaps easier) throw in a tiny attack sample, mary that with modelling and be done with it. (BTW isn't that what the 'old' supernatural engine of Roland also attempted , although that had its own flaws here and there ?)
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:24 PM

---
Many of the comments and complaints in this discussion against modeled pianos in general and Pianoteq specifically, seem to be from people who have little or no experience with the benefits and advantages of the extensive control one is offerred of nearly every aspect of the sound, from adjusting the inharmonicity of the bass strings, changing string length (Pianoteq allows one to create a modeled piano with strings much longer than the largest concert grand), hammer hardness and condition, damper response, the relative strength of the partials to the fundamental tone, the strength and brightness of the higher frequencies of each string, how fast they decay, the duration and prominence of the various components of the sound produced by each string-strike, equalization applied to each string individually rather than merely an overall equalization of the composite, combined sound output, customization of sound and model parameters applied variably or in graded form to the entire keyboard or only to specific ranges of the keyboard or even on a note-by-note basis (in Pianoteq Pro), and numerous other aspects of the sound that can be customized in fine detail to suit one's particular tastes.

If these people are satisfied with their sampled pianos, that's fine. For others of us, the limitations, idiosyncracies and deficiencies of sampled pianos make them less desirable.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:25 PM

I've read somewhere that Pianoteq uses samples of attacks because it is too difficult to model and calculate them in real time. Not sure where I read it so it might not be true.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:32 PM

I am not current, but it was my understanding a couple or three years ago that an "attack sample" is typically added as a preface to modeled sound.
From memory (unreliable at best) this was on Roland's offering.

ONE of my reservations with sampling is that it is done on ONE SAMPLE of the wooden piano, which may or may not be a GOOD sample of that maker's work, may or may not be the best maintained sample, but is an available sample, it may not be the piano you would buy in a store, not necessarily better (however measured) than you could buy.
Steinways vary a LOT, buyers typically visit a showroom to make their choice of what appear to be the best on the floor that day (or "least bad" if you are a cynic).

Another is the extraordinary amount of time it must take to gather all the samples at all the velocities and record them with .....all the artifacts of the recording process including whatever particular room/hall.
All the time it is going out of tune, or a tech/tuner is standing by to tweak things.

I don't think interpolation is such a HUGE problem as some may imagine.
Things are almost certainly not linear between velocity levels, but some clever curve fitting can probably get very very close to where the wooden piano would behave at all the in between points.

I know a little about post processing, i.e. the attempts to get rid of the room and produce "dry" samples so that the user can add room/hall ambiance - here we are REALLY getting into "synthetic sound".

So yes, I mostly reject the "realism" claims of sampling.

OTOH, when in the right mood I can enjoy trying to make music on almost anything in almost any state of tune laugh
Music isn't ABOUT the instrument.
The archer, not the arrow. The singer, not the song, etc.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by JFP
Modelled piano's , sighhh,,, have tried them all and own several modelled software AP , including PT.

Problem is in the attack. Always in the attack (transient).
The attack has something dull /thin / unnatural / too much rounded quality to it. The rest I LOVE ; dynamics , control , sustain , resonance , intonation on modelled sounds - alle very enjoyable ! But the initial transient / attack has always been why I keep on going back and forth and back and forth between sampled and modelled.

I don't really understand why they don't simple put a very small /tiny sample at the start off the sound, just neatly in the initial attack and be done with it.
I think it woud solve so much of the always noticable 'modelled' character of the sound, that it would become instantly perfect instead of almost there, but still something is 'wrong'.

At first touch , the new PT piano's always impress en are very nice too play, but along the line this little creature in the back of your head keeps on telling you " why does it work so well and sound basically so good and STILL keeps on bothering me as if something is not right and becomes annoying in the long run".

This is not bashing PT - it's really good and plays nice , but if I have t pinpoint where the underlying problem with long term use starts to creep up , its that tiny little transient part of the sound. IMHO I think that the way that start is modelled / calculated and the algorithms used for that , have not dramatically changed over the years . Neither at Roland , Arturia or whatever other modelling attempt. So I would suggest - either develop or try a complete different approach for the attack modelling , or (perhaps easier) throw in a tiny attack sample, mary that with modelling and be done with it. (BTW isn't that what the 'old' supernatural engine of Roland also attempted , although that had its own flaws here and there ?)


This thread has been nothing but FANTASTIC for Pianoteq.

1) They've had great exposure for v.6
2) They've had constructive criticism in a number of aspects from experienced VST users
3) Everybody is talking about modelling vs. sampling, which means those who don't own one or the other are now curious.

It's clear that people have very strong views about piano modelling vs. sampling.

What worries me is that everybody using these VSTs has their own system, settings, headphones, audio-equipment etc.
Perhaps as a community, we should start threads sharing Pianoteq settings etc., and start to talk about how to make PT and other VSTs function optimally.

Also, I appreciate the various strong view points etc.; however, for those who are confident players, it would be more useful to compare/contrast actual recordings of various VSTs in a dedicated thread, with each performance showing the settings used etc.
Posted By: Tom Fort

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I've read somewhere that Pianoteq uses samples of attacks because it is too difficult to model and calculate them in real time. Not sure where I read it so it might not be true.


Modartt has always been up-front that the mechanical noises of the piano use samples, while all of the strings, sound board, and resonant aspects of the piano are modelled:

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?pid=12240#p12240
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:58 PM

Stephen: one feature I'm curious about is the control of the high frequency partials, that is only available in the Pro version, but there is no trial version of Pro. Do you have the Pro version? If so, do you think that feature would help to make Pianoteq sound more "steely and wiry", like the baby Yamaha grand in this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_97KkAFM7HI&index=5&list=WL (my favourite sound is the "spaced pair" mic setup, starting at 6:55) Or, maybe Pro isn't even required to get this sound? The default settings of YC5 don't sound much like this video at all to me - Pianoteq sounds very muffled.

Greg.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 12:59 PM

Tom, that is a very old thread where we discussed mechanical noises and Pianoteq confirmed those are sampled. I have also participated as can be seen. I was referring to the attack of each note which is not considered a "mechanical" noise. I remember someone somewhere mentioned that the very attack of each note is actually a sample because it contains too much chaotic content that can't be modeled and easily recreated. Again, not sure if that's true or not. Maybe someone wrongly interpreted the thread in question thinking mechanical noises also include the attacks.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Tom, that is a very old thread where we discussed mechanical noises and Pianoteq confirmed those are sampled. I have also participated as can be seen. I was referring to the attack of each note which is not considered a "mechanical" noise. I remember someone somewhere mentioned that the very attack of each note is actually a sample because it contains too much chaotic content that can't be modeled and easily recreated. Again, not sure if that's true or not. Maybe someone wrongly interpreted the thread in question thinking mechanical noises also include the attacks.


Surely very complex chaotic systems can be modelled with enough time to quantify all the factors---perhaps using different mathematics more suited to chaotic systems?

Is it not more likely that the current development spend is channelled to maximise benefit?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:08 PM

It's good to be reminded of those old threads though because apparently the same Pianoteq zealots who would defend it fiercely and would act as Gestapo police, sniffing and working against every attempt to challenge the infallibility of their religion were there seven years ago when Pianoteq was unanimously bad from today's point of view laugh
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:11 PM

Cybergene: I think I made a comment along those lines about the attacks - it was my interpretation of the Pianoteq patent - I might be wrong. ;^) However I have a vague recollection of Modarrt saying that the attacks are pre-computed, which is not technically "sampling".

Greg.
Posted By: Tom Fort

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:13 PM

My recollection, like R_B's above, is that Roland's hybrid approach to modeling incorporates small samples of the attack portion of the sound.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Stephen: one feature I'm curious about is the control of the high frequency partials, that is only available in the Pro version, but there is no trial version of Pro. Do you have the Pro version? If so, do you think that feature would help to make Pianoteq sound more "steely and wiry", like the baby Yamaha grand in this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_97KkAFM7HI&index=5&list=WL (my favourite sound is the "spaced pair" mic setup, starting at 6:55) Or, maybe Pro isn't even required to get this sound? The default settings of YC5 don't sound much like this video at all to me - Pianoteq sounds very muffled.

Greg.



I remember watching a DVD on the making of "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" where they actually built a mirror image wooden piano case and suspended it over the grand piano to create a better recording. It's not just mic positions, but the recording environment.

Over-piano soundbox (3mins 8 seconds)
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:32 PM

Doug: Interesting! (but I can't watch that clip from Oz - "This video contains content from Eagle Rock. It is not available in your country." Bah. )

Greg.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:32 PM

---
To Greg (sullivang) -- Yes I do have the Pro version of Pianoteq and I love its configurability. However, to try to get the particular sound you personally prefer, you would need to use your own ears (and a good audio chain of course regarding sound card, speakers, headphones and their hopefully flat, studio-monitor-quality response), and the many parameter adjustments available in Pianoteq, which require some experimentation, experience and time to become familiar with and to understand the influence of upon the sound, and some investment of time, to fine tune any particular Pianoteq instrument you select to your own preferences and taste. The options and configurability available in Pianoteq (and for other modeled approaches) can seem nearly overwhelming at first, but very satisfying as one learns about the features and parameters over time.

I recommend the Pro version of Pianoteq for those who enjoy this type, level and array of user-interactive customization and configurability, who like to tinker with and adjust the sound in great detail. Pianoteq is a much more reasonable expense than buying a fully-featured digital piano or keyboard the sounds of which are not nearly as customizable and which can become disappointing over time. I use Pianoteq with a Kawai VPC1 MIDI controller that has no onboard sounds, and prefer that to any of the other keyboards or hardware tone generators I currently have or have bought and sold in the past.

I suppose it really is just a matter of personal preference, and one can't fault another for different preferences, just as people have different preferences regarding acoustic piano brands and models, and their characteristic sound qualities and keyboard actions.
---
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:37 PM

Stephen: what a copout - I was expecting an FXP from you in a matter of minutes. ;^)

Anyhow thanks for the advice, although I don't entirely agree with you about needing a "good audio chain". All I need is for the audio chain that I use for Pianoteq to be the same or close as the one I'm using to listen to that YT clip - nothing more. I.e - my goal is simply to have Pianoteq sound the same as that clip. (but it is a fairly good chain, in any case)

Greg.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
---
To Greg (sullivang) -- Yes I do have the Pro version of Pianoteq and I love its configurability. However, to try to get the particular sound you personally prefer, you would need to use your own ears (and a good audio chain of course regarding sound card, speakers, headphones and their hopefully flat, studio-monitor-quality response), and the many parameter adjustments available in Pianoteq, which require some experimentation, experience and time to become familiar with and to understand the influence of upon the sound, and some investment of time, to fine tune any particular Pianoteq instrument you select to your own preferences and taste. The options and configurability available in Pianoteq (and for other modeled approaches) can seem nearly overwhelming at first, but very satisfying as one learns about the features and parameters over time.

I recommend the Pro version of Pianoteq for those who enjoy this type, level and array of user-interactive customization and configurability, who like to tinker with and adjust the sound in great detail. Pianoteq is a much more reasonable expense than buying a fully-featured digital piano or keyboard the sounds of which are not nearly as customizable and which can become disappointing over time. I use Pianoteq with a Kawai VPC1 MIDI controller that has no onboard sounds, and prefer that to any of the other keyboards or hardware tone generators I currently have or have bought and sold in the past.

I suppose it really is just a matter of personal preference, and one can't fault another for different preferences, just as people have different preferences regarding acoustic piano brands and models, and their characteristic sound qualities and keyboard actions.
---


With the number of variant factors one can modulate, Pianoteq has the potential to generate many good and bad variants (from a taste perspective). It is likely that some people will stumble across a great set-up by accident that nobody else would ever stumble upon. This seems like a good motive to start sharing these set-ups so as a horde, we can identify some of the better set-ups!
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Stephen: what a copout - I was expecting an FXP from you in a matter of minutes. ;^)


I learned years ago that one can spend most of one's time "doing for others" while neglecting oneself, and no one else will care. smile

Besides, it's nearly impossible in my opinion to know or determine exactly what another person wants, expects or desires, and the variability between us as individuals, in our ideals and preferences, seems nearly limitless.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Doug: Interesting! (but I can't watch that clip from Oz - "This video contains content from Eagle Rock. It is not available in your country." Bah. )

Greg.


[img]https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyGKbBHbD0/?taken-by=dougmarkham78[/img]
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
Originally Posted by sullivang
Stephen: what a copout - I was expecting an FXP from you in a matter of minutes. ;^)


Sorry about that. I learned years ago that one can spend most of one's time "doing for others" while neglecting oneself, and no one else will care. smile

Besides, it's nearly impossible in my opinion to know or determine exactly what another person wants, expects or desires, and the variability between us as individuals, in our ideals and preferences, seems nearly limitless.


That is why all one can do is share all information and let people determine what they like/don't like.
A sort of evolution/natural selection process!

Of course, in this case, one might do for others but also benefit from what others might discover.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.

With the number of variant factors one can modulate, Pianoteq has the potential to generate many good and bad variants (from a taste perspective). It is likely that some people will stumble across a great set-up by accident that nobody else would ever stumble upon. This seems like a good motive to start sharing these set-ups so as a horde, we can identify some of the better set-ups!


I've been following Pianoteq since the very beginning, I had high hopes followed by pessimism, then optimism again... and again. And I've tried so many shared setups from the forums, ones people swear are fixing what's wrong with the default presets. One thing I learned during all that time is that if I don't like a particular model (and version of Pianoteq because they are kind of linked), there's no way for this to be fixed by tweaking it. Yes, you seem to have indefinite tweaking possibilities but at the end the underlying character prevails. Think of this, if you could create every possible piano sound through tweaking, why would they give you different models? They could just use one and same model that can be tweaked to represent a Steinway, a Yamaha, etc.

So, I will wait for Pianoteq 7 as of this time.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan

Sorry about that. I learned years ago that one can spend most of one's time "doing for others" while neglecting oneself, and no one else will care. smile

Besides, it's nearly impossible in my opinion to know or determine exactly what another person wants, expects or desires, and the variability between us as individuals, in our ideals and preferences, seems nearly limitless.


Ok. In the meantime, I have that lovely shimmering Yamaha sound in the EWQLP C7, which didn't require one iota of editing to achieve.

Greg.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by Doug M.

With the number of variant factors one can modulate, Pianoteq has the potential to generate many good and bad variants (from a taste perspective). It is likely that some people will stumble across a great set-up by accident that nobody else would ever stumble upon. This seems like a good motive to start sharing these set-ups so as a horde, we can identify some of the better set-ups!


I've been following Pianoteq since the very beginning, I had high hopes followed by pessimism, then optimism again... and again. And I've tried so many shared setups from the forums, ones people swear are fixing what's wrong with the default presets. One thing I learned during all that time is that if I don't like a particular model (and version of Pianoteq because they are kind of linked), there's no way for this to be fixed by tweaking it. Yes, you seem to have indefinite tweaking possibilities but at the end the underlying character prevails. Think of this, if you could create every possible piano sound through tweaking, why would they give you different models? They could just use one and same model that can be tweaked to represent a Steinway, a Yamaha, etc.

So, I will wait for Pianoteq 7 as of this time.


This has to be accepted: you can put flower in many cakes and baked products, but the underlying taste remains. I don't think that underlying quality will change much over multiple iterations, especially now they've got so many models to update.

Also, there are several pianos still not modelled. I bet that each major Pianoteq upgrade will have one new acoustic piano (the best seller from a major brand) from now on till the big guns are all modelled.
**Bösendorfer
**Fazioli
**Bechstein
**Mason and Hamlin
**Stuart and Sons
**Schimmel
**Grotrian Steinweg
**Steingraeber & Söhne
**Sauter

Without a major advancement in the math behind the modelling, it could be 20 major upgrades till the tonal character is majorly different. Then again, if you look at weather models, they have improved so much since the 1970's, so over a longer period, there is much to look forward to.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang

Ok. In the meantime, I have that lovely shimmering Yamaha sound in the EWQLP C7, which didn't require one iota of editing to achieve.
Greg.

Well, there are advantages to that I suppose.

I do believe that Pianoteq Pro provides the tools and facility to create or realize just about any ideal piano one might conceive of or imagine.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:29 PM

They don't have Kawai smile I've speculated this for some time but I'm still ready to bet a beer or two that we will (soon) see a collaboration between Kawai and Pianoteq, most probably Kawai using Pianoteq technology in their pianos to add to (or replace?) their Harmonic Imaging technology. With a dedicated Kawai model.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:32 PM

Cybergene: I doubt that, because Kawai's harmonic imaging (which I believe is glorified sampling) sounds better than Pianoteq - IMHO.

Greg.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
Do you feel that Pianoteq 6 competes well with your RD2000's (despite the keybed comment)?


I do not. I spent last night's practice session switching between RD-2000's default preset (S01 Stage Grand) and Pianoteq 6's Steinway with and w/o calibrating the keybed using "Binaural" as I was wearing my MDR-7506s.

It's hard to explain, but Pianoteq 6 felt lo-fi in comparison to Roland's V-Piano technology. The Roland came out crisp and clear, whereas Pianoteq sounded a little...lacking in dynamic range. Also, Pianoteq has this synthetic character that sounds a little, not sure what the best word is, kind of mushy and/or a little bit-crushed. It reminds me a little bit of Super Nintendo music in some ways. This particular trait is in the attack. Roland, on the other hand, sounded like crystal clear CD-quality, in comparison, with every note coming out clear.

These traits are present in samples I uploaded to Dropbox, however, you have to increase the volume for the RD-2000 tracks as they were recorded at a lower overall volume (because I couldn't jack it up anymore, and I used the RD-2000's built in audio-interface, so there wasn't even an A/D conversion).

I'm likely biased, though. I practice on the RD-2000 every weekday, and on my upright during the weekends.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:39 PM

I believe it will be for marketing purposes. Imagine offering a digital piano with the latest best sampling technology (Harmonic Imaging XXXXL or whatever) in addition to entirely separate modeling approach such as licensed Pianoteq. The compatibility of Pianoteq 6 with ARM architecture might not be coincidental wink Thus they can satisfy both groups of people. This all is a fantasy of course but why not.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
Originally Posted by sullivang

Ok. In the meantime, I have that lovely shimmering Yamaha sound in the EWQLP C7, which didn't require one iota of editing to achieve.
Greg.



I do believe, using Pianoteq Pro and its many customizable parameters, and selecting one of its piano instruments as a starting point, you could very nearly approach what you regard as an ideal piano, or several different pianos conforming to different personal ideals.


The major points from the discussion so far:

1) There seems to be a tonal character (or elements within the tone) that fall short of the acoustic piano characteristics that the models are mimicking, and no matter how you vary the parameters, these tonal characters within Pianoteq remain.

2) Varying the parameters gives tremendous variation across that underlying tonal character, such that for many people who like the tone, they can generate their ideal piano.

The camps:

a) Many users hate the underlying tone and can't play Pianoteq for long before needing to try something else (often CFX seems to come up). These users live in hope for future iterations to solve the problem.

b) Many users like the benefits of modelled pianos---for live performance or personal practice---enough to ignore the underlying tone, but, these users replace Pianoteq with another VST for the studio recording.

c) Many users like or love the Pianoteq tone and either don't care that it isn't exactly similar to the acoustic piano being modelled, or they think the model is accurate enough for their uses.

Of b and c, many users espouse the benefit of the pro-version over the standard or stage version.

For me, I think I like the tone enough but recognise it's not perfect and fall into camp b. Perhaps other users who haven't grown up on acoustic pianos less critical of the tone.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
The major points from the discussion so far:

1) There seems to be a tonal character (or elements within the tone) that fall short of the acoustic piano characteristics that the models are mimicking, and no matter how you vary the parameters, these tonal characters within Pianoteq remain.

2) Varying the parameters gives tremendous variation across that underlying tonal character, such that for many people who like the tone, they can generate their ideal piano.


You've hit the nail on the head Doug.

People who claim modelled pianos can be tweaked into whatever you like are merely demonstrating that they are, within reason, more for less happy with the basic underlying tonal character of the 'thing' in the first place, be it PT or Roland or whatever. Those looking for something truly faithful to the sonic signature of 'whatever brand of acoustic piano you have in your mind's ear' will very often be disappointed. The underlying character of the model will always be there. Like a person who dresses in different clothes or uses radical make-up to change their appearance; It's still the same person with the same bone structure underneath.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by Doug M.
The major points from the discussion so far:

1) There seems to be a tonal character (or elements within the tone) that fall short of the acoustic piano characteristics that the models are mimicking, and no matter how you vary the parameters, these tonal characters within Pianoteq remain.

2) Varying the parameters gives tremendous variation across that underlying tonal character, such that for many people who like the tone, they can generate their ideal piano.


You've hit the nail on the head Doug.

People who claim modelled pianos can be tweaked into whatever you like are merely demonstrating that they are, within reason, more for less happy with the basic underlying tonal character of the 'thing' in the first place, be it PT or Roland or whatever. Those looking for something truly faithful to the sonic signature of 'whatever brand of acoustic piano you have in your mind's ear' will very often be disappointed. The underlying character of the model will always be there. Like a person who dresses in different clothes or uses radical make-up to change their appearance; It's still the same person with the same bone structure underneath.


Agreed. This is why I try to look at modeled and sampled pianos are their own instrument category, much like how you can't fairly compare an upright to a grand. They all have different mechanisms for creating the sound, and different ones are useful for different situations. Expecting an oval to be a perfect circle will only result in disappointment.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Originally Posted by Doug M.
Do you feel that Pianoteq 6 competes well with your RD2000's (despite the keybed comment)?


I do not. I spent last night's practice session switching between RD-2000's default preset (S01 Stage Grand) and Pianoteq 6's Steinway with and w/o calibrating the keybed using "Binaural" as I was wearing my MDR-7506s.

It's hard to explain, but Pianoteq 6 felt lo-fi in comparison to Roland's V-Piano technology. The Roland came out crisp and clear, whereas Pianoteq sounded a little...lacking in dynamic range. Also, Pianoteq has this synthetic character that sounds a little, not sure what the best word is, kind of mushy and/or a little bit-crushed. It reminds me a little bit of Super Nintendo music in some ways. This particular trait is in the attack. Roland, on the other hand, sounded like crystal clear CD-quality, in comparison, with every note coming out clear.

These traits are present in samples I uploaded to Dropbox, however, you have to increase the volume for the RD-2000 tracks as they were recorded at a lower overall volume (because I couldn't jack it up anymore, and I used the RD-2000's built in audio-interface, so there wasn't even an A/D conversion).

I'm likely biased, though. I practice on the RD-2000 every weekday, and on my upright during the weekends.


Pianoteq v6 versus Roland RD2000 pianos

CFX chopin for comparison

Interesting: thanks very much for adding the Roland models and for uploading these!

I imagine that Pianoteq 6 might take more tweaking to improve it for your set-up given that the RD2000 comes customised for the hardware. However, that metallic character might be the tonal issue that's not so editable.

I had a proper listen to all the Roland models after matching the volumes to the Pianoteq models and the CFX wave file. The Roland models are quite different from one another. Which ones are your favourite?

I have to say, I like them---both Pianoteq and Roland models---because their base tone is so different in character, I might use them for different styles. Then again, I'm learned on the electronic organ before switching to piano, so maybe I'm not averse to the more metallic twang in Pianoteq (which gives a totally different tone in the bass also). However, I do think the Roland modelling is closer in tone to the CFX.

Is the NX Concert Grand (SN) the hybrid sampling/modelling piano from the RD800NX (at 1.46, there is a bit of metallic twang almost similar to Pianoteq)? I quite liked the most of the Roland presets, and they too have an underlying tone that seems fixed to a degree, but with varying degrees of that modelling metallic character (although much reduced compared to Pianoteq)!
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.


I had a proper listen to all the Roland models after matching the volumes to the Pianoteq models and the CFX wave file. The Roland models are quite different from one another. Which ones are your favourite?

I have to say, I like them---both Pianoteq and Roland models---because their base tone is so different in character, I might use them for different styles. Then again, I'm learned on the electronic organ before switching to piano, so maybe I'm not averse to the more metallic twang in Pianoteq (which gives a totally different tone in the bass also). However, I do think the Roland modelling is closer in tone to the CFX.

Is the NX Concert Grand (SN) the hybrid sampling/modelling piano from the RD800NX (at 1.46, there is a bit of metallic twang almost similar to Pianoteq)? I quite liked the most of the Roland presets, and they too have an underlying tone that seems fixed to a degree, but with varying degrees of that modelling metallic character (although much reduced compared to Pianoteq)!


A huge chunk of my music education was on a Yamaha PSR-270 before acquiring some decent hardware, so perhaps you and I are not as adverse to the quirks of electronic instruments as much as others. smile

The patches marked (SN) - the NX Concert Grand and the Concert Grand, use Roland's SuperNATURAL engine, which the RD-800 relied on. I don't use them very much, but I included them as I've read that some RD-2000 users prefer some SuperNATURAL sounds as opposed to the V-Piano sounds.

I use the S01 Stage Grand and the S04 Contemp Concerto the most. I don't know which one I prefer, just yet. I think the Stage Grand is a good all-purpose sound, including pop/rock, while S04 Contep Concerto would work better in classical settings.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Cybergene: I doubt that, because Kawai's harmonic imaging (which I believe is glorified sampling) sounds better than Pianoteq - IMHO.

Same for me. And that's completely subjective.

Originally Posted by HSFlik
It's hard to explain, but Pianoteq 6 felt lo-fi in comparison to Roland's V-Piano technology. The Roland came out crisp and clear, whereas Pianoteq sounded a little...lacking in dynamic range. Also, Pianoteq has this synthetic character that sounds a little, not sure what the best word is, kind of mushy and/or a little bit-crushed. It reminds me a little bit of Super Nintendo music in some ways. This particular trait is in the attack. Roland, on the other hand, sounded like crystal clear CD-quality, in comparison, with every note coming out clear.

I'm not surprised that specialized synth hardware turns out better than software made for general purpose computers optimized for low resource usage. It's an everlasting competition and it looks like the hardware makers currently have the edge.
Posted By: Kbeaumont

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:41 PM

Fascinating thread, but here is my perspective. I have been playing since the very early 1970's. I remember not too long ago we played on the most primitive of boards. Even when we had the better equipment, compared to what is available today it sounded like ass. But we still manage to play music and have a blast doing it. I remember my Rhodes had an okay sound but it was tied to a terrible action. I was constantly replacing the tines. Later on the romplers made it easier to get a bunch of sounds but the pianos sucked, still they sounded better than what came before. Now we have modeled, high quality samples or combination of the two. Almost every single board or plugin we have today the pro's of just 20 years ago would have donated a kidney for. It has never ever been easier obtain a sound better then anything before. I have played enough real grands to know that not all are created equal and even the better ones aren't 'perfect'. Yet we still find something to knock about every single board or plugin. Nobody really has the same ears, what one person likes another detests. Its the nature of the beast. There isn't even a consensus on what the is best song ever written or best genre. Its all relative, if you don't like something great! Nobody is twisting your arm to buy it. Right now I have several plugin piano's the Mainstage grand, Pianoteq 5+ stage, Addictive Keys Studio Grand and Upright, EZ Keys, UVI Model D & Ravencroft. Then there are my boards, FA-08 and MOX8. I use them all for different things at different times. But none are 'perfect'. I personally like Pianoteq because it works very well on by little Macbook. All the other plugins work mostly but every now and then they glitch. Usually at the most in opportune time. For recording they are fine. But if I want a reasonably nice piano sound for a solo song just me singing and playing live, I use Pianoteq stage. I have yet to hear anyone ever come up to me and say that piano sounds bad you should use something else. And I have been complemented by some players I really have a lot of respect for.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
The patches marked (SN) - the NX Concert Grand and the Concert Grand, use Roland's SuperNATURAL engine, which the RD-800 relied on. I don't use them very much, but I included them as I've read that some RD-2000 users prefer some SuperNATURAL sounds as opposed to the V-Piano sounds.


The Roland "SuperNATURAL" pianos are disappointing in the Roland Integra-7 tone generator I own, and are inferior to both the best sampled pianos and moreso to the Pianoteq configurable pianos, and very disappointing over the longer term to use or listen to, with annoying idiosyncracies and inconsistencies that cannot be adjusted (which is one of the criteria by which sampled pianos can be regarded as inferior to modeled ones as well, in my opinion).
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:49 PM

It has been mentioned several times in this thread that Roland uses a piano sample for the initial attack. The Roland pianos BEFORE the HP-603,605,LX7,LX8,FP90 and RD2000 used a sampled attack.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kbeaumont
I remember my Rhodes had an okay sound but it was tied to a terrible action. I was constantly replacing the tines.


I agree. My 88-key Rhodes had such a sluggish, unresponsive action, and it became a nightmare trying to adjust and fine tune the tines, pickups and other aspects of the keyboard. Just about any virtual Rhodes nowadays (including the Pianoteq Rhodes) is much more satisfying to play and sounds so much better maintained and regulated than any physical Rhodes I ever played or tried.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by HSFlik
Originally Posted by Doug M.


I had a proper listen to all the Roland models after matching the volumes to the Pianoteq models and the CFX wave file. The Roland models are quite different from one another. Which ones are your favourite?

I have to say, I like them---both Pianoteq and Roland models---because their base tone is so different in character, I might use them for different styles. Then again, I'm learned on the electronic organ before switching to piano, so maybe I'm not averse to the more metallic twang in Pianoteq (which gives a totally different tone in the bass also). However, I do think the Roland modelling is closer in tone to the CFX.

Is the NX Concert Grand (SN) the hybrid sampling/modelling piano from the RD800NX (at 1.46, there is a bit of metallic twang almost similar to Pianoteq)? I quite liked the most of the Roland presets, and they too have an underlying tone that seems fixed to a degree, but with varying degrees of that modelling metallic character (although much reduced compared to Pianoteq)!


A huge chunk of my music education was on a Yamaha PSR-270 before acquiring some decent hardware, so perhaps you and I are not as adverse to the quirks of electronic instruments as much as others. smile

The patches marked (SN) - the NX Concert Grand and the Concert Grand, use Roland's SuperNATURAL engine, which the RD-800 relied on. I don't use them very much, but I included them as I've read that some RD-2000 users prefer some SuperNATURAL sounds as opposed to the V-Piano sounds.

I use the S01 Stage Grand and the S04 Contemp Concerto the most. I don't know which one I prefer, just yet. I think the Stage Grand is a good all-purpose sound, including pop/rock, while S04 Contep Concerto would work better in classical settings.


Yeah, I think I'm not sure which of those Roland presets I'd prefer. Have you seen this video on tweaking them?

Now all we need is for someone to record the Roland V-piano (slab/grand) and the Physis Piano using that Chopin MIDI file, then we've got a comparison of all the Modelled pianos since 09.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kbeaumont
Almost every single board or plugin we have today the pro's of just 20 years ago would have donated a kidney for. It has never ever been easier obtain a sound better then anything before. I have played enough real grands to know that not all are created equal and even the better ones aren't 'perfect'. Yet we still find something to knock about every single board or plugin. Nobody really has the same ears, what one person likes another detests. Its the nature of the beast. There isn't even a consensus on what the is best song ever written or best genre. Its all relative


Great comments. And it's much better to enjoy oneself and to accomplish something than to waste too much time in argument. To each his own. smile
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by brooster
It has been mentioned several times in this thread that Roland uses a piano sample for the initial attack. The Roland pianos BEFORE the HP-603,605,LX7,LX8,FP90 and RD2000 used a sampled attack.


Maybe Jay knows?
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 04:09 PM

It's very well established that previous iterations of SuperNatural were sampled attacks combined with modelled elements to ensure no audible velocity switching and no sense of looping in the decay.

Despite some initial scepticism (including from me) it is equally well established that the current Roland piano sound engine is fully modelled. The RD-2000 has many many 'legacy' Roland sounds including the previous generation of SN sounds.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
...help to make Pianoteq sound more "steely and wiry", like the baby Yamaha grand in this clip? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_97KkAFM7HI&index=5&list=WL (my favourite sound is the "spaced pair" mic setup, starting at 6:55) Or, maybe Pro isn't even required to get this sound? The default settings of YC5 don't sound much like this video at all to me - Pianoteq sounds very muffled.

Greg.


This is not Pianoteq, but the AcousticSamples C7. When I heard the Yamaha grand in the above clip, I immediately thought to myself, that I can probably get this sound out of the AS C7. Not that it can't be done with Garritan CFX, but I know the AcousticSamples C7 better. I turned the Close mic significantly down, but the Player and Side mics, significantly up.

You decide if it's anywhere near the Yamaha in the YouTube video. Now if I only could play like this, elsewhere than in my dreams!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2ywd9ncte848fy/chpn_op10_e12_ASC73mics.wav?dl=0

PS The recording is quite loud, so be wary if you're using headphones, to start with a lower volume.
Posted By: anotherscott

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tom Fort
My recollection, like R_B's above, is that Roland's hybrid approach to modeling incorporates small samples of the attack portion of the sound.

My understanding is that V-Piano never used samples, and that SuperNatural was a hybrid approach but is also fully modeled in its newest iterations.

Originally Posted by Tom Fort
Think of this, if you could create every possible piano sound through tweaking, why would they give you different models? They could just use one and same model that can be tweaked to represent a Steinway, a Yamaha, etc.

That is unclear. It is not impossible that one could indeed tweak any Pianoteq sound set to sound like any other. The reason, then, for them to provide the different models could be that most end users would not have the expertise to do that level of tweaking (nor, possibly, the reference pianos so they would know what they were aiming for). I don't know, maybe there are fundamental differences in the supplied modeling engines, but it's not impossible that, at their core, they're all the same, just being differently expertly tweaked. It's kind of academic, though. Considering the time and expertise it would take for an end user to tweak one model to sound like another, even if it were possible, it's probably much more practical to just buy their version.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 05:22 PM

I got the Pianoteq upgrade, and it's pretty interesting. I need some more time with it before I draw conclusions. My first impressions are that there are some improvements, but P6 isn't a tour de force. I still find my FP90 pianos more aesthetically pleasing but with less personality. I really like the FP90 pianos, and I've been able to A/B them with Ivory ACD and Italian Grand (the Italian Grand has a niche signature that no one else brings to the table).

I'm having fun playing with the Pianoteq pianos. I'm working on a ballad, and to my ears, the FP90 first two presets bring out the beauty more.
Posted By: HSFlik

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Doug M.
Yeah, I think I'm not sure which of those Roland presets I'd prefer. Have you seen this video on tweaking them?


Yeah, but... I'd rather just spend my time playing a "more than good enough sounding piano" than pulling my hair out trying to create "my ideal, perfect piano." smile
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
I got the Pianoteq upgrade, and it's pretty interesting. I need some more time with it before I draw conclusions. My first impressions are that there are some improvements, but P6 isn't a tour de force. I still find my FP90 pianos more aesthetically pleasing but with less personality. I really like the FP90 pianos, and I've been able to A/B them with Ivory ACD and Italian Grand (the Italian Grand has a niche signature that no one else brings to the table).

I'm having fun playing with the Pianoteq pianos. I'm working on a ballad, and to my ears, the FP90 first two presets bring out the beauty more.



Beakybird,

Have you had any problems with the keyboard on the FP-90?
What additional speakers are you using with the FP-90?
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 08:09 PM

Theodor: thanks for that AcousticSamples recording. I'd have preferred a much slower piece (like how they played in the clip I referenced), but, the A.S sound sounds to me like it's not as bright and clear as my example - I prefer my example by a wide margin. In theory the A.S C7 should be the right type of library to get that sound, because it's probably a C-series in my example, though.

Here's a demo of the EWQLP C7 which has the very clear bright sound that I like and a great stereo image: http://media.soundsonline.com/ip/mp3/2075_Old%20Willow.mp3

Greg.
Posted By: Tom Fort

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by anotherscott

Originally Posted by Tom Fort
Think of this, if you could create every possible piano sound through tweaking, why would they give you different models? They could just use one and same model that can be tweaked to represent a Steinway, a Yamaha, etc.

That is unclear. It is not impossible that one could indeed tweak any Pianoteq sound set to sound like any other. The reason, then, for them to provide the different models could be that most end users would not have the expertise to do that level of tweaking (nor, possibly, the reference pianos so they would know what they were aiming for). I don't know, maybe there are fundamental differences in the supplied modeling engines, but it's not impossible that, at their core, they're all the same, just being differently expertly tweaked. It's kind of academic, though. Considering the time and expertise it would take for an end user to tweak one model to sound like another, even if it were possible, it's probably much more practical to just buy their version.


This quote was CyberGene's, not mine. FWIW, my understanding from reading the Pianoteq user guide is that there are many fundamental parameters of each instrument that are hidden from the user. Due to this, each instrument cannot be tweaked to duplicate another.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 08:58 PM

Yes, it looks like a C-series, but which Yamaha C-s are baby grands, the C3-s? The YouTube recording is certainly more lush, and rich. I understand running a MIDI through a DAW, and a VSTi, doesn't record the resonances, only the notes, and not how the notes interact. On the other hand, microphones recording live playing, capture every sound coming from the piano, resonances and all. The EWQL C7 sounds very rich, and lush. Very sweet, not as aggressive as the AS C7, probably good for ballads, while the AS is better suited for rock.

Still, I felt some of that steely wiry sound came through in my rendered file from the AS C7. While Pianoteq has advanced leaps and bounds, that vibration, or character, is missing in it. To my ears it sounds flat, at least in Pianoteq Stage. I have found I can get a bit more character in Pianoteq by throwing it out of tune, or moving the Condition slider from Mint, and towards Worn out. Somehow I missed that button all those years, just discovered it a few days ago.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/08/17 11:35 PM

I've asked them which model of Yamaha it is - no reply yet.

Not sure whether you noticed, but I edited my previous reply, adding a link to an example recording from the EWQLP C7: http://media.soundsonline.com/ip/mp3/2075_Old%20Willow.mp3
It's a pretty basic sample library (pedal up & pedal down samples - no sympathetic resonance), but nevertheless sounds to me pretty damn close to the YT example. (not quite as good though) Btw, somehow the word "metallic" has negative connotations with most of us. But, I think the Yamaha most certainly sounds metallic - in a good way.

Greg.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 12:30 AM

---
Greg (sullivang)--
It might be interesting to do a comparison between your East West Quantum Leap Yamaha C7 sampled piano and the Pianoteq 6 Yamaha C5 (YC5). We could both use the same MIDI file, each create an MP3 audio file from it using our respective virtual instruments, and then each post the MP3s we create to a music/sound hosting website for comparison.

Perhaps we could use one of the jazz-piano MIDI files from here http://www.bushgrafts.com/jazz/midi.htm
Your choice, if you're interested.

I would enjoy hearing your MP3 first, because presumably your sampled piano is rather static in fundamental sound character, and I could then try to emulate the sound of your C7 to some extent in Pianoteq for the comparison.

Your East West C7 does have the characteristic bright tone of a Yamaha grand, and so does the Pianoteq version of a similar Yamaha piano. Despite the foreseeable and expected negative opinions and comments of the me-too chorus of critics whose suspect views could be quietly disregarded, I think it might be an interesting exercise. I'm curious, as you may be, how the sounds of the two virtual instruments might compare or differ. smile
Posted By: TonyDIGITAL

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 12:41 AM

I have PT5 and lucky me I'm eligible for a free upgrade to PT6.
Can anybody share whether I had the de-install PT5 before install PT6?
When I attempt to run the installation file the 1st time, it prompts me to a new folder so I'm not sure whether PT5 will be deleted or left intact.
Thanks for sharing
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 12:54 AM

The PT6 install does not remove PT5.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 03:38 AM

Pianoteq 6 is growing on me. I don't have experience playing with concert grands, but when I play some of the P6 pianos, my heart says it feels real, but my mind says it doesn't sound real. I'm not convinced, but I'm turned on. My Roland FP90 presets sound too pristine at times and the P6 pianos, it's like each note has its own personality. It's really amazing that these two modeled approaches to piano, Modart and Roland can be so astoundingly different.

I'll keep on playing with Pianoteq.

Oh, I was asked what speakers I'm using. None at this time. I haven't hooked up speakers to my newly repaired PC yet. I'm just using my ATH-M50X headphones.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by TonyDIGITAL
I have PT5 and lucky me I'm eligible for a free upgrade to PT6.
Can anybody share whether I had the de-install PT5 before install PT6?
When I attempt to run the installation file the 1st time, it prompts me to a new folder so I'm not sure whether PT5 will be deleted or left intact.
Thanks for sharing


I still have old versions of Pianoteq. Just in case . . . the newer ones probably use rather more power from the computer. Just save the file to documents or wherever.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/09/17 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Not sure whether you noticed, but I edited my previous reply, adding a link to an example recording from the EWQLP C7: http://media.soundsonline.com/ip/mp3/2075_Old%20Willow.mp3

Greg.

I noticed, it's pretty good.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 04:14 AM

Stephen: sure - I'll pick one of those MIDI files and do a render. Thanks for your time - appreciated.

Greg.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 09:02 AM

FWIW, here's the EWQLP C7, Player perspective, dry:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_KJzbJLIsl9dFpLVXpUb1pDZ0k/view?usp=sharing

I used this MIDI file: http://www.bushgrafts.com/jazz/Midi%20site/Gymnopedie-It%20Never%20Entered%20My%20Mind.mid

Well, sort of - I had to adjust the timing of the pedal slightly in a few places, because EWQLP doesn't support re-pedalling - some notes sounded staccato when they shouldn't have. Current score: Pianoteq:1 EWQLP:0.

Greg.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 12:42 PM



Greg-- Did you alter the beats-per-minute tempo of that MIDI file? It plays at a much more relaxed pace on my computer. If you did alter the tempo, what tempo (beats per minute) did you use?
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 12:50 PM

No I didn't - at least not intentionally. I'll look into it. I don't think I'd want it any slower than that though! smile

Greg
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
No I didn't - at least not intentionally. I'll look into it. I don't think I'd want it any slower than that though! smile
Greg


It's OK. I was able to approximate your tempo by increasing the tempo of the MIDI file to about 150%. smile

Thanks for your EWQLP C7, Player perspective MP3 file. Very nice.

Here is the (unadjusted) Pianoteq YC5 (Yamaha C5 model grand) Player perspective preset, for comparison. (However, to approximate the sound volume and reduced dynamic range of your EWQLP C7 rendering, I had to use an exaggerated veloticy curve that boosted the notes played more softly, and had to normalize the MP3 to maximum volume without clipping.)

http://picosong.com/ww3xJ

Steve
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 01:53 PM

Stephen, Greg

Great, I just don't want to make comparisons between these 2 VPs.


Stephen,

Is it possible for you to download this piece made with the YC5 Home preset, and at the normal tempo?

I had no interest in the YC5 until now, but I just tested it and I think it could become now my everyday Pianoteq instrument.

Are you a long time user of the YC5? If so, what do you think about this new YC5 v6 in comparison to the v5?

Thanks,

SK
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/10/17 02:50 PM

@stamkorg --
I never cared for the Pianoteq 5 Yamaha YC5, but I am very impressed with the clarity, realism, detail and nuance of the Pianoteq 6 YC5 (and all the other Pianoteq piano instruments as well, all of which sound very impressive even in their stock form, unaltered by personal configuration preferences).

In Pianoteq 5, I heavily favored the Grotrian Concert Royal, and to a lesser extent the Steinway Model B. I loved the even character of the Steinway D and the lush, rich Bluthner, and the upright reminded me of my beloved Yamaha studio-height upright from years ago, but I did not find those other pianos nearly as convincing or attractive as the Model B and especially the Grotrian.

Now, with Pianoteq 6, I have a hard time choosing and developing a preference for any particular instrument, because all of the pianos sound, in my opinion, very, very good.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/11/17 09:17 PM

I'll hold on for a while, probably build up a raspberry pi system, debug it and by that time MAYBE there will be a December sale or package sale with an instrument I want/like.
Maybe...
Posted By: minstrelman

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/11/17 09:33 PM

Stephen,
would you please say a little more about what you like about Pianoteq 6 Bluethner and Grotrian?
also, do you play mostly using headphones, monitors or both?
Posted By: Terry Michael

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/12/17 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Stephen_Doonan
@stamkorg --Now, with Pianoteq 6, I have a hard time choosing and developing a preference for any particular instrument, because all of the pianos sound, in my opinion, very, very good.


I have to agree. I had 5- upgraded to 6 and spent a couple of hours going through most of the demos and I have to say I am VERY impressed. I WAS hoping the concert Harp would replace my sampled harps but alas not even close.

But the pianos. Ah. The Pianos. Gorgeous. Especially the Grotrian and the Model B for me. The Bluenthner... I just can't get that one to click with me but I think it is the fact that it just inherently has a more muffled tone that I don't care for although I can see how it could work depending on what it is your using it for.
Posted By: minstrelman

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/12/17 02:31 AM

just got Pianoteq 6. I have Standard. and both Steinways and the K2.
it is a joy.
highly recommend.
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 02:32 PM

Hey, everybody.

Another Ptq6 user is here. I have a couple of questions to those who put a lot of efforts into explaining why they don't like Ptq in details. Particularly, @karvala and @CyberGene (but others are welcome to comment as well). I'm just trying to squeeze out maximum from it, by tweaking everything I can in Standard version. I've been experimenting with it quite a while, and I just want to know where am I atm, in comparison to those who got disappointed with the software. Like, may be it's time to stop wasting my time on moving those sliders, and just accept it won't get any better?

1) Have you spent some time trying to achieve a better sound with Ptq6? In particular, I've found out that playing with "Unison width" and "Direct sound duration", coupled with "Sympathetic/Duplex resonance" and some mild reverb effects, completed with a slight move of "Condition" slider (0.1-0.3), produce significantly better and convincing (to my ears) piano sound, yet I still can't quite nail it. It sounds better in one way, but worse in some other. I've seen some difficulties mentioned related to simulation of tone and timber at different amplitudes and frequencies, but can't say I understand it properly. If it's just differences in how high and low notes do sound, why can't we, for example, make it more realistic by tuning hammers' hardness in those "zones" individually (I think Pro version allows that, my Standard only allows to change hammer hardness at different amplitudes)? May this help? Did you try it (Pro version is too expensive for me..)?

2) What are your experience as a pianist? Are you a pianist by trade, free time-musician with decades of experience, or just a home amateur like me who is still learning basics?

3) What are your virtual piano of choice? Why exactly is it better than Pianoteq (if possible, explained in layman's terms amateur will understand smile )? Can you confirm it with some examples clearly? Like, may be with 2 pieces generated from the same midi input, which show differences between Ptq6 and your favorite piano.

Though, I must admit I have little experience with how acoustic pianos sound IRL. I'm a kid of digital age smile Except from a few concerts and playing some old cheap pianos on occasion, I've only heard acoustic piano's sound in recordings, and it's hardly is close enough to real thing. When I'm moving those sliders I have little to zilch understanding of what I'm actually doing, so I very much hope for somebody guiding me here.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 05:02 PM

I would think everybody is just aiming for A Nice Noise. You may not get that even from a top class acoustic for numerous reasons. And if it sounds something like the Steinways etc you hear on Youtube, then that's good enough for me.
Best to play through the demos; they do sound good simply because the playing is. And you can tell the difference between those pianos.
Posted By: ArtlessArt

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by minstrelman
just got Pianoteq 6. I have Standard. and both Steinways and the K2.
it is a joy.
highly recommend.


+1

I got it after Ptq 6 released. Very happy so far using 4" studio monitors, just purchased a set of 5" for more oomph.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
Another Ptq6 user is here. I have a couple of questions to those who put a lot of efforts into explaining why they don't like Ptq in details. Particularly, @karvala and @CyberGene
...

1) Have you spent some time trying to achieve a better sound with Ptq6? ?

In the past I used to play a lot with the sliders but my problem with Pianoteq is rather an inherent characters that's been there ever since it was first released. It's been gradually getting better with each new version and the current iteration is the best ever Pianoteq, however no slider actually affect what I don't like in Pianoteq. As I said I've been a beta-tester for Pianoteq in the past and we've discussed this with the creators of Pianoteq with me sending them side by side comparisons with specifically crafted passages targeted at particular regions and type of playing, comparing my then favorite software piano timbre (Galaxy VIntage D) and Pianoteq. The creators of Pianoteq are without any doubt great scientists and musicians and they were able to understand what the differences are and were able to alleviate the problem and approach correctly a desired character in the timbre, it was nevertheless to a certain limit and that's when I know that modeling has its inherent character. I have a great respect for Philippe and the others in the team and I believe they will be able to acheive better timbre realism some day. Of course you should take in mind that many people are in real love with Pianoteq and are not bothered by what I am. I don't know why this is happening really. I guess we are both somehow irritated by each other. Me, because I am frustrated that I need to explain what I don't like in all versions so far for something that I believe is very obvious, and they, because they can't hear any deficiencies in the sound whatsoever and thus assuming I am some grumpy man who hates everything. The truth might be in between. Whatever...

Originally Posted by Alexsms

2) What are your experience as a pianist? Are you a pianist by trade, free time-musician with decades of experience, or just a home amateur like me who is still learning basics?

I consider myself an advanced amateur. I've been playing piano for 24 years, splitting between classical and jazz, played in bands, etc. but most recently dedicating myself mostly to Chopin. I had reached a point where I could satisfyingly play Ballade No.1, some of the etudes, etc., then I married and I'm now much worse than that laugh I've played a lot of digital and acoustic pianos, grands and uprights, good and bad. I've also tuned my upright aurally, not sure if that is relevant to this discussion though smile

Originally Posted by Alexsms

3) What are your virtual piano of choice? Why exactly is it better than Pianoteq (if possible, explained in layman's terms amateur will understand smile )? Can you confirm it with some examples clearly? Like, may be with 2 pieces generated from the same midi input, which show differences between Ptq6 and your favorite piano.

Vintage D in the past but its half-pedaling was flawed. Currently I play entirely with Garritan CFX. Its timbre is just stunning and its half-pedaling and repedaling work without any apparent flows. In theory a modeled piano should be much better and varied but to my taste I feel the opposite. Maybe I'm just a timbre guy who is spoilt by beatifully recorded sound. And maybe the Pianoteq guys are those who can really feel the better emulation and are not that much bothered by the timbre as I am.

Hope that helps.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
I just want to know where am I atm, in comparison to those who got disappointed with the software. Like, may be it's time to stop wasting my time on moving those sliders, and just accept it won't get any better?

Well I accepted the fact, that I'm playing a "Pianoteq" instead of a "piano". It works. smile

Quote
1) Have you spent some time trying to achieve a better sound with Ptq6?

I've downloaded some user presets into Pianoteq 5 Standard. Fiddling around with the settings individually makes it sound differently, but doesn't seem to get it near more realism or more likable.

Quote
2) What are your experience as a pianist? Are you a pianist by trade, free time-musician with decades of experience, or just a home amateur like me who is still learning basics?

I'm an amateur pianist with a several years of practice scattered over several decades - on both acoustic and digital instruments. I almost exclusively play classical (incl. romantic and baroque) piano pieces.

Quote
3) What are your virtual piano of choice? Why exactly is it better than Pianoteq (if possible, explained in layman's terms amateur will understand smile )?

My favorite sound is the Kawai EX sample inside my digital piano, especially for the attack portion when playing forte-fortissimo. The decay OTOH is much longer on both Ptq and Ivory 2 ACD. The software instruments have much better working repetition (Ptq got fixed recently).

Quote
Though, I must admit I have little experience with how acoustic pianos sound IRL.

Compared to an acoustic piano playing with pedal permantently down sounds too clean and forgiving on all my digital instruments. I think CFX has pedal-down samples for a reason.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 09:50 PM

I too believe there is something inherently wrong about the sound of modelled pianos. The latest PT demos sound okay...they are getting nearer but the basic flaw - which is somewhat difficult to describe - remains. And it is certainly my opinion that, if you are sensitive to the flaw, there is no tweaking it away. It is in the DNA of the thing.

I've just had a few days of Roland FP90 ownership. I feel extremely lucky that it had a faulty key action and I could therefore send it back. There is no way on this earth that I could live long term with the sound of that thing. As an aside the key action was very nice but in my opinion it was a poorly made piano.

I simply cannot believe that there is anyone out there who could honestly state that they believe PT (or the Roland) sounds better than a good sample engine.

All that said, there are two fundamentals to every musical instrument; its sound and its behaviour. Modelled pianos tend to have good behaviours and, assuming the timbre gets close enough in the opinion of the player, then they can make for very satisfying instruments. Likewise with sampled sounds in relation to behaviours that are good enough. Whether sound or behaviour is good 'enough' in either case is a subjective judgement to be made by individual players.

I could be tempted to try PT (especially Model B) but my instinct is that it's just not quite right still.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 10:01 PM

EssBrace: I'm very surprised you've never actually tried it! smile It's so easy to do. Or do you just never use computers for piano at all?

Greg
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/18/17 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by sullivang
EssBrace: I'm very surprised you've never actually tried it! smile It's so easy to do. Or do you just never use computers for piano at all?

Greg


I never have Greg. As lame as this sounds I'm not sure I'd know how. And I have OCD about trailing wires and general clutter. I do think I'd like to try it though. I've got a decent MacBook Pro which could probably handle it. The Model B sounds okay (barely okay in some respects, but very good in other respects). I'll take deep breath one of these days and try and have a go with it.

Cheers,

Steve
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
1) Have you spent some time trying to achieve a better sound with Ptq6?


Yes, probably too long. I bought the Stage version of Pianoteq 5 originally, after hearing people rave about it, and I was very disappointed. Then I saw people talk about the Bluethner being the good instrument, so I got that, but was still disappointed. Then people started talking about how the Grotrian really was it, and so I tried that too. Still disappointed. I tried a few fxp files from the community, but none seemed to make much difference. Having figured out what I don't like about Pianoteq (as outlined in my earlier post that I think you read), I decided to have one last roll of the dice and upgraded to Standard, so that all of the pararmeters in the fxp files would be applied, and so that I could also modify things further myself. I spent quite a while doing that, changing all sorts of things in combination, thinking I'd fixed the problem each time only to discover other problems as a result instead. In the end I concluded that no matter what I do, I simply can't make it sound convincingly like a piano. It always still sounds like a somewhat improved version of a classic General Midi piano sound stretching back 20 years or more, when sounds were generated from FM wavetable synthesis. I don't have the Pro version, and occasionally I think about upgrading, but three times now I've upgraded in some way in the hope that they would overcome the limitations, and it never does, so I'm loathe to spend any more time and money on it. I think the limitations are more fundamental than the available parameters can fix. Bear in mind that in the Standard version at least, the same parameters are available in Pianoteq 6 as there were in Pianoteq 5. Pianoteq 6 does sound better, however, but that wasn't through Moddart just changing the parameters that any user could have changed; that was through changing something more fundamental that users still don't have access to. So I don't buy the argument that if you fiddle enough you can make it sound like anything; if that were the case there wouldn't need to be any more versions of Pianoteq, just some end users with enough time and savvy to play around with the parameters until it really did sound like an acoustic piano. It's the same point another poster was making earlier in the thread: it's all very well people saying that it can be tweaked to sound exactly like a Steinway D (for example), but if that's really the case, why hasn't anyone actually done so?

Originally Posted by Alexsms
2) What are your experience as a pianist? Are you a pianist by trade, free time-musician with decades of experience, or just a home amateur like me who is still learning basics?


I would describe my situation as broadly similar to that of Cybergene; I would probably be called a formerly advanced amateur coming back after a long break. I played as a child and teenager, and into university where I studied music in various forms, and made a living out of it for a while. Then I had a complete change of direction and career, and essentially didn't touch the piano for 15 years. Now I'm just coming back to it again. I used to play Chopin Etudes, late Beethoven sonatas, Schubert, Liszt, Mozart concertos etc.. and I'm just beginning to recover some of them now, but it will take a good while to get back to that level, if at all.

Originally Posted by Alexsms
3) What are your virtual piano of choice? Why exactly is it better than Pianoteq (if possible, explained in layman's terms amateur will understand smile )? Can you confirm it with some examples clearly? Like, may be with 2 pieces generated from the same midi input, which show differences between Ptq6 and your favorite piano.


There are countless piano VSTis out there, and I certainly haven't tested all or even most of them. I have tested many of the popular and highly rated ones, as well as a bunch of others, however, and to be honest, most of them are junk in my view, to the point that even though I've paid for them, I can't bring myself to use them except occasionally to see if they're really as bad as I remember them being (and invariably they are). I only use two with any regularity, which are the Garritan CFX (Lite in my case) and the Ravenscroft 275. They're quite different to each other but between them cover most of my needs.

The Garritan CFX has an inherent advantage in that the acoustic CFX has a gorgeous tone to me, and this is well reflected in the sampling. It's a very sonorous sample, which incorporates a lot of the natural resonance of the acoustic even with the close mic. It does make it sound slightly more distant - perhaps more like a close mic'd piano in a recording than one you're actually playing, but close enough that you can almost develop a playing illusion. It includes samples with the sustain pedal down, which makes an enormous difference to the realism and the beauty of the timbre when playing the 19th-century classical repertoire. The sampling is good; it is quite even across all the keys and layers, and the strange stereo effects which plague so many sampled pianos are fairly minimal.

The Ravenscroft 275 is in some ways the opposite of the Garritan CFX. It sounds closer, much drier and arguably clearer; quite a different style of sampling. It's timbre is less sonorous and perhaps slightly harsher; still quite pleasing in the upper mid frequencies, but the range of beautiful tone is much more limited. It's clarity is generally excellent, however; there is just the slightest hint of what I call "attack cloud" (essentially noise from the limitations of digital sampling which becomes apparent in the very rapid changes during the main attack phase of a piano tone). Contrast that with something like the Waves Grand Rhapsody or even the popular Ivory II American Concert D, which are much cloudier at the note attack. Clearly whoever sampled the Ravenscroft knew what they were doing. The sampling itself is very even - perhaps the most even of any piano VSTi I've heard, and the layers are similarly smooth. There are almost no stereo artefacts as well. This is the VSTi which comes closest to feeling like you're playing an actual piano to me. It especially excels with the sustain pedal off, in 18th-century classical repertoire, but it's capable with it on too. The main limitations of the Ravenscroft are weak upper and lower extremities that EQ can't properly solve, and some puzzlingly short release samples even in the non-damped upper notes (which contributes to the clarity but also the lack of resonance).

I probably spend more time playing on the Ravenscroft than the CFX, but I switch between the two regularly and both have their place. I'm hugely busy with work over the next few days, but I will post some sounds for comparison and commentary when I get some time.

Originally Posted by Alexsms
Though, I must admit I have little experience with how acoustic pianos sound IRL. I'm a kid of digital age smile Except from a few concerts and playing some old cheap pianos on occasion, I've only heard acoustic piano's sound in recordings, and it's hardly is close enough to real thing. When I'm moving those sliders I have little to zilch understanding of what I'm actually doing, so I very much hope for somebody guiding me here.


I had many years of playing various acoustic pianos, including some pretty good ones regularly while studying (such as a Steinway D and Bösendorfer 225). Acoustics vary enormously in all sorts of ways; actually much more varied than DPs in my view. I haven't yet come across a DP that is either preferable to a average-to-good acoustic, or can give a convincing impression of one. They're getting closer, though.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
I could be tempted to try PT (especially Model B) but my instinct is that it's just not quite right still.

I'm on the other side of the fence, I prefer the responsiveness of the modeled pianos, because I feel like I'm playing an instrument. Sampled pianos drive me nuts after awhile, I guess I'm more sensitive to the velocity switching, it gets fatuiging and boring and I feel like I'm playing a fancy machine. But it is interesting how differently we all respond to these digital pianos, I often wonder what internal approach people are taking when they prefer one or the other.

The one thing that kept me from using PT for a long while was being tethered to a computer. I really, really dislike it. And I still do!!! But the PT6 instruments are very, very fun to play.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Groove On
, I often wonder what internal approach people are taking when they prefer one or the other.


Yeah, I must admit, I'm very curious about that too. I wonder if it's something about the type of music being played, or the musical background of the performer, or as you say just a different internal approach. You see different approaches even in top level pianists; some are clearly sitting back and enjoying the sonorities while others are enjoying the dynamic control, so I guess this happens with mainstream users of DPs as well.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 12:44 AM

This pretty much sums up my frustrations. You've spent more time than I did trying to fix it, but you're seemingly no more successful.
Originally Posted by karvala
Originally Posted by Alexsms
1) Have you spent some time trying to achieve a better sound with Ptq6?
Yes, probably too long. I bought the Stage version of Pianoteq 5 originally, after hearing people rave about it, and I was very disappointed ...

...I don't buy the argument that if you fiddle enough you can make it sound like anything; if that were the case there wouldn't need to be any more versions of Pianoteq, just some end users with enough time and savvy to play around with the parameters until it really did sound like an acoustic piano. It's the same point another poster was making earlier in the thread: it's all very well people saying that it can be tweaked to sound exactly like a Steinway D (for example), but if that's really the case, why hasn't anyone actually done so?
It also seems very odd to me that they offer a bunch of different "models" (Steinway, Grotrian, etc.), when they cannot make it sound like any of them. It would seem sensible to simply call PT "a piano" ... with lots of tweaks.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Groove On
Originally Posted by EssBrace
I could be tempted to try PT (especially Model B) but my instinct is that it's just not quite right still.

I'm on the other side of the fence, I prefer the responsiveness of the modeled pianos, because I feel like I'm playing an instrument...


I hear you. The Roland FP90 is responsive and dynamic. But I just can't concentrate on that responsiveness, or enjoy it much, if I don't like the basic sound of it. It's like a block to me. I have to like the sound before I can really assess the other qualities of whatever it is. Sound has to come first for me.

I will give PT a go one of these days though....
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
It also seems very odd to me that they offer a bunch of different "models" (Steinway, Grotrian, etc.), when they cannot make it sound like any of them. It would seem sensible to simply call PT "a piano" ... with lots of tweaks.


Here is a recent thread on the Pianoteq forum of a gentleman connecting his dp with a great stereo system right next to his mom's Steinway M. It's anecdotal. The gentleman merely recorded with his cell phone, but his personal experience and that of his mother who owned the piano was that it was difficult to tell which notes were coming from Pianoteq and which from the real Steinway.

I guess some of us are fooled by Pianoteq and some of us aren't fooled and can detect the synthetic aspects. I'm a happy fool.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Groove On


I prefer the responsiveness of the modeled pianos, because I feel like I'm playing an instrument.

The one thing that kept me from using PT for a long while was being tethered to a computer. I really, really dislike it. And I still do!!! But the PT6 instruments are very, very fun to play.


My thoughts too. But I also dislike PT because of it's responsivenes. It shows up all my inadequacies. Like the lines on my face . . . .
But I just leave my laptop on. Very quiet fan, and the screen; it goes to sleep after 10m of inactivity. Been doin' this for a couple o' yearrs now.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 06:59 AM

Peterws: I'm probably taking you too seriously, but you know you can easily make PT as UNresponsive as you like - yes? On second thoughts - I've never tried the Stage version - maybe it actually doesn't provide the necessary adjustments. Hmmmm.

Greg.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by peterws
But I also dislike PT because of it's responsivenes. It shows up all my inadequacies. Like the lines on my face . . . .


I’ve never found bad pianos concealing my inadequacies. Quite on the contrary. I play best on best pianos and sound worst on worst pianos. As a matter of fact that’s how I know a piano is good. Seek the problem somewhere else wink
Posted By: scorpio

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
It also seems very odd to me that they offer a bunch of different "models" (Steinway, Grotrian, etc.), when they cannot make it sound like any of them. It would seem sensible to simply call PT "a piano" ... with lots of tweaks.
I am not sure I get this, at all. After my lessons on a Steinway, Pianoteq sounds just like the Steinway ... no tweaking at all. Every sample piano I have tried ended in frustration working to get it to sound right, the pedal right, the reverb right, the computer right. With Pianoteq I just turn it on and its a go. It's a beautiful thing.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by scorpio
Pianoteq sounds just like the Steinway...


This is interesting because I cannot understand how anyone could ever make that statement.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by scorpio
Pianoteq sounds just like the Steinway...


This is interesting because I cannot understand how anyone could ever make that statement.

It sounds very close and working live from top to bottom. In fact, digital equipment around it vs acoustic sounds makes understandable difference rather then Pianoteq. What do you want more from digital piano ? You have some kind of depression EssBrace ? Play Pianoteq you will feel better.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:01 PM

Slobajudge, I think you are crossing some borders by constantly making comments about people "having depression" if they don't like Pianoteq. I believe moderators shouldn't tolerate this behavior and I am going to report you.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
You have some kind of depression EssBrace ?


What, because I don't agree with you? The PianoTeq fans can sometimes seem to be more than fans; disciples almost. That kind of zeal for a product means there is no perspective. It also means such opinions are worthless because there is no balance in the points made.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Slobajudge, I think you are crossing some borders by constantly making comments about people "having depression" if they don't like Pianoteq. I believe moderators shouldn't tolerate this behavior and I am going to report you.


No, I am just fascinated about your efforts to post lots of negative comments about it without any good rational explanations, so the logic conclusion is maybe there is some problems exist or you think that your digital piano will grow into acoustic anytime soon. Sorry for that.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:15 PM

Whatever, I reported you. You can go over your posts and my posts and see how detailed and "good rational explanations" I've given while you're just making personal accusations. This is the last time I'm responding to you and I'll keep reporting you if needed.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by scorpio
Pianoteq sounds just like the Steinway...
This is interesting because I cannot understand how anyone could ever make that statement.

FWIW - The 'sound and playability' of the Pianoteq Model D and B are authorized by Steinway & Sons, which is a feat in itself. Though I wish we had more details on what that means exactly.

Also the listening experiences of different people may depend on the speakers. For example, I like Pianoteq through my headphones or my QSC K8s. The QSC K8s can move enough air that it becomes an experience. But my Bose home system loses enough oomph, that I'm left scratching my head.

I've also been messing around with sound exciters to build a 4x6 ft soundboard. The sound can be impressive when I press the exciters up against dry wall, especially with some sound re-enforcement from the QSC K8s. But I'm still reviewing all kinds of materials and shapes for the actual soundboard. Plus I'm still trying to get my head around the ramifications of running the sound of a "modeled soundboard" through an actual soundboard ...
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Whatever, I reported you. You can go over your posts and my posts and see how detailed and "good rational explanations" I've given while you're just making personal accusations. This is the last time I'm responding to you and I'll keep reporting you if needed.


Oh, I am sorry, don`t you cry, everything will be all right. I will buy for you any sample piano you want.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:38 PM

You know the upper mids of Ivory 2 ACD sound kind of brittle through my speakers. As Ivory 2 is comprised of hyper detailed samples of a real Steinway, I conclude that the problem must be my speakers. No one's going to say that $100,000 Steinway is a piece of crap. They might say the sample doesn't deliver the resonance or the responsiveness, or velocity layers - but they're not going to say it's a bad piano or say, "They're lying. It's not a Steinway."

But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.


You make a very good point.

In my case however I want to like it. I'm ready to be won over like pushing against an open door. I own the original modelled piano to this day. I also spent a fortune on a Roland V-Piano. I've listened to loads of PT demos. Just a few days ago I spent yet more money on a Roland FP-90. For modelling I'm a ripe fruit ready to be picked!

But still the sonic deficit remains. There is not enough deep detail in the sound to convince me it is a real piano. I get that they are all playable. I agree with that. I don't think they are night and day better for playability than good sampling. The better samplers (hardware and software) play very well but the modellers do behave quite convincingly when set up right. Just please...Roland...PianoTeq...give me those last couple of pieces of the jigsaw so I can suspend my disbelief and feel I am listening to a real piano.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by Beakybird
But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.


You make a very good point.

In my case however I want to like it. I'm ready to be won over like pushing against an open door. I own the original modelled piano to this day. I also spent a fortune on a Roland V-Piano. I've listened to loads of PT demos. Just a few days ago I spent yet more money on a Roland FP-90. For modelling I'm a ripe fruit ready to be picked!

But still the sonic deficit remains. There is not enough deep detail in the sound to convince me it is a real piano. I get that they are all playable. I agree with that. I don't think they are night and day better for playability than good sampling. The better samplers (hardware and software) play very well but the modellers do behave quite convincingly when set up right. Just please...Roland...PianoTeq...give me those last couple of pieces of the jigsaw so I can suspend my disbelief and feel I am listening to a real piano.


Some people want to love milk, but they're lactose intolerant. It's a matter of taste.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
You know the upper mids of Ivory 2 ACD sound kind of brittle through my speakers. As Ivory 2 is comprised of hyper detailed samples of a real Steinway, I conclude that the problem must be my speakers. No one's going to say that $100,000 Steinway is a piece of crap. They might say the sample doesn't deliver the resonance or the responsiveness, or velocity layers - but they're not going to say it's a bad piano or say, "They're lying. It's not a Steinway."

But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.


Actually, I wouldn't blame your speakers, I would blame the Ivory 2 ACD. I have it, and the sampling really isn't all that great, contrary to its former reputation (which I sense has taken a bit of a drop since better VSTis came out).

More generally, though, it's a fair point about equipment. Of course, comparisons can and should be made between sampled and modelled pianos using the same equipment, and preferably good equipment. My setup is not stellar, but I have a 124dB DAC, a good quality neutral silent headphone amp, and various decent headphones of which the HD-600s are probably the most neutral and the HD-650s also pretty good, and I generally use those. It's entirely possible that this setup somehow favours sampled pianos over Pianoteq such that Pianoteq sounds less realistic to me. In fact, I'm sure that must be a contributing factor. But I'm not yet convinced it's the main factor.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by Beakybird
But if people were to hear brittle tones with Pianoteq, They wouldn't blame their speakers. They would blame the modeling. And they would say, "This sounds brittle. It doesn't sound like a real piano."

This puts modeling at a perceptual disadvantage.


You make a very good point.

In my case however I want to like it. I'm ready to be won over like pushing against an open door. I own the original modelled piano to this day. I also spent a fortune on a Roland V-Piano. I've listened to loads of PT demos. Just a few days ago I spent yet more money on a Roland FP-90. For modelling I'm a ripe fruit ready to be picked!

But still the sonic deficit remains. There is not enough deep detail in the sound to convince me it is a real piano. I get that they are all playable. I agree with that. I don't think they are night and day better for playability than good sampling. The better samplers (hardware and software) play very well but the modellers do behave quite convincingly when set up right. Just please...Roland...PianoTeq...give me those last couple of pieces of the jigsaw so I can suspend my disbelief and feel I am listening to a real piano.


Yeah, me too. I don't particularly like sampled pianos; I infinitely prefer sitting at a real acoustic piano, even with its inherent deficits and limitations. I would be absolutely delighted to have a modeled piano VSTi that I could use with a DP, customise to my own taste or just for variety, which would be fully responsive, with a small footprint and an infinite range of possibilities. I even do modelling work in my job on occasions, so I'm totally sold on the idea of the benefits of modeling and the fun of playing with a good model. I should be Pianoteq's target audience, I should absolutely love it. But I just can't get past the fact that, to me, it doesn't sound like a real piano. I really, really wish it did.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 04:29 PM

I have a copy of Ivory 2 ACD too and while I see no issues in the sample recording itself, the American D grand they chose to record doesn't really speak to me. I wouldn't buy that grand if they would offer it to me and would chose a Hamburg D instead.

However I also see no playability issues with modern piano samples. The Kawai EX sample inside my ES100 isn't their most recent one, but Harmonic Imaging still works fine with flawless velocity mapping, just with a too short decay. The 22 velocity layers of the ACD are more than enough too.

I simply can't hear the praised advantages of modeling unless I dig out the ancient AWM sample of my Yamaha Piaggero keyboard, which is just a single layer with a filter, stretched over three keys, with a fraction of a second attack recorded and obvious looping.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 04:39 PM

Me, too.
The interface is nice. (Yes, it has too many adjustments, but most can be hidden and ignored.)
The velocity curve is easy to use. (Galaxy should take a page out of PT's playbook on that one.)
And it's playability is superb.
But it just doesn't sound like any acoustic piano I've ever played.

Here's what I do and don't understand:

1. People have sonic preferences. What one person likes another might detest. That much I can understand. No further explanation is needed.

2. Pianoteq has a Steinway emulation that to me sounds nothing like a Steinway. Further, aside from reasonably good tones in the lower two octaves, it doesn't sound like **any** piano to me. Very thin in the middle two octaves, and very synthetic in the next two. So, regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes a Steinway, and regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes its PT emulation, I cannot fathom how anyone could say that the one is even remotely similar to the other.

Point 2 point is not about differing preferences, upon which we cannot agree.
It's about sameness or difference. And yet we cannot agree on that, either.
I find this strange and inexplicable.
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac

2. Pianoteq has a Steinway emulation that to me sounds nothing like a Steinway.


Isn't it a bit.. radical claim, especially now when Steinway apparently approves the sound of it officially (whatever this means)? And isn't it a thing that, unlike said "difference in preferences", can be proved or disproved in a solid, scientific way? Like, perhaps, by generating a midi file from acoustic Steinway (I know there are ways to achieve it), while recording its sound; then generating output from Ptq6 with this midi as well (while tweaking velocity curve to correspond to keyboard of the original piano somehow), then do whatever frequency analysis magic on it and show that whatever differences are there, they are way below some reasonable margin of error? I'm not a sound engineer and know nothing about tools available there in this age and time, so not sure whether it's all makes sense. But have anybody tried something like this before? Have Modart present such studies of their own (I guess they should do it a lot, while working on the software)?
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 08:37 PM

This has been said before ...
Originally Posted by Alexsms
Steinway apparently approves the sound of it officially ...

But I like your addendum ...
Originally Posted by Alexsms
... whatever this means?

So what does it mean? Without a statement from Steinway (or even with), can we reach any conclusion?

And does it matter? It only matters what the user/buyer thinks.
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
This has been said before ...

And does it matter? It only matters what the user/buyer thinks.


Well, we don't know what they think. We only know what very narrow vocal minority represented on this forum thinks (without any offense intended). And we don't know to what extent we can trust anything said here by anybody, including myself smile People can have strong (sometimes, unconscious) prejudice against something, their equipment may be faulty, or they may be not very good in dealing with hardware or software. And you can't completely rule out possibility of competitors trying to decrease value of others products, in this age and time of huge advertisement companies openly hiring people to shift public profile of certain products and companies by passing as regular users on forums. And pianoworld is certainly would be in their list, being a huge community of pro musicians.

There is a well-established cult of tube sound lovers, for example, which goes beyond a mere affection to a "nice noise". People spend ridiculous amounts of money buying some specially shielded cables and specially crafted stands for them. Afaik, few proper researches and blind tests have been able to proof those investments actually change anything in the final sound, comparing to relatively inexpensive hardware. Yet, this business thrives even today. What teaches us that a lot of those issues with some sound may happen only in somebody's head.

That's why a solid, scientifically sound research has potential to put an end to this, showing there is little to no differences in both signals. Then some customer's opinion stops matter that much, unless there is a proof that it's shared by majority of customers with enough experience in the field.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:11 PM

In the world of food, there are such thing as supertasters who have an augmented ability to taste foods and are hypersensitive to bitter tastes. Maybe for piano sounds you Pianoteq naysayers are like supertasters. Unfortunately for the supertasters, they don't live as long because they don't eat their vegetables.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
In the world of food, there are such thing as supertasters who have an augmented ability to taste foods and are hypersensitive to bitter tastes. Maybe for piano sounds you Pianoteq naysayers are like supertasters. Unfortunately for the supertasters, they don't live as long because they don't eat their vegetables.


Somebody once said "You are what you eat"
I been eating veg for too long . . . . . . .
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
This has been said before ...

And does it matter? It only matters what the user/buyer thinks.


Well, we doesn't know what they think. We only know what very narrow vocal minority represented on this forum thinks (without any offense intended). And we don't know to what extent we can trust anything said here by anybody, including myself smile People can have strong (sometimes, unconscious) prejudice against something, their equipment may be faulty, or they may be not very good in dealing with hardware or software. And you can't completely rule out possibility of competitors trying to decrease value of others products, in this age and time of huge advertisement companies openly hiring people to shift public profile of certain products and companies by passing as regular users on forums. And pianoworld is certainly would be in their list, being a huge community of pro musicians.

There is a well-established cult of tube sound lovers, for example, which goes beyond a mere affection to a "nice noise". People spend ridiculous amounts of money buying some specially shielded cables and specially crafted stands for them. Afaik, few proper researches and blind tests have been able to proof those investments actually change anything in the final sound, comparing to relatively inexpensive hardware. Yet, this business thrives even today. What teaches us that a lot of those issues with some sound may happen only in somebody's head.

That's why a solid, scientifically sound research has potential to put an end to this, showing there is little to no differences in both signals. Then some customer's opinion stops matter that much, unless there is a proof that it's shared by majority of customers with enough experience in the field.


Somewhere in the pianoteq forum there are some scope traces of the version 5 modeled "Steinway" (before they had the endorsement) and scope traces of a physical example of the same model Steinway - along with some commentary on microphone placement, the measuring process and the differences, which as I recall were slight.
It may be worth looking up if you are interested in "quantitative measurements" of Pianoteq vs the instruments it emulates.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:30 PM

I can appreciate sound.
Does a scope trace have any such appreciation?
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
Like, perhaps, by generating a midi file from acoustic Steinway (I know there are ways to achieve it), while recording its sound; then generating output from Ptq6 with this midi as well (while tweaking velocity curve to correspond to keyboard of the original piano somehow), then do whatever frequency analysis magic on it and show that whatever differences are there, they are way below some reasonable margin of error? I'm not a sound engineer and know nothing about tools available there in this age and time, so not sure whether it's all makes sense. But have anybody tried something like this before? Have Modart present such studies of their own (I guess they should do it a lot, while working on the software)?


Ok, I'm over-complicating things myself now, we can take shortcut here and go with one of those sampled pianos which have been presented as superior to Ptq. This comparison will be much easier to pull through, and for others to re-run analysis and check for themselves. I wonder whether somebody has already done this in the past.
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I can appreciate sound.
Does a scope trace have any such appreciation?


We are frail, complex, sometimes messy beings smile That's why placebo really works. We can't trust ourselves. We can't trust science completely too, but it's much less often mistaken than we are.
Posted By: bennevis

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by peterws
Originally Posted by Beakybird
In the world of food, there are such thing as supertasters who have an augmented ability to taste foods and are hypersensitive to bitter tastes. Maybe for piano sounds you Pianoteq naysayers are like supertasters. Unfortunately for the supertasters, they don't live as long because they don't eat their vegetables.


Somebody once said "You are what you eat"
I been eating veg for too long . . . . . . .

I never vegetate. Instead, I cogitate grin .

Supertasters leave the foul-tasting stuff (Brussel sprouts, cauliflower etc) to eaters less well-endowed, and stick to the good stuff instead - colourful sweet veg with lots of antioxidants like peppers (USA = capsicum), carrots, tomatoes (OK, I know it's a fruit....) etc. So, they live longer.....

As for piano players, you are what you play, not what you play on. So what if Pianoteq (or Roland) doesn't sound like Steinway? I've played Steinways which don't sound like Steinways, Yamahas which don't sound like Yamahas, Blüthners which don't sound like Blüthners, etc, etc. And all in the same piano showroom. What does it matter, as long as you 'connect' with the instrument, and it allows you to do what you want to do?

As a well-known concert pianist once told me, you have to find the sweet spot of the piano that you're playing on, and make it work for you, regardless of what its inherent tonal characteristics are. If you can't find the piano's sweet spot, either you or the piano needs some improvement........ wink
Posted By: Pete14

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/19/17 11:45 PM

Have you played V-Pianos which don't sound like V-Pianos?
Posted By: bennevis

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Pete14
Have you played V-Pianos which don't sound like V-Pianos?

Of course.

No V-Piano sounds like a V-Piano. (If it did, it wouldn't be a V-Piano wink ).

Apropos of which, as I hinted before, if you want to be a pianist, you have to be able to adapt to any action and any sound. In the recent Scottish International Piano Competition, all competitors had to play on the new Bösendorfer 280VC in round 1, Steinway D in round 2, and Fazioli F278 in round 3. Finalists got to choose their piano for the concerto - and the winner was a PW member. Read about it here:
http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2674364/congratulations-can-akmur.html#Post2674364

BTW, all the finalists chose Fazioli.
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pete14
Have you played V-Pianos which don't sound like V-Pianos?


Wasn't someone complaining that the V-Piano in their Integra-7 didn't sound like a V-Piano?

Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
That's why a solid, scientifically sound research has potential to put an end to this ...

That could be the opening line of a Star Trek episode where Commander Data finds out otherwise. grin

We're really down to cave man logic, "Me Like" or "Me NOOOT Liiiiiiike!!!" - every cogent, intelligent, well-thought out, witty post in this thread can be successfully punchlined with either one. Even when selecting an acoustic instrument it's very practical advice to look for the one that "Me Like".

Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 03:13 AM

Bennevis,

Thanks for the interlude that was a welcome break from all the PT/modeling/sampling back and forth. I for one sometimes forget the P in DP stands for "piano" smile

Originally Posted by bennevis
BTW, all the finalists chose Fazioli.


Btw, from the thread, it sounds like everyone chose the Fazioli because:

Quote
In the final we could chose and i (like everybody) chose Fazioli because they were actually the only company to send technicians to look after their instrument.


Didn't sound like it had much to do with the actual preference of instrument as opposed to ensuring a better chance of being in proper tune/regulation, though this goes to your point of being able to adjust to any action and sound (also something Pianomanchuck has stressed before).
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I can appreciate sound.
Does a scope trace have any such appreciation?


I'm not arguing it either way, just trying to help someone who seemed to be looking for something QUANTITATIVE.

OK, I'll devolve with you a little.
Any "I" that responds to sound includes psychological components.
The point of comparing scope traces would be to see what differences there are in the emitted sound between Pianoteq and a physical wooden piano (microphones, electronics, speakers, etc included in whichever chains).
This is before "appreciation" has joined the chain.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 12:59 PM

My points are:
1. To the designer all of the quantitative reasons, the design elements, the techno stuff ... all of that matters because it may help him with the design of a piano.
2. To the user/performer/audience, only the sound matters. They (and I) don't design pianos. So those quantitative reasons don't matter.

Item one is input information. It's interesting, but I can't really make use of it. And I can't make anything with it.
Item two is output. That's what I care about.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by R_B
OK, I'll devolve with you a little.
Any "I" that responds to sound includes psychological components.
The point of comparing scope traces would be to see what differences there are in the emitted sound between Pianoteq and a physical wooden piano (microphones, electronics, speakers, etc included in whichever chains).
This is before "appreciation" has joined the chain.


You're assuming that everything that can be heard, or perceived in some way, can be measured. I'm not so sure about that.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 02:42 PM

Even if everything can be measured (and I agree that's at least debatable), there remain a number of issues, including a rather fundamental ontological problem. Midi is a non-starter; you cannot get midi directly out of a standard acoustic instrument, and I'm not sure you'd want midi here anyway. You can of course record audio, and then do various forms of time-frequency analysis on that.

Defining how close is "close enough" in terms of distance in a spectrogram is problematic and subjective, but you could modify the design to compare a sampled instrument vs acoustic instrument and Pianoteq vs acoustic instrument, to get something more directly comparable, i.e. a difference of respective distances. Then you have the problem of choosing which sampled instrument, and with what settings - a problem you also have with Pianoteq.

Assuming that could be agreed, however, you still have a fundamental problem, which is that you're not comparing an acoustic instrument with the respective candidates, you're comparing a recording of an acoustic instrument. As any player of sampled pianos knows, that's very much not the same thing. Once again run into problems of parameter choices: which microphones to make the recording, positioned where, what sort of audio processing is undertaken afterwards etc..

I guess the closest you could come would be to record in a player perspective and then filter the audio using an auditory perception model, to get as close as possible to what is actually heard, in both cases. The technology isn't there for that, yet, however; there are some pretty good cochlear models around, but not so much for higher order processing necessary even for good timbre perception, and that's without even considering the top-down impact of prior learning and memory.

So it's a nice idea, but regrettably I don't think it's viable.
Posted By: Kbeaumont

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 04:37 PM

The quickest way to make an acoustic piano sound very different and at times bad? Move it into a different room. My college had a baby grand that sounded great in one room, but as soon as we rolled it into a different room it lost all its magic. Thought it was maybe the tuning, nope roll it back and it sounded way better. No two pianos sound exactly alike or play exactly the same either. Its easy to over analyze things.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by R_B
OK, I'll devolve with you a little.
Any "I" that responds to sound includes psychological components.
The point of comparing scope traces would be to see what differences there are in the emitted sound between Pianoteq and a physical wooden piano (microphones, electronics, speakers, etc included in whichever chains).
This is before "appreciation" has joined the chain.


You're assuming that everything that can be heard, or perceived in some way, can be measured. I'm not so sure about that.


I am "assuming" no such thing.
I was merely responding to a poster who seemed to be in search of something that quantified the differences between the sound emitted from pianoteq and the sound emitted from a physical wooden piano - that was ALL.

The devolution was amusement in pointing out that "appreciation" involves psychological components (emotions, etc.) that are not in the chain when it is ended at the input leads of a scope.

This is, after all a thread about pianoteq and it is in the sub forum about digital pianos - - it seems appropriate to LEAVE OUT the subjective and emotional components.
By all means add those onto the chain if you wish, but don't accuse ME of assumptions about their presence at the scope's leads.


I could have gone with my initial response, which was approximately; If it isn't an element of sound that can be detected then it isn't an element of sound that we can hear.
Yes, I really DO believe that microphones can detect elements of sound both above and beyond the range of human hearing - dispute that if you wish.

I also believe that I could set up a (very dishonest) experiment that would show two sounds to be identical - sounds which are clearly NOT the same.
That would be dishonest and I have no interest in doing it.
Posted By: R_B

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by karvala
Even if everything can be measured (and I agree that's at least debatable), there remain a number of issues, including a rather fundamental ontological problem. Midi is a non-starter; you cannot get midi directly out of a standard acoustic instrument, and I'm not sure you'd want midi here anyway. You can of course record audio, and then do various forms of time-frequency analysis on that.

Defining how close is "close enough" in terms of distance in a spectrogram is problematic and subjective, but you could modify the design to compare a sampled instrument vs acoustic instrument and Pianoteq vs acoustic instrument, to get something more directly comparable, i.e. a difference of respective distances. Then you have the problem of choosing which sampled instrument, and with what settings - a problem you also have with Pianoteq.

Assuming that could be agreed, however, you still have a fundamental problem, which is that you're not comparing an acoustic instrument with the respective candidates, you're comparing a recording of an acoustic instrument. As any player of sampled pianos knows, that's very much not the same thing. Once again run into problems of parameter choices: which microphones to make the recording, positioned where, what sort of audio processing is undertaken afterwards etc..

I guess the closest you could come would be to record in a player perspective and then filter the audio using an auditory perception model, to get as close as possible to what is actually heard, in both cases. The technology isn't there for that, yet, however; there are some pretty good cochlear models around, but not so much for higher order processing necessary even for good timbre perception, and that's without even considering the top-down impact of prior learning and memory.

So it's a nice idea, but regrettably I don't think it's viable.




Much of that problem already exists between examples of same manufacturer, same model wooden pianos.
No two Steinweg Ds are in fact the "same", no two M&H Bs, etc.

I suspect that if high quality recordings of several different S&S Bs were put before a panel of folk with "golden ears" they would disagree on which were "best", or if you suggested to them that there was a ringer in the bunch they would pick out different ones as the electronic one.

Close enough really IS close enough.
Many/most of us don't play well enough for the differences to matter anyway - and I for one would spend my time better in practice than in arguing these points.

So, I'm off to practice.

Peace, Out.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by R_B
Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by R_B
OK, I'll devolve with you a little.
Any "I" that responds to sound includes psychological components.
The point of comparing scope traces would be to see what differences there are in the emitted sound between Pianoteq and a physical wooden piano (microphones, electronics, speakers, etc included in whichever chains).
This is before "appreciation" has joined the chain.


You're assuming that everything that can be heard, or perceived in some way, can be measured. I'm not so sure about that.


I am "assuming" no such thing.
I was merely responding to a poster who seemed to be in search of something that quantified the differences between the sound emitted from pianoteq and the sound emitted from a physical wooden piano - that was ALL.

The devolution was amusement in pointing out that "appreciation" involves psychological components (emotions, etc.) that are not in the chain when it is ended at the input leads of a scope.

This is, after all a thread about pianoteq and it is in the sub forum about digital pianos - - it seems appropriate to LEAVE OUT the subjective and emotional components.
By all means add those onto the chain if you wish, but don't accuse ME of assumptions about their presence at the scope's leads.


I could have gone with my initial response, which was approximately; If it isn't an element of sound that can be detected then it isn't an element of sound that we can hear.
Yes, I really DO believe that microphones can detect elements of sound both above and beyond the range of human hearing - dispute that if you wish.

I also believe that I could set up a (very dishonest) experiment that would show two sounds to be identical - sounds which are clearly NOT the same.
That would be dishonest and I have no interest in doing it.



Blimey. I don't know what's pressed your buttons but please direct your shouty little posts at someone else.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 10:36 PM

Some here are perhaps too quick to take offense.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 11:38 PM

Re some kind of proof that Pianoteq is as good as or better than sampled pianos, double blind testing would be pretty effective I think. Double blind testing was used to prove that people can't tell the difference between 16-bit 44.1kHz audio and anything with a higher sampling rate and/or bit-depth (for final presentation, at least) and if anyone tells me they CAN, my response will be that I'm skeptical, but you might be right - if you want to convince ME, you'll have to set up a test that I'm happy with. (credit to Dewster who alerted us to this test, btw)

Greg.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/20/17 11:52 PM

A double blind test of *what* though? Suppose someone presents some musical excerpts on Pianoteq and some on a sampled piano. If we ignore for a moment the myriad of problems around the details (e.g. what sampled piano, what settings used in Pianoteq and the sampled piano, is the same midi piece to be rendered on both and if so how do you choose the midi file to be used ,etc.), there remains the fundamental issue of what exactly you are testing. Are you asking what people prefer? In which case, it amounts to a popularity contest for one or the other - the Pianoteq fans will vote for the Pianoteq stimulus and the sample fans will vote for the sampled stimulus, and both will remain intransigent. Neither side are going to agree that the piece of the other side is "better" just because it's more popular. If you're not asking for a preference, then what? You could ask which sounds closer to an acoustic piano, but I suspect the vote would remain split along the same lines. If you're asking "can you tell the difference" then of course people will be able to; I think the majority of people on both sides of the argument would be fairly convinced they could identify which is Pianoteq and which is the sampled piano, otherwise they would have no reason to assert the superiority of one or the other. So double blind methodology is fine, but I don't see what the test could actually consist of that would be regarded as proof by either side.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:05 AM

A range of material. And if the Pianoteq fans vote for Pianoteq, that could mean either of two things: they've successfully identified that it's Pianoteq, and because they want Pianoteq to win, they decide to vote for it ;^), or, they in fact do NOT know it's Pianoteq, and genuinely prefer it.

So yes, the test would ideally include non Pianoteq fans. laugh

Yes, the two questions you asked are the ones I would be most interested in:
- which they prefer out of three (Pianoteq, sampled, or real)
- which they think is the most likely to be the real thing (including a ranking)

I've said this before... Scarbee did a test like this with his original Rhodes. More people guessed that his sampled Rhodes was the real one, and he jokingly declared that his was more real than a real one. laugh

So, with a range of material, and range of different listeners, it would be of some benefit.

Another test could be done using live playing.

Greg.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:11 AM

Okay. I'd be happy to take part in such a test. smile
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:13 AM

Me too. I'm pretty sure I'd fail in a fair few of the comparisons. However, if the test included recordings of real pianos of the type I really like, I'm confident that I would be able to pick the difference between the real thing and Pianoteq.

Greg.
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by sullivang
Re some kind of proof that Pianoteq is as good as or better than sampled pianos, double blind testing would be pretty effective I think.


I don't want to say "better" or "worse" but I can tell there are differences between different instruments and I know which I prefer:

Piano 1

Piano 2
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 01:06 AM

I'd be looking for a very different test.

Since so many have claimed that PT sounds like the real thing, let's record the real thing (Steinway or Grotrian) and record the PT implementation of same. Then A/B test them.

No need to ask which is preferred or which is better. Instead the question is "do people hear a difference?"
Originally Posted by sullivang
A range of material. And if the Pianoteq fans vote for Pianoteq, that could mean either of two things: they've successfully identified that it's Pianoteq, and because they want Pianoteq to win, they decide to vote for it ;^), or, they in fact do NOT know it's Pianoteq, and genuinely prefer it.

So yes, the test would ideally include non Pianoteq fans.

Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:15 AM

MacMacMac: Fair enough. (I personally am also interested in what people prefer, aside from authenticity). In your test, you'd still have to decide how you're going to weed out Pianoteq bias. For example, a person biased towards Pianoteq might always answer "no, I don't hear a difference". There would have to be some tests where the correct answer SHOULD be "yes, I do hear a difference".

Maybe a better question to ask would be "which do you think is the real piano?" - it might be easier to eliminate bias with that question, because if the person answers "Pianoteq" much more often than not, that would at the very least prove there was a difference, even if they genuinely think it is more real.

Greg.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:36 AM

Btw, my test still doesn't weed out those that are h ell-bent (space is to get through the naughty word filter - sigh) on Pianoteq winning - a savvy Pianoteq person who accurately identifies Pianoteq in each test could ensure that they answer the tests EITHER way statistically evenly. ;^) That's why I still think the test should ideally include those with no prior experience with Pianoteq, or for that matter, sampled pianos. Include some everyday normal people. ;^)

Greg.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 05:03 AM

Now I know why folk should have to take a basic intelligence test to vote in a General Election. . . . .
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by peterws
Now I know why folk should have to take a basic intelligence test to vote in a General Election. . . . .


Indeed. This one man, one vote nonsense has got to stop. I mean, how can someone else's vote be worth as much as mine? It's insane. I'm all for everyone having a vote but their vote needs to be weighted according to who they are and what they know. That would be determined by me. I'm offering myself up to serve our state. No need to thank me.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 10:00 AM

This test would be a very questionable effort. While I would not be very sure hearing the difference between, say WAV vs. MP3, I pretty much 100% sure I can easily tell if it is a sampled piano or Pianoteq. Meanwhile, it would be much more difficult for me to tell the difference between a good recording (not just some random MIDI from the internet) of a sampled piano vs. real one. And, of course, also the settings for the Pianoteq - virtual microphones positions, reverb, etc. I tend to set it more towards the archive recordings, something like the ones that was made in 1940-s, to some extend. I mean if you emulate a bad conditions recording with Pianoteq - then it could be virtually indistinguishable from a bad conditions real thing recording. And I really like to use it this way - no irony here. Despite of all being said I'm a huge fan of Pianoteq btw.

Also, would never say that Pianoteq Steinway emulations are just nothing like a real Steinways. Come on, I clearly hear the flavor. You could argue that the difference is still like between a real peach vs. peach lollipop, but still you can clearly taste it.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 10:59 AM

Leaving aside high-end, well-maintained, "I could buy 3 cars with that" type of pianos - does anyone think that Pianoteq 6 sounds a heck of a lot better than many of the regular everyday slightly neglected acoustic pianos out there?
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:38 PM

I listened to a few classical Pianoteq Steinway D demos and the same pieces being played with a real Steinway on Youtube. The reverb settings are very different. The real Steinways were played in concert halls while the Pianoteq pieces were utilizing a concert recording and had MUCH less reverb. The mic settings are almost certainly very different. Still, the Pianoteq demos sounds pretty convincing to me. When I hear them, I'm thinking, "That sounds like a Steinway D with very low reverb and different mic placement from the one I just heard on Youtube.

I think that if I heard a real Steinway and Pianoteq back to back with the same eq, reverb, mic settings, I could tell which is the real Steinway, and I would be convinced that the Pianoteq sounds much like a Steinway.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:53 PM

I agree that Pianoteq approximates whatever model they try to emulate, e.g. Steinway, however that's more a static approximation. However when I listen to a whole piece recorded with Pianoteq or just play it, I hear the modeled artifacts in the sustain/decay of the notes and that spoils it. What I find strange is that playing just single notes or single chords is kind of OK and I really like it. It's when I start playing lines and repeating notes/chords that I start feeling something very monotonous and boxy, as though the sound is coming from a box or from the other room. It's very difficult to describe these effects with words but they are so easily apparent that I can recognize them in a blind test, at least as of this version of Pianoteq.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 12:59 PM

P.S. Yep, just opened the demo page and started listening to the first Steinway D demo: F. Chopin - Nocturne Op. 48 No. 2. The first few notes start very promising and I even thought "am I really a hater, this sounds like the real thing" but right away the melodic line starts and I felt this typical metallic synthetic quality in the sustain.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Groove On
Leaving aside high-end, well-maintained, "I could buy 3 cars with that" type of pianos - does anyone think that Pianoteq 6 sounds a heck of a lot better than many of the regular everyday slightly neglected acoustic pianos out there?

There are lots of folks around saying they would always take the worst real piano over the best digital one just because it is real. I'm a classically trained pianist, I have a quite good old Bechstein grand and an Upright at my place. I practice every day (almost) and 98% of time it is Privia / Pianoteq. In comparison: a) it feels like a great grand in a great concert hall, give me that overall expensive vibe b) it is more controllable, more even, have better dynamic response c) it saves my real pianos from abuse. Can make the negative points list upon a request also.
Posted By: Pete14

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:19 PM

Can you make the negative points list?
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:40 PM

Would love to hear your negative points, too. But, in the mean time, hallelujah to your positive ones!
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:45 PM

It's always nice to hear an experienced perspective that is apart from the "pixel peeper" scrutiny that the internet promotes. Would love to hear your negative list as well, Andrei, as well as any thoughts you may have on other VSTs you've tried.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:57 PM

toddy +1

@Andrei - I've listened to your channel, those are some great recordings. You can indeed impart an experienced perspective! Out of curiosity, did you consider upgrading your action? And how come you didn't? Did you try PT on some of the top actions? What were your impressions?
Roland FP90, HP601 with PHA50, CA67 with GF2, MP11 with GF and VPC1 with RM3-II come to mind for top actions at their lowest price, although I'm not particularly fond of the last on the list.
Posted By: anotherscott

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
P.S. Yep, just opened the demo page and started listening to the first Steinway D demo: F. Chopin - Nocturne Op. 48 No. 2. The first few notes start very promising and I even thought "am I really a hater, this sounds like the real thing" but right away the melodic line starts and I felt this typical metallic synthetic quality in the sustain.

I just listened to that as well... it doesn't do it for me. A lot of it seems plunky, too percussive, and long sustains often sound unnatural (esp. single notes, I think).

Is anyone else bothered by the "drone" that appears under the playing notes starting at 1:18? I'm not sure what it is, but something bugs me about it. And then the 4 note ascending bass line that follows (at 1:23), I hate to say it, but that bit (among others) reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI, particularly the 3rd-4th note sequence. There's something about the envelope and the static nature of the decaying tone, which seems apparent in certain note ranges at certain velocities that sounds really fake to me.

Maybe it feels wonderfully responsive to play, but in just listening, IMO, this isn't even as good as some of my "rompler" piano sounds to say nothing of VSTs. (Just based on this one demo track, admittedly.) There are some passages that sound good, but much of it just doesn't.

I wonder if that MIDI file is available? I'd like to run the same file on something else and compare.

ETA: Some of this could also be that maybe I just don't happen to like the characteristics of the particular Steinway they modeled. Since (AFAIK) there is no recording of the same piece being played on that piano, I can't really be sure in all cases exactly what it is I'm responding to.
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I'd be looking for a very different test.

Since so many have claimed that PT sounds like the real thing, let's record the real thing (Steinway or Grotrian) and record the PT implementation of same. Then A/B test them.

No need to ask which is preferred or which is better. Instead the question is "do people hear a difference?"
Originally Posted by sullivang
A range of material. And if the Pianoteq fans vote for Pianoteq, that could mean either of two things: they've successfully identified that it's Pianoteq, and because they want Pianoteq to win, they decide to vote for it ;^), or, they in fact do NOT know it's Pianoteq, and genuinely prefer it.

So yes, the test would ideally include non Pianoteq fans.



I did this already by matching actual YouTube recordings of acoustic pianos (Steinway D, Grotrian etc) with the pieces demo'ed on Pianoteq's website (the v.5 vs. v.6 tracks). My conclusion was that Pianoteq was on the right path---sounding significantly similar in character to the actual instruments---but with lots of room for tonal improvements in subsequent revisions.
Posted By: newer player

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:11 PM

I did this already by matching actual YouTube recordings of acoustic pianos (Steinway D, Grotrian etc) with the pieces demo'ed on Pianoteq's website (the v.5 vs. v.6 tracks). My conclusion was that Pianoteq was on the right path---sounding significantly similar in character to the actual instruments---but with lots of room for tonal improvements in subsequent revisions. [/quote]

One challenge here is the terrible YouTube compression kills audio making everything sound lousy. The impact is probably different for a VI and recorded acoustic but I won't speculate how.

Of course you have different recording techniques, microphones, rooms, tuning, etc...
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by anotherscott
Originally Posted by CyberGene
P.S. Yep, just opened the demo page and started listening to the first Steinway D demo: F. Chopin - Nocturne Op. 48 No. 2. The first few notes start very promising and I even thought "am I really a hater, this sounds like the real thing" but right away the melodic line starts and I felt this typical metallic synthetic quality in the sustain.

I just listened to that as well... it doesn't do it for me. A lot of it seems plunky, too percussive, and long sustains often sound unnatural (esp. single notes, I think).

Is anyone else bothered by the "drone" that appears under the playing notes starting at 1:18? I'm not sure what it is, but something bugs me about it. And then the 4 note ascending bass line that follows (at 1:23), I hate to say it, but that bit (among others) reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI, particularly the 3rd-4th note sequence. There's something about the envelope and the static nature of the decaying tone, which seems apparent in certain note ranges at certain velocities that sounds really fake to me.

Maybe it feels wonderfully responsive to play, but in just listening, IMO, this isn't even as good as some of my "rompler" piano sounds to say nothing of VSTs. (Just based on this one demo track, admittedly.) There are some passages that sound good, but much of it just doesn't.


I'm with you both. This just makes me think "yuck!". It sounds like a bit of joke to be honest.

I have heard better from PT though, much better.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:15 PM

@mcoll

I live in a small town where I'm not able to check other piano mechanics, unfortunately. I'd really like to try and to compare to my PX-150 which I'm quite happy about. Also they are quite out of my budget.

@Gombessa, toddy, Pete14

Actually I'm having a pretty hard time right now making a list of disadvantages while answering the exact question - what is better, a modest real piano or Pianoteq/controller. So the actual 'realness' of the real one would be the only positive point, if it make sense.

@Gombessa

Regarding the other sampled piano VST's it is easier to answer. I do some freelance jobs from time to time and I never use Pianoteq for it. I just like the sound of sampled pianos much better for the final result for a paying job, no doubt. I said on some threads already that Pianoteq is the only one for me for everyday practice and for overall playing enjoyment. It may sound strange but I enjoy playing it but not listening afterwards. My favorite sampled VST's are Galaxy Vintage D (and it is made after my favorite type of real grands, the ones from the golden era of piano recordings) and for specific situations I love to use the Imperfect Samples Fazioli. Overall there is no 'perfect' thing for me here, just something I can take and go on. Again, to me, same as for many other people, Pianoteq is the best one for 'playability', the worst one for the 'sound'. Thank you guys for asking and for letting me express what I think.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by anotherscott
Is anyone else bothered by the "drone" that appears under the playing notes starting at 1:18? I'm not sure what it is, but something bugs me about it. And then the 4 note ascending bass line that follows (at 1:23), I hate to say it, but that bit (among others) reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI, particularly the 3rd-4th note sequence. There's something about the envelope and the static nature of the decaying tone, which seems apparent in certain note ranges at certain velocities that sounds really fake to me.


Yes! That's exactly the point I've tried to make a few times. While there are various issues in different registers, I think the notes in exactly that range are the most problematic as far as a realistic piano tone goes, and yes, it sounds like an old-fashioned electronic imitation of a piano in that range. The lower register is significantly better I think; the upper notes are a bit thin but are passable in certain respects, but those lower-mid notes sound very unconvincing to me, throughout the entire set of piano instruments.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:48 PM

@Andrei - had the same problem when I was buying. I ended up driving to the capital (6h) and sleeping there, to be able to try different models. And I don't regret I did that. Bought an HP504 which was the top action that I liked best, at the cheapest price I could find. The Kawai top action was out of budget, though probably somewhat better, but I'm quite pleased with this one. Wasn't fond of the Yamaha actions. The budget is indeed a problem, it's a very large price gap between the PX150 and the top actions. A slight upgrade with a close price tag is probably the FP30, better action, continuous pedaling. When you travel you could find some music stores to try different models. I always like doing that smile

And on topic - I have exactly the same feeling. For playing I'm still taken with PT and I feel it's the best. It makes me feel like I'm playing a great grand. But in the rare moments when I record small pieces or when I play for friends, samples do sound better. I have purchased the CFX recently and, while it is the best playing sample I've tried and it does sound fantastic, I regret slightly not having purchased PT, especially since v6 came out shortly after. So I'm stuck to the trial till they'll have a discount again and maybe I'll purchase. Or maybe I'll upgrade to a modeled Roland and see if I'm not just as pleased with the playing qualities smile
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 04:51 PM

Quote
Steinway model D. Chopin - Nocturne Op. 48 No. 2......reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI,........ This just makes me think "yuck!". It sounds like a bit of joke to be honest.


Strange they put that first in the demo list of their 'flagship' piano. The Schumann an Rachmaninoff lower down are more authentic sounding. I suppose they wanted to show the instrument off close up and without reverb. But the artificiality is exposed especially at light velocity levels........and I like PT! It's an important resource. And so are some of my sampled VSTs. Both are great - sometimes together. But no single one is yet sufficient to the exclusion of all others - I welcome the variety.

If acoustic pianos didn't weigh a ton and cost several thousand, maybe we'd be as picky about the individual qualities of those, too.
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by toddy

If acoustic pianos didn't weigh a ton and cost several thousand, maybe we'd be as picky about the individual qualities of those, too.


http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...-pianos-character-flaws.html#Post2676356
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by David Farley
Originally Posted by toddy

If acoustic pianos didn't weigh a ton and cost several thousand, maybe we'd be as picky about the individual qualities of those, too.


http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthre...-pianos-character-flaws.html#Post2676356


Ahh, yes, I see...... maybe it's all a bad case of forumitis.
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by peterws
Now I know why folk should have to take a basic intelligence test to vote in a General Election. . . . .


Indeed. This one man, one vote nonsense has got to stop. I mean, how can someone else's vote be worth as much as mine? It's insane. I'm all for everyone having a vote but their vote needs to be weighted according to who they are and what they know. That would be determined by me. I'm offering myself up to serve our state. No need to thank me.


Couldn't ha put it better, man! grin


Originally Posted by Beakybird
I listened to a few classical Pianoteq Steinway D demos and the same pieces being played with a real Steinway on Youtube. The reverb settings are very different. The real Steinways were played in concert halls while the Pianoteq pieces were utilizing a concert recording and had MUCH less reverb. The mic settings are almost certainly very different. Still, the Pianoteq demos sounds pretty convincing to me. When I hear them, I'm thinking, "That sounds like a Steinway D with very low reverb and different mic placement from the one I just heard on Youtube.

I think that if I heard a real Steinway and Pianoteq back to back with the same eq, reverb, mic settings, I could tell which is the real Steinway, and I would be convinced that the Pianoteq sounds much like a Steinway.


If you hear the Steinway jazz, for example, (playing the demo) it has low reverb; playing in an intimate setting with soft furnishings will achieve that most pleasing, softer sound. And the velocity curve is less dynamic. What a difference fiddling wi that makes! Even the stereo sounds different.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
Overall there is no 'perfect' thing for me here, just something I can take and go on. Again, to me, same as for many other people, Pianoteq is the best one for 'playability', the worst one for the 'sound'. Thank you guys for asking and for letting me express what I think.

The sound has its uses, too. Yesterday I fiddled with the U4 to create a badly maintained out-of-tune upright piano with completely worn-out felts. However without the settings of the Pro edition I didn't mange to get the treble in the right state of "numb". Still it managed a believable render of a "street piano", only a loudly creaking pedal mechanism was missing.

I also find the Kremsegg collection interesting to play around with occasionally, there are some nice instruments in there, which aren't usually to be found on digital pianos.
Posted By: pianophil

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by toddy

Strange they put that first in the demo list of their 'flagship' piano. The Schumann an Rachmaninoff lower down are more authentic sounding.


Thank you toddy for the suggestion smile
Philippe
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
It may sound strange but I enjoy playing it but not listening afterwards.


Thanks Andrei, those are really interesting insights, and they do align with what a few others have said too. It sounds like a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. If you need to practice, and to know that subtle refinements in your technique will translate into an audible difference in playing, then you might lean to the tool that better captures and reflects those differences, even if it doesn't sound the best to you. But if you're just playing in part to really hear the final output in a performance, you might prefer the tool that simply sounds the best.

I analogize it to playing a PC game. If you're competing and need the most speed and fewest distractions, you may play in low quality, and you don't really care that it looks like flat shaded garbage. But if you're playing for the fun or experience of it, you might play in ultra high quality mode to see all the details, and live with a lower framerate.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/21/17 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by newer player

One challenge here is the terrible YouTube compression kills audio making everything sound lousy.


Balderdash.

Greg.
Posted By: RobR

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 06:12 AM

After testing the v6 standard demo for a week now, here are my thoughts :

1- Most of the pianos in PT sound really synthetic in the mid registers, but make up for it in the low and ultra high registers.

2- The YC5 in v6 is the most balanced piano of the bunch in my opinion (soundwise) as it suffers less than the others from the mid registers 'disease' I mentioned above. It actually faired pretty well when I ABCed it against my ravenscroft and cfx lite. Against the kronos Steinway D though : Not a chance.

3- Yes, in terms of playability Pianoteq shines there's no debate or doubt about that.

4- I noticed that after playing PT for a good 30 minutes, I get used to all its tone imperfections/issues and it got to the point where it stopped bothering me. But here's the catch : As soon as I launched the Kronos piano and played it afterwards, I thought : Wow, I can't believe I was digesting that sound (=pianoteq) 30 minutes ago.


Final thoughts : You know in the past couple months, I was very close to buying an upright because I really miss playing on the real thing, that upright i was looking at didn't necessarily have the ideal tone I want but It was 'good enough' because my main priorities were feel and response of having the real thing between my hands.

I'm sorry to say that despite its superb feel and response, Pianoteq's sound is not 'good enough' to ignore, it has issues. I just can't get over those plasticy mid registers no matter what I tweak in the standard version. Yes it can create the experience of playing the real thing but its tone issues are not easy to ignore to justify owning it, at least for me.

Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by tdwctdwc
After testing the v6 standard demo for a week now, here are my thoughts :

1- Most of the pianos in PT sound really synthetic in the mid registers, but make up for it in the low and ultra high registers.

2- The YC5 in v6 is the most balanced piano of the bunch in my opinion (soundwise) as it suffers less than the others from the mid registers 'disease' I mentioned above. It actually faired pretty well when I ABCed it against my ravenscroft and cfx lite. Against the kronos Steinway D though : Not a chance.

3- Yes, in terms of playability Pianoteq shines there's no debate or doubt about that.

4- I noticed that after playing PT for a good 30 minutes, I get used to all its tone imperfections/issues and it got to the point where it stopped bothering me. But here's the catch : As soon as I launched the Kronos piano and played it afterwards, I thought : Wow, I can't believe I was digesting that sound (=pianoteq) 30 minutes ago.


Final thoughts : You know in the past couple months, I was very close to buying an upright because I really miss playing on the real thing, that upright i was looking at didn't necessarily have the ideal tone I want but It was 'good enough' because my main priorities were feel and response of having the real thing between my hands.

I'm sorry to say that despite its superb feel and response, Pianoteq's sound is not 'good enough' to ignore, it has issues. I just can't get over those plasticy mid registers no matter what I tweak in the standard version. Yes it can create the experience of playing the real thing but its tone issues are not easy to ignore to justify owning it, at least for me.



There was a man who bought some costume pearls at a garage sale for his wife for $1. He showed his wife how you can tell that the pearls are fake by rubbing them on your teeth. He discovered shockingly that the pearls were real, but his wife's teeth were fake.

Maybe your perceptions are fallible.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird


Maybe your perceptions are fallible.


Perceptions are what we have to make evaluations upon, and from what I can see, this was a fair comparison between two piano sources, other things being equal.Why would this not be a valid assessment?
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
Originally Posted by Beakybird


Maybe your perceptions are fallible.


Perceptions are what we have to make evaluations upon, and from what I can see, this was a fair comparison between two piano sources, other things being equal.Why would this not be a valid assessment?


A good point. tdwctdwc experiment has some validity, but it wasn't done scientifically, just like my A/B with Ivory Steinway D. What if tdwctdwc were to have done the experiment blindly being told that all pianos were samples?

"What do you think of my Rolex?" might give someone a different impression of a watch from "What do you think of my fake Rolex?" Same watch, different words.

On the other hand, you got to go with your gut. A spiritual seeker once asked a guru about another guru's ashram, and the guru said, "If you feel more love over there, go there, and if you feel more love here, come here."

If you ain't feeling the love, the instrument ain't for you.
Posted By: RobR

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
Originally Posted by tdwctdwc
After testing the v6 standard demo for a week now, here are my thoughts :

1- Most of the pianos in PT sound really synthetic in the mid registers, but make up for it in the low and ultra high registers.

2- The YC5 in v6 is the most balanced piano of the bunch in my opinion (soundwise) as it suffers less than the others from the mid registers 'disease' I mentioned above. It actually faired pretty well when I ABCed it against my ravenscroft and cfx lite. Against the kronos Steinway D though : Not a chance.

3- Yes, in terms of playability Pianoteq shines there's no debate or doubt about that.

4- I noticed that after playing PT for a good 30 minutes, I get used to all its tone imperfections/issues and it got to the point where it stopped bothering me. But here's the catch : As soon as I launched the Kronos piano and played it afterwards, I thought : Wow, I can't believe I was digesting that sound (=pianoteq) 30 minutes ago.


Final thoughts : You know in the past couple months, I was very close to buying an upright because I really miss playing on the real thing, that upright i was looking at didn't necessarily have the ideal tone I want but It was 'good enough' because my main priorities were feel and response of having the real thing between my hands.

I'm sorry to say that despite its superb feel and response, Pianoteq's sound is not 'good enough' to ignore, it has issues. I just can't get over those plasticy mid registers no matter what I tweak in the standard version. Yes it can create the experience of playing the real thing but its tone issues are not easy to ignore to justify owning it, at least for me.



There was a man who bought some costume pearls at a garage sale for his wife for $1. He showed his wife how you can tell that the pearls are fake by rubbing them on your teeth. He discovered shockingly that the pearls were real, but his wife's teeth were fake.

Maybe your perceptions are fallible.

No they're not fallible. I trust my ears and with all modesty, i'm more than confident that i can discern the difference between a "suffering" piano tone and a good one.

Let's just face it, Pianoteq is getting better but it's far from "there" yet (talking tone and sound here only).

For those who are big fans: Enjoy ! But please don't read between the lines and twist every post by a person who is not in the fan club.

I was actually objective in my post , i gave credits where credits were due and vis-versa smile

And by the way, the reason i chose the YC5 to compare is because the other pianos in pianoteq were not even candidates to be part in the assessment. The PT Steinway is wayyyy worse in the mid registers.

I chose YC5 in my comparison because in my opinion it was the better sounding and most balanced of the bunch and can hold its own against the Ravenscroft, CFX and Kronos. So i believe this was a more than fair assessment:)
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by tdwctdwc

No they're not fallible. I trust my ears and with all modesty, i'm more than confident that i can discern the difference between a "suffering" piano tone and a good one.

Let's just face it, Pianoteq is getting better but it's far from "there" yet (talking tone and sound here only).

For those who are big fans: Enjoy ! But please don't read between the lines and twist every post by a person who is not in the fan club.

I was actually objective in my post , i gave credits where credits were due and vis-versa smile


I agree that critique felt particularly unwarranted in it's tone, and I took your review in the spirit in which it was offered; thanks for it.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 01:54 PM

OK, sorry
Posted By: RobR

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
OK, sorry
No need to be sorry and no offense taken! I was just clarifying things:)
Posted By: Alexsms

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 02:42 PM

Hey, @tdwctdwc.

What do you mean by "Kronos Steinway D piano"? Is it a VST, or a voicebank of Korg DP? Just can't google it. Can it be used like a VST for me to try out?
Posted By: RobR

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Alexsms
Hey, @tdwctdwc.

What do you mean by "Kronos Steinway D piano"? Is it a VST, or a voicebank of Korg DP? Just can't google it. Can it be used like a VST for me to try out?
Yes It's a voicebank inside the Korg Kronos DP, not a vst. Only way to try it out is to visit any local instruments dealer who carries the Korg Kronos.

Here's a video showcasing its capabilities:
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 03:43 PM

@tdwctdwc

I enjoyed reading your comments, respect your input a lot.
Posted By: Stephen_Doonan

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
maybe it's all a bad case of forumitis.

Absolutely. thumb A nothing-better-to-do, can't do anything better contrarian's playground.
Posted By: ArtlessArt

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 05:16 PM

Update 6.0.1 released. Just a quick noob question - Are you suppose to just install it over the current Ptq folder or uninstall and then reinstall?

Cheers
Posted By: RobR

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
@tdwctdwc

I enjoyed reading your comments, respect your input a lot.
Hey Andrei. Thank you !
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/22/17 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by ArtlessArt
Update 6.0.1 released. Just a quick noob question - Are you suppose to just install it over the current Ptq folder or uninstall and then reinstall?

Cheers


I just ran the install. It installed over the existing for Mac and PC.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
I simply cannot believe that there is anyone out there who could honestly state that they believe PT (or the Roland) sounds better than a good sample engine.


You cannot honestly believe that someone may have a different subject opinion than yours? I honestly believe that it's surprising that anyone could you hold your honest belief.

Seriously, we have similar ears, but we all process what we hear very differently, and we all must respect that. Else all is lost.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:57 AM

It's just a figure of speech - it doesn't mean he literally doesn't believe it - it just means he is very surprised. It's really no big deal.

Greg.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
....Thank you guys for asking and for letting me express what I think.



From what I've seen and read so far, you've posted a very balanced and objective opinion (as objective as opinions can be) and show your own real-world applications of modeling vs. sampling. Many thanks for sharing these views with us.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by sullivang
It's just a figure of speech - it doesn't mean he literally doesn't believe it - it just means he is very surprised. It's really no big deal.

Greg.


And I disagree, and in fact his statement encapsulates the whole issue with this thread. The key to all this mess is that people will have subjective opinions and these opinions will differ. Period. The problem with some on this site is that they have trouble dealing with this, dealing with opinions that differ from their own, that someone might absolutely love Pianoteq, or that someone else might hate it.

Myself, I love that we have all these options available to us, that we can use PT when we want to, that *some* might even enjoy what it might give to them, that others, might not like the sounds as well as sampling, but appreciate that it might have significant utility for them (e.g., Andrei), and that sampling brings a whole different angle to all this with its own benefits and drawbacks, that are again just as subjective as for PT.

Vive la différence. Vive la variété.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:14 AM

Of course our opinions differ, and this case EssBrace is simply expressing his opinion - I see zero disrespect in that comment. Zero.

Greg.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by petes1
Originally Posted by sullivang
It's just a figure of speech - it doesn't mean he literally doesn't believe it - it just means he is very surprised. It's really no big deal.

Greg.


And I disagree, and in fact his statement encapsulates the whole issue with this thread. The key to all this mess is that people will have subjective opinions and these opinions will differ. Period.


And that's why a Forum exists.

If I understand you correctly, you identify an 'issue', which is that opinions differ and some negative things have been said about PianoTeq based on subjective opinions. You seem to me to be suggesting that differing subjective opinion can therefore only give rise to what you call the 'issue'. You call that a 'mess'. I call it sharing and comparing opinions. Where exactly is the mess? This is a Forum for opinion sharing after all.

Perhaps PianoWorld should be closed down because the vast majority of input here, on almost every topic, is from people sharing their subjective opinion. When it comes to the sound, playability and touch of a piano or something emulating a piano I would have thought there is very little BUT subjective opinion out there. Some people like things, others don't. We all have reasons behind our liking or disliking of something. And in the main those reasons will be subjective.

Personally I believe the real 'issue' here is that some people, including me, find the tone of PianoTeq lacking. And when it all boils down to gravy I don't think you, or some other PianoTeq fans, deal with that reality very well. I rather suspect that if the whole thread was full of plaudits for PT from every contributor I don't think you'd be so concerned about how it's all so subjective and therefore, in your opinion, such a 'mess'. No, I think in those circumstances you'd be a happy little camper.
Posted By: zack!

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 12:22 PM

Hi, just my 2 cents, that doesn't worth much, as I am neither a pianteq user, nor practising myself piano.But I am interested in music, and technology too, so I try to follow what pianoteq is doing.

I tried to listen demos of new version, especially v5 vs v6, and also compare for example Bach demo on Steinway D vs recordings of Gould of Bach (I think he used staeinway D, but not 100% sure). Couple of hour maximum for the whole tests.

my conclusions :

In "absolute", I found Pianoteq sound very convincing. For me pieces are musical, I can ear interpretation/intend of muscian. Antd the physical complexicity of the real sound, for example show the liveliness of the sound in time, and space (decay, fading of sound that evolve in term of timber, resonance / pulse in sterephonic pan, etc), or the impact of velocity in term of timber of the note. So for me, I see o lot of subtleness and singularity of each moment of sound production. I still find on some instrument, for some frequencies (medium), and intensity a sound that I find to "pure" or "well rounded" (like a bell sound), to be realistic. But quite rare.

The pianoteq v5 vs v6 comparaison show this quite well.

What schocked me the most, was demo vs Gloud recording (CD from the web). Perhaps it is just a preset thing, and mic placement, I don't know. But, I feel the gloud recording has much more dynamism in general (that is variation of sound amplitude during the play). To be more precise, the "front" of the melody detach more from the rest of the sustained sound. Could be lack of "attack" in the sound, or too much "energy" in the decays in the board.

In old version of pianotq, this was even worse, lack of clarity, and a kind of "soup" of rreasnonnaces in the board (making like a permanent "medium" noise", in the backend, comapre to the front end).Now, it seems this is getting a lot better, but still I was surprised. Because, in absolute (withoub A/B testing), I was very pleased by pianotq v6 realistic and sophistacted sound synthesis...

I like also the electri piano and honher collections in pianoteq. Really cool for me.

All in one, good progress for this version. Happy to see that modartt continue to walk the walk, even if this is not as quick as we would like.

I understand very well hte discussion between "playbility"/expressivness vs realistic/hifi copycat debate. For me, these instruments even if not completly "realitci", are enough "goond sounding" and "expresive, for a musician to forget computer, be inside the "music" and "emotion" during the play.

Any comments on these "non expert" feedback ?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 12:32 PM

Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by zack!
Any comments on these "non expert" feedback ?

Your feedback is pretty much in-line with what everybody has been saying:

1. Pianoteq 6 is much improved and sounds really good
2. But it's still lacking when compared to samples, recordings and the real thing.
Posted By: zack!

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 12:57 PM

Oups, :-) I told you I was not an expert !
So can the yamaha vs Steinway explain that difference, or this is something that belong to pianoteq technology ?
Perhaps it is possible, as I think (but not sure again), that gloud was upset of clrarity and articulation, so perhaps piano choici and tuning and recording emphasis this "style"...
Someone share my feeling with this idea of lack of "dynamism" and "front melody" vs "backend esannace in the board" balance ?
Or just a quick mis listening / judgment ?
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:03 PM

Glenn Gould played a Steinway. Only Steinway. Only his own particular Steinway. He was fussy about that.
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Glenn Gould played a Steinway. Only Steinway. Only his own particular Steinway. He was fussy about that.
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.



Yes, I thought he had a particular Steinway. The serial number is well known. Richter was the Yamaha man I think.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Groove On
Originally Posted by zack!
Any comments on these "non expert" feedback ?

Your feedback is pretty much in-line with what everybody has been saying:

1. Pianoteq 6 is much improved and sounds really good
2. But it's still lacking when compared to samples, recordings and the real thing.


For number 1 maybe, for number 2 far from `everybody`, only minority. Compare to samples Pt6 is a real thing, compare to acoustic it is a joy to expect even more from it in the future.
Posted By: prout

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:11 PM

Gould owned, performed and recorded on Steinways and later on Yamahas.
Posted By: prout

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Glenn Gould played a Steinway. Only Steinway. Only his own particular Steinway. He was fussy about that.
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.

Gould’s legendary first recording of the Goldberg Variations was made on a Steinway CD 19, a model similar to the piano that Gould himself owned, a CD 174 that was irreparably damaged in transit in March 1957. Not until 1960 or 1961 did Gould find a worthy replacement in the form of a “pre-World War II Steinway which answers to CD 318, and to which I feel a greater devotion than to any other piano that I have encountered” – not that this prevented him from constantly tinkering with the instrument in order to bring the hammers closer to the strings, for example, and in that way make it easier to produce non-legato playing. (Prior to acquiring his CD 318, Gould had for a time fitted his old Steinway with steel T-pins in order to create what he called a “harpsi-piano”, an instrument that he defined as “a neurotic piano that thinks it’s a harpsichord”. At the end of 1971 CD 318, too, suffered an accident from which it never recovered, with the result that Gould’s final recordings were made on a Yamaha CF II that he discovered in New York and that kept him company for the rest of his life. (GLENN GOULD FROM A TO Z (BY MICHAEL STEGEMANN)
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 01:36 PM

OK my bad, apologies. Seems his final piano was Yamaha and his late Goldberg variations were recorded on a Yamaha but he was a Steinway user before that. Anyway, he switched brands so was not only a Steinway user either.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:12 PM

Elton John switched from Steinway to Yamaha in the '80's.

I'm really getting into Pianoteq 6!
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.

Sorry, this is a mistake. I saw a countless videos with him, read interviews, etc. Steinway only. At his home, famous Goldberg Variations recordings (2), etc. Never heard about any other brand from him.

Added: OMG, so many answers, I did not see them because the original message was at the end of the previous page, so I thought it is the last one, lol.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.


He was, but only towards the end of his life. He was a Steinway player for years before that until he had a serious disagreement with one of their agents. So it depends if you're talking about his 1950s recording or the 1981 recording: the first was (I'm pretty sure) Steinway, and the last one was Yamaha. So the question is, which one is Zack referring to.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Gould is a famous Yamaha player. He had his own Yamaha grand, specially prepared and used on many of his recordings as far as I know.

Sorry, this is a mistake. I saw a countless videos with him, read interviews, etc. Steinway only. At his home, famous Goldberg Variations recordings (2), etc. Never heard about any other brand from him.


Well, now is the time to hear it for the first time: he switched to Yamaha, played it in the famous late Goldberg Variations and a few others of his late recordings smile I thought he played only Yamaha but I was wrong. However you are also wrong that he never played any other piano than Steinway wink
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:21 PM

thumb
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird
Elton John switched from Steinway to Yamaha in the '80's.


He switched from Steinway to Roland in the 80s. Then switched (permanently it would appear) to Yamaha in the 90s, although what you hear is a combination of Roland and Yamaha sounds. I wish he'd go back to Steinway although he said they "didn't give a sh*t" and Yamaha has provided real support.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by Beakybird
Elton John switched from Steinway to Yamaha in the '80's.


He switched from Steinway to Roland in the 80s. Then switched (permanently it would appear) to Yamaha in the 90s, although what you hear is a combination of Roland and Yamaha sounds. I wish he'd go back to Steinway although he said they "didn't give a sh*t" and Yamaha has provided real support.


That 80's Roland sound has not aged well in my opinion.
Posted By: zack!

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 04:34 PM

Hi, was off.
Someone ask me for recording of Gould, I am not sure I will find it (it was last week end, and I don't think I had the same piece to really compare hte sound).

But we can compare "J.S. Bach - Fugue in F Sharp Major Book 1, BWV858", on steinway D, first google matches :

from pianoteq steinway demo :
https://www.pianoteq.com/audio//mod...or%20Book%201%20-%20Jacob%20Smullyan.mp3

with this (starting at 1:46) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpFS5i57XM4

And this (1:34) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=999JR95aOMw

Or this one (more legato and slower tempo 2:00) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3GP-L1N24

All on steinway, seems to be the D model (but don't known if we can really guess model just on these visual).

Will try to look if I can find a gould recording of the same piece...

EDIT :
This recording is with a steninway D (hamburg) (1:09) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upR_DnVF2yU

Gould have done this recording : this is CD 2, track 2, but can't find it on internet for listenong, don't know neither if the recording uses steinway D or yamaha (I am pretty sure, this is not the version I used to make my post, so sorry I screw it up :-( )

https://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Gould-...&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=detail
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 05:24 PM

The Pianoteq demo didn't seem too far off, comparing to the real Steinway recordings. OT, the Steinway Grand in the first video looks so big, the girl must have needed to call a taxi to get to the other side of it.
Posted By: JoeT

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 05:40 PM

From a pianist perspective professional recordings made by audio engineers don't tell much about any piano, acoustic as well as electronic.

I don't want to listen to recordings, I want to play an instrument. That's a completely different scenario with very different requirements.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 06:13 PM

Well, VSTis are used both for playing (practising) and recording, so recording quality matters a lot, to me at least. Every single digitally produced piano sound, and that includes piano VSTs and onboard sounds of digital pianos, is a recording of some physical piano, except the modelled ones of course, which are still digitally produced.

So the only way to avoid playing a recording, or a modelled piano for that matter, is playing an upright or a (baby) grand piano. Though I agree with you, that we want to make the recordings, or the modelled piano sounds, as close to the real thing as possible. Can that be made with a recording? I'm not saying it can rather be made with modelling, though I won't rule out that possibility.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 07:33 PM

He switched to Yamaha? In the 90s? Not likely.
Originally Posted by EssBrace
He switched from Steinway to Roland in the 80s. Then switched (permanently it would appear) to Yamaha in the 90s, although what you hear is a combination of Roland and Yamaha sounds. I wish he'd go back to Steinway although he said they "didn't give a sh*t" and Yamaha has provided real support.

Now, I didn't know he played Roland in the 80s.
But perhaps Roland at that time had a prescient glimpse of their 2010s era "supernatural" piano sound?

Upon playing said Roland perhaps Gould inherited its supernatural powers to allow him to switch pianos in the 90s ... years after he was dead! smile (He died in 1982.)
Posted By: prout

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
He switched to Yamaha? In the 90s? Not likely.
Originally Posted by EssBrace
He switched from Steinway to Roland in the 80s. Then switched (permanently it would appear) to Yamaha in the 90s, although what you hear is a combination of Roland and Yamaha sounds. I wish he'd go back to Steinway although he said they "didn't give a sh*t" and Yamaha has provided real support.

Now, I didn't know he played Roland in the 80s.
But perhaps Roland at that time had a prescient glimpse of their 2010s era "supernatural" piano sound?

Upon playing said Roland perhaps Gould inherited its supernatural powers to allow him to switch pianos in the 90s ... years after he was dead! smile (He died in 1982.)
HE WHO?

The HE in the quote refers to Elton John.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/23/17 08:21 PM

thumb grin eek
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 07:24 AM

What are your thoughts on the U4? I must say that the demos on the Pianoteq site sound very convincing, and I like the sound better than the Steinways. This surprised me because when it comes to VST I rarely ever take interest in Uprights.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 07:38 AM

Speaking of Gould’s early Goldberg Variations (and because they are probably recorded on a Steinway), are you aware of the “Zenph Re-performance” series?

They scanned and analyzed with a special software some of the famous classical and jazz recordings and created a MIDI file that was played on a Yamaha Disklavier. Here’s the Gould’s early Goldberg:
Glenn Gould’s Goldberg Variations (Zenph re-performance)
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
And that's why a Forum exists.

Exactly

Quote
If I understand you correctly, you identify an 'issue', which is that opinions differ and some negative things have been said about PianoTeq based on subjective opinions.


No, you're missing the point by a wide margin. I'm fine with negative opinions on Pianoteq, on so-called presidents, on liver, and on whatever. I took issue with your statement:

Quote
I simply cannot believe that there is anyone out there who could honestly state that they believe PT (or the Roland) sounds better than a good sample engine.


My issue is with you having problems with differing opinions. Your statement above implies that no one should love the sound from Pianoteq, implying that those of us that do, might not have discerning ears. Yes, it's true there are those of us who love Pianoteq. It's a reality, it's believable.

And again I'm perfectly OK with your not liking it. Again, vive la différence. Just don't put us down by implying that we shouldn't be having the opinions that we have. That's my point entirely.

Quote
You seem to me to be suggesting that differing subjective opinion can therefore only give rise to what you call the 'issue'. You call that a 'mess'. I call it sharing and comparing opinions. Where exactly is the mess? This is a Forum for opinion sharing after all.


The mess is again as quoted above: "I simply cannot believe that there is anyone out there who could honestly state that they believe PT (or the Roland) sounds better than a good sample engine."

You should "honestly" believe this.

Quote
Perhaps PianoWorld should be closed down because the vast majority of input here, on almost every topic, is from people sharing their subjective opinion.


and that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let's not go there.

Quote
When it comes to the sound, playability and touch of a piano or something emulating a piano I would have thought there is very little BUT subjective opinion out there. Some people like things, others don't. We all have reasons behind our liking or disliking of something. And in the main those reasons will be subjective.


And again, I'm fine with this.

Quote
Personally I believe the real 'issue' here is that some people, including me, find the tone of PianoTeq lacking. And when it all boils down to gravy I don't think you, or some other PianoTeq fans, deal with that reality very well. I rather suspect that if the whole thread was full of plaudits for PT from every contributor I don't think you'd be so concerned about how it's all so subjective and therefore, in your opinion, such a 'mess'. No, I think in those circumstances you'd be a happy little camper.


Again, this misses the point. I'm perfectly fine with your view, your opinions, your difference from me. Don't get me wrong. It's that one statement of yours that irritated me. Perhaps you misspoke, perhaps you didn't mean it, perhaps you were just having a bad day, who knows. But it is wrong since it invalidates opinions of others that are different from yours. That's it. I think that we can agree to all have our own opinions and to respect the opinions of others. I'll respect yours, if you'll respect mine. Then it's all good.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 09:36 PM

Perhaps I'm mincing words, but I cannot quite agree with this:
Originally Posted by petes1
I think that we can agree to all have our own opinions and to respect the opinions of others.
There's no need whatever to respect others' opinions.
Tolerate them, yes.
But respect is not owed. It's earned.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Perhaps I'm mincing words, but I cannot quite agree with this:
Originally Posted by petes1
I think that we can agree to all have our own opinions and to respect the opinions of others.
There's no need whatever to respect others' opinions.
Tolerate them, yes.
But respect is not owed. It's earned.


What I mean is please feel free to shoot down the message -- disagree, and disagree strongly.
but please don't shoot the messenger. No "ad hominem" attacks.

So you disagree with my preferences on Pianoteq? OK. And feel free to say why and defend it vociferously (if subjective views can be defended), but all I ask is that you don't criticize me personally for my views -- and visa versa. We all can agree on this, no?
Posted By: casinitaly

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 09:51 PM

Frankly, you'd all better be able to express yourselves without making personal attacks.

It's not an option. it's explicit in the forum rules. --- those who insist on attacking others personally get : first, a warning, then if necessary, a time out, possibly a second chance, and if that doesn't work --- a permanent ban will be set in place.

So - play nicely folks.
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 09:55 PM

I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by petes1
My issue is with you having problems with differing opinions. Your statement above implies that no one should love the sound from Pianoteq, implying that those of us that do, might not have discerning ears.


I think you're massively over-thinking the meaning of two lines of a much longer post I made. Greg summed up what I meant at least as succinctly as I can. I was merely communicating my surprise that anyone could find it sonically as convincing as a good sample.

The next paragraph in my original post was this, which I think shows that my thoughts are nowhere near as one-sided as you pretend to believe:

All that said, there are two fundamentals to every musical instrument; its sound and its behaviour. Modelled pianos tend to have good behaviours and, assuming the timbre gets close enough in the opinion of the player, then they can make for very satisfying instruments. Likewise with sampled sounds in relation to behaviours that are good enough. Whether sound or behaviour is good 'enough' in either case is a subjective judgement to be made by individual players.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by petes1
I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!


You can check some of slobajudge's posts. For instance he suggested one might be depressed if he didn't like Pianoteq. He also constantly mocks people. Which qualifies as "ad hominem" argument, isn't it, and frankly I'm surprised you didn't chime in when that happened.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/24/17 11:11 PM

That's basically what I thought you meant. And it's why I said I was "mincing words". (But words are important!) smile
Originally Posted by petes1
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Perhaps I'm mincing words, but I cannot quite agree with this:
Originally Posted by petes1
I think that we can agree to all have our own opinions and to respect the opinions of others.
There's no need whatever to respect others' opinions.
Tolerate them, yes.
But respect is not owed. It's earned.
What I mean is please feel free to shoot down the message -- disagree, and disagree strongly.
but please don't shoot the messenger. No "ad hominem" attacks.
Posted By: brooster

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 06:23 PM

Pianoteq 6 Youtube video with Peter Gundry | Composer - Performer :

Sad Piano - The Pensive Mind | Pianoteq 6

After posting this I looked at his other videos. Yikes! To use a New Orleans expression "Day be a lot o gris-gris dere!"
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by petes1
I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!


You can check some of slobajudge's posts. For instance he suggested one might be depressed if he didn't like Pianoteq. He also constantly mocks people. Which qualifies as "ad hominem" argument, isn't it, and frankly I'm surprised you didn't chime in when that happened.

You already report the state of your soul to admin and admin react. So, what is the purpose of your crying now (still) ? Public support ? See the name of the topic: Pianoteq 6 and you are still here ? Oh man, I can feel Pianoteq under your fingers smile
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by petes1
I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!


You can check some of slobajudge's posts. For instance he suggested one might be depressed if he didn't like Pianoteq. He also constantly mocks people. Which qualifies as "ad hominem" argument, isn't it, and frankly I'm surprised you didn't chime in when that happened.

You already report the state of your soul to admin and admin react. So, what is the purpose of your crying now (still) ? Public support ? See the name of the post: Pianoteq 6 and you are still here ? Oh man, I can feel Pianoteq under your fingers smile


This is unacceptable. You're deliberately trying to provoke bad feeling.
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by petes1
I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!


You can check some of slobajudge's posts. For instance he suggested one might be depressed if he didn't like Pianoteq. He also constantly mocks people. Which qualifies as "ad hominem" argument, isn't it, and frankly I'm surprised you didn't chime in when that happened.

You already report the state of your soul to admin and admin react. So, what is the purpose of your crying now (still) ? Public support ? See the name of the post: Pianoteq 6 and you are still here ? Oh man, I can feel Pianoteq under your fingers smile


This is unacceptable. You're deliberately trying to provoke bad feeling.


What is unacceptable brother ? What are you talking about ? What bad feeling ? Do I said anything to you ?
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by slobajudge
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by petes1
I don't think anyone has gone that far in this thread. Please let us know if we do!


You can check some of slobajudge's posts. For instance he suggested one might be depressed if he didn't like Pianoteq. He also constantly mocks people. Which qualifies as "ad hominem" argument, isn't it, and frankly I'm surprised you didn't chime in when that happened.

You already report the state of your soul to admin and admin react. So, what is the purpose of your crying now (still) ? Public support ? See the name of the post: Pianoteq 6 and you are still here ? Oh man, I can feel Pianoteq under your fingers smile


This is unacceptable. You're deliberately trying to provoke bad feeling.


What is unacceptable brother ? What are you talking about ? What bad feeling ? Do I said anything to you ?


Long time since we've had a decent barney on here . . . . who's gonna pour cold water on this fire? Or petrol . . . . . (grin)
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by peterws

Long time since we've had a decent barney on here . . . . who's gonna pour cold water on this fire? Or petrol . . . . . (grin)


Maybe we can drink something, cheers Peterws to anyone with good will smile
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 08:26 PM

The IGNORE function still works on this forum. Try it.
Originally Posted by EssBrace
This is unacceptable. You're deliberately trying to provoke bad feeling.
Posted By: casinitaly

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 08:31 PM

I'm prepared to pour some cold water.

Slobajudge, you've been warned before. This is totally unacceptable behaviour.

And there are consequences.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 08:43 PM

Great review by Dave Rich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eCZB0a3oAg
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/27/17 08:55 PM

lol this is like east side vs west side, sample thugs vs modeling mob.
Posted By: bsntn99

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 12:00 AM

Frankly, I don't get all the debate on Pianoteq. Pianoteq has a free demo. You try it out for yourself and if you like it and think the price is fair, then buy it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Pianoteq is what it is and no complaining one way or the other is going to change the software.

To me it is just another piano vst. Since I can try out the demo, I don't really care about any opinions here or reviews. I've tried 4, 5, and now 6, and have made up my mind on the software. Should anybody care what I think. Absolutely not. Go get the demo and try it for yourself to see if it's your cup of tea. Probably time to close this thread as there is nothing valuable to be said here at this point and is becoming a waste of space.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 12:24 AM

Why do anybody need to talk about anything at all? Existence is enough. Just delete everything or better just shut the universe up!
Posted By: Gombessa

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Why do anybody need to talk about anything at all? Existence is enough. Just delete everything or better just shut the universe up!


I guess it's time to unleash your inner solipsist smile
Posted By: sullivang

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 02:40 AM

Listening to Jim Carrey's recent ramblings, I think he'd enjoy the direction this thread is taking. smile

Greg.
Posted By: newer player

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 02:55 AM

This has become a terrible thread unfortunately. It is a disservice to the folks at PianoTeq and I know we can do better at PianoWorld
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by newer player
This has become a terrible thread unfortunately. It is a disservice to the folks at PianoTeq and I know we can do better at PianoWorld


You mean you know we can praise the product a whole lot more?! Unbelievable....

And BTW, we're not here to service the needs of the "folks at PianoTeq".
Posted By: David Farley

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
Originally Posted by newer player
This has become a terrible thread unfortunately. It is a disservice to the folks at PianoTeq and I know we can do better at PianoWorld


You mean you know we can praise the product a whole lot more?! Unbelievable....

And BTW, we're not here to service the needs of the "folks at PianoTeq".


Because if anybody here had any constructive suggestions or criticism for the Pianoteq people it would get lost in page after page of tit-for-tat from people trying to see how close they can get to abusive without actually getting banned?
Posted By: casinitaly

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 01:41 PM

Out of the last 14 posts only 2 have been on Pianowhateveritis you're supposed to be talking about.

Is anyone actually interested in this topic?

If so, why not try talking about the topic.

If you disagree, then be civil about it. If you can't disagree and be civil at the same time, perhaps it would be better to refrain from posting.
Posted By: Charles Cohen

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by bsntn99
. . . . Go get the demo and try it for yourself to see if it's your cup of tea. Probably time to close this thread as there is nothing valuable to be said here at this point and is becoming a waste of space.


+1.
Posted By: casinitaly

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Charles Cohen
Originally Posted by bsntn99
. . . . Go get the demo and try it for yourself to see if it's your cup of tea. Probably time to close this thread as there is nothing valuable to be said here at this point and is becoming a waste of space.


+1.




I agree, but really, there's just been so much backlash on closing threads today and I'm not prepared to do it again.

Just behave yourselves and act like grown ups who know how to conduct a civilized conversation - I'm sure you're all more than capable of it.

Make an effort for goodness sake.
Posted By: zack!

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/28/17 06:55 PM

Message for pianoteq team.
I know a large part of the work is to tune engine for every piano to be modelled, with a set of reference data (samples and "Fourrier transform" paraemters).
Did the team consider to use AI (machine learning / neural network) to converge toward target signature ?
Posted By: Terry Michael

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 01:09 AM

Oh. My. Goodness. Been gone a few days and went back to this (one of my favorite threads) looking for more info on Pianoteq 6. But this thread is a train wreck... frown
Posted By: gvfarns

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 02:35 AM

I only read the last 20 pages or so, but the thread was fine until people started needlessly reporting each other and the moderator started in with the threats. None of that was justified in my opinion. PianoTeq has always been and will always be polarizing, so heated comments are to be expected and tolerated.

I have always loved the concept of PianoTeq and have been eager for it to be great with every release. I also really like how thoughtful their UI design is and how playable and responsive the product is. The company really listens to feedback and always tries to improve the product (unlike sampled VST's, which don't seem to bother to fix simple bugs). I currently own PT version 4 but the timbre is just too grating for me to use. I was going to upgrade to 5 but after hearing some online demos I realized it suffered from the same timbral problem. Earlier versions of PianoTeq were very metallic and electronic. PianoTeq responded by dampening the metal out, but that made the pianos sound dead. There's a point between those where it is neither very dead nor very metallic, but it still doesn't sound great. Or hasn't in the past.

I will almost certainly buy version 6 because the upgrade cost just isn't that high. I'm not sure how hard the mathematics of "pleasing, natural sound" are, but if each version gets better (and my hearing gets worse over time) eventually I will be able to tolerate the timbre. That will be a good day. I actually envy the people who can enjoy PianoTeq. It is a very fine piece of software in every way except for the sound it produces. frown
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 04:14 AM

I started at the end of version 4, and I quickly got turned off. I got version 5, and I liked it for a year, but I started hearing artifacts that displeased me. Now with version 6, I really, really love this software. It is very soulful.

At the Pianoteq forum, there is - and it's not very scientific - someone who records with their cell phone the Steinway D next to his mom's Steinway M. You can really hear the same signature in the sound, and the person says that the similarity is just as pronounced in person.

On Youtube there is a clip of someone playing a Chopin Nocturne comparing a real Steinway with Pianoteq Steinway D, and I think that Pianoteq comes off as somewhat artificial in the comparison. At some point, I hope someone does that comparison again with Pianoteq 6.

Below this Youtube video among the comments is one by the owner of a Grotrian and the Pianoteq Grotrian. The Grotrian was the last piano to come out in Pianoteq 5, and most would say that, up to the then, it had the best modeling technology. Here is what he had to comment on the real vs. Pianoteq Steinway comparison:

"I happen to use Pianoteq 5 next to a great sounding Grotrian Steinweg 80 year old grand piano. I have listened to the comparisons in this series, but they are quite useless in my opinion. Pianoteq sounds much better than in
these weird sounding comparisons. Of course Pianoteq needs good equipment and fine tuning (not just real tuning) to produce the best results, but with a bit of effort it can sound amazing and play with realistic touch and
sound response. Many visitors that listen to both pianos are blown away by Pianoteq. Comparing over Youtube probably has its limitations, but I still have the feeling this one is done badly."

So here you have someone who plays the real Grotrian Steinweg next to the Pianoteq Grotrian and people are blown away by how similar Pianoteq sounds. Did I mention that they got endorsed by Grotrian to use their name?

Also, at the Pianoteq forum, there are quite a few people who tune pianos, and while some have expressed limitations that they see in the latest version, they seem to be very excited with Pianoteq.

Pianoteq is not for everyone, but there are definitely people who are around real pianos night and day who love it.

As much as I love it, I got to agree with those who hate it: Don't buy until you play the demo.
Posted By: HwyStar

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 12:14 PM

Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by gvfarns
I actually envy the people who can enjoy PianoTeq. It is a very fine piece of software in every way except for the sound it produces. frown


Originally Posted by Beakybird
I started at the end of version 4, and I quickly got turned off. I got version 5, and I liked it for a year, but I started hearing artifacts that displeased me. Now with version 6, I really, really love this software. It is very soulful.

Pianoteq is not for everyone, but there are definitely people who are around real pianos night and day who love it.

As much as I love it, I got to agree with those who hate it: Don't buy until you play the demo.


I'm going to quit griping about it until I've tried it. And all being well I'm going to give the free trial a go over the next couple of days. The demos are so contradictory. Some sound truly awful to me, others sound far better and very promising.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 04:02 PM

Don't forget to twiddle with the condition slider. For many, mild imperfections bring a virtual piano to life.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 04:19 PM

And make sure to do the keyboard calibration for every modeled Pianoteq piano/keyboard. It makes a difference to how each instrument feels. If your keyboard supports 'note off velocity', Pianoteq will use it for an important but subtle effect.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/29/17 06:12 PM

Thanks for the advice chaps, will do. I think my piano does support key off velocity. I'm home alone tomorrow all day so I'm going to give it go.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 01:16 PM

I've just spent an hour on the trial version. The shut down at 20 min intervals is a nuisance but the silent notes absolutely do my head in!

It has been a very interesting experience; some very nice things like playing softly in the bass area of the Grotrian where there is something truly beautiful about it. Somewhat nasty elements too like some of the mid range notes on the Steinway B that just seem to be tuneful popping sounds to my ears, not much like a hammer strike in a piano at all.

It's a mixed bag.

I'm mulling it over. Looks like I'd get the Stage version (which would include the Steinway D and the K2) plus one more instrument such as the Bluthner or Grotrian for example for £150. I'd use it I think. But I'm not 100% sure. I wouldn't spend any more than is absolutely necessary at this stage because I don't know whether I'd use it lots of the time.

Afterwards, I played the native (sampled) sound on my DP, which I was using as controller, and it was a revealing experience going back to it. Better in some respects, worse in others. Sonically better (more realistic) in certain ways but the resonances and sustain of PT are quite a bit better (and my DP is better than most in that regard in my opinion).

I owned a Roland FP90 for a few days a couple of weeks ago which was returned due to a bad keyboard. I'd say PT is significantly more versatile than the Roland. I expected PT to be cold and soulless but, admittedly just after an hour of fiddling with it, I'd say that's not the case at all; there's heaps of character (not all good though!). But the Roland is very generic sounding and lacks depth compared to PT. Boring, in other words. I was glad the keys were so noisy so I could send it back!

Will see how it settles on my mind over the rest of the day....
Posted By: petes1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
I've just spent an hour on the trial version. ...
...
It's a mixed bag.


Which sums up my impression of the product as well. I like it, I enjoy playing it, and am glad that I have it as part of my arsenal, but it's got its pluses and its minuses. It's nowhere near as nice as playing the real thing, but then no VST is, and yes, there are sampled VST's that are nicer, but for me I like PT's small footprint and responsiveness. I find that it's great to use for practice, and it has been reliable to use when gigging.

Thanks for sharing your objective opinions on this, and glad that you were able to try out version 6.
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 03:24 PM

I have a question about upgrading. On the site it says that an upgrade of 29 Euros will upgrade any version of Pianoteq to ver. 6. Does that include the Pro version as well as the Pro/Studio bundles? So if I would have bought Pianoteq 5 studio bundle, I could upgrade that to the 6 studio bundle for just 29 Euros?

Have the upgrade prices always been this low? Because that is very reasonable, I think, and could sway me towards buying Pianoteq.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Grazilerimba
I have a question about upgrading. On the site it says that an upgrade of 29 Euros will upgrade any version of Pianoteq to ver. 6. Does that include the Pro version as well as the Pro/Studio bundles? So if I would have bought Pianoteq 5 studio bundle, I could upgrade that to the 6 studio bundle for just 29 Euros?

Have the upgrade prices always been this low? Because that is very reasonable, I think, and could sway me towards buying Pianoteq.


Yes. The upgrade price is just 29 Euros and $39 USA.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 03:55 PM

It definitely applies to the Stage, Standard and Pro versions, e.g. if you had 5 Pro, the 29 Euro upgrade will get you 6 Pro; the upgrade is always to the equivalent version. Extra instruments are also automatically upgraded within that, so if you had, for example, the PT5 version of the Grotrian, you'll get the PT6 version of the Grotrian included in the upgrade (at no extra cost). I don't know for sure about the Studio bundle, but I'd be surprised if it were different in that regard. PT is arguably quite expensive up front (especially for the Pro and Studio versions), but the upgrades are excellent value. Within the first year of ownership, upgrades are also completely free, i.e. I bought PT5 earlier this year, and got the upgrade to PT6 entirely for free.
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 04:00 PM

Thanks to both of you for the information, that sounds like a great deal. Honestly I'm surprised that the upgrade are so cheap, definitely makes me consider buying Pianoteq.
Posted By: EssBrace

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by petes1
Originally Posted by EssBrace
I've just spent an hour on the trial version. ...
...
It's a mixed bag.


Which sums up my impression of the product as well. I like it, I enjoy playing it, and am glad that I have it as part of my arsenal, but it's got its pluses and its minuses. It's nowhere near as nice as playing the real thing, but then no VST is, and yes, there are sampled VST's that are nicer, but for me I like PT's small footprint and responsiveness. I find that it's great to use for practice, and it has been reliable to use when gigging.


It's been an interesting afternoon!

I bought Stage. Started to play. Personally I don't want to constantly fiddle with it so I think Stage is the right product for me. I really started to get into it. Love the response and although I could find areas where it is sonically lacking a sense of realism it really didn't bother me. I felt like I was really connecting with it and playing a real instrument.

Then I took the dogs for a walk along the beach, hastened back, eager to get back on it and I couldn't settle down on it at all. All those little issues that I could tolerate less than two hours earlier started to bug me and it started to get in the way of my enjoyment to some extent.

There are some sonic issues that very much remind me of the Physis Piano that I owned. The tenor areas are strangely metallic and get very noticeably and unrealistically so at higher velocities (just like most of the Physis presets). I went back to the onboard sampled sound and it was a fair bit nicer and not all that much less responsive. Less so, yes. But not that much.

It's early days. I don't regret the purchase and, like you, I suspect I'll end up feeling like it's one of the tools in the box. I'll keep playing it. There's a lot to like; the interface, the audio quality seems very good. The low demand on the computer. I've set it to 128 note polyphony and that provides 2.9 ms latency. No glitches or crackles.

Someone recently said that playing PT is a whole lot nicer than listening to it and I've an idea that is where I'll end up. And for a while earlier I really did understand the enthusiasm for it. To just immerse yourself in the playing of it is the key to enjoying it. Even the slightest foray into a forensic assessment of the pure sound of the thing brings disappointment though (to me anyway).
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace

Then I took the dogs for a walk along the beach, hastened back, eager to get back on it and I couldn't settle down on it at all. All those little issues that I could tolerate less than two hours earlier started to bug me and it started to get in the way of my enjoyment to some extent.


Ok so this has nothing to do with Pianoteq as such but I can confirm that I have this kind of thing with other sample based piano VST instruments as well. I finally manage to make a config that sounds and feels great, save everything, come back to it the next day and it feels to me as if something is missing, and I wonder, how could I like this config yesterday? Then I spend an afternoon configuring it, and the cycle repeats.
Posted By: lolatu

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 07:29 PM

I bought the €29 upgrade a few weeks ago and I think it was worth it, if only for the improvements in the D and K models, which I didn't use before because I thought they just sounded pretty bad unless you choose a preset with a whole load of reverb like the Concert Recording setting.

I like Pianoteq for its reliability (it barely ever glitches), fast loading, great UI and recording features, and ease of switching between a bunch of well thought out presets. On the other VSTIs I own, Vintage D and CFX Lite, the factory presets are all crap so you have to make your own, and loading and switching between them is neither easy nor quick. Plus CFX has a tendency to glitch out a lot if I do anything as egregious as switching to a web browser for a bit while having the software open (... and pity the fool who tries to use it after the computer has been to sleep) - which is a shame, because it has the best sound.
Posted By: Frédéric L

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 08:18 PM

Switching between VSTi is quite easy with a DAW : just save a project per VSTi with a single track, the VSTi loaded and the monitoring activated.

With Reaper, I have all my VSTi saved as a template, then a single menu choice (example : File/Template/Vintage D) load my VSTi and also my settings. Loading is easy (but not necessarily fast).
Posted By: peterws

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by EssBrace
I've just spent an hour on the trial version. The shut down at 20 min intervals is a nuisance but the silent notes absolutely do my head in!

It has been a very interesting experience; some very nice things like playing softly in the bass area of the Grotrian where there is something truly beautiful about it. Somewhat nasty elements too like some of the mid range notes on the Steinway B that just seem to be tuneful popping sounds to my ears, not much like a hammer strike in a piano at all.

It's a mixed bag.

I'm mulling it over. Looks like I'd get the Stage version (which would include the Steinway D and the K2) plus one more instrument such as the Bluthner or Grotrian for example for £150. I'd use it I think. But I'm not 100% sure. I wouldn't spend any more than is absolutely necessary at this stage because I don't know whether I'd use it lots of the time.

Afterwards, I played the native (sampled) sound on my DP, which I was using as controller, and it was a revealing experience going back to it. Better in some respects, worse in others. Sonically better (more realistic) in certain ways but the resonances and sustain of PT are quite a bit better (and my DP is better than most in that regard in my opinion).

I owned a Roland FP90 for a few days a couple of weeks ago which was returned due to a bad keyboard. I'd say PT is significantly more versatile than the Roland. I expected PT to be cold and soulless but, admittedly just after an hour of fiddling with it, I'd say that's not the case at all; there's heaps of character (not all good though!). But the Roland is very generic sounding and lacks depth compared to PT. Boring, in other words. I was glad the keys were so noisy so I could send it back!

Will see how it settles on my mind over the rest of the day....


Sounds like a fair assessment. I remember feeling the same about any acoustic I bought; nuthin's perfect. The D4 version 5.8 is mushy mid keyboard; so's my Roland. Grotrian is much better, and is the best choice for listening through the piano speakers imo. The 6.0 D4 is better, but I think I'll leave it. K2 has always been one o' my favourites. I like the wide stereo in one of the voices.
6.0 seems to work without any issues on my laptop and it's easy to pick up on existing settings. I could only load it from a memory stick for some reason (out of date computer?)
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Grazilerimba

Ok so this has nothing to do with Pianoteq as such but I can confirm that I have this kind of thing with other sample based piano VST instruments as well. I finally manage to make a config that sounds and feels great, save everything, come back to it the next day and it feels to me as if something is missing, and I wonder, how could I like this config yesterday? Then I spend an afternoon configuring it, and the cycle repeats.


I understand what you're saying here. In my experience, a good rule of thumb is that if you like something on its default settings, you'll like it on most other settings, and if you don't like it on its default settings, no amount of fiddling will give a lasting level of satisfaction.

The only electronic piano sound I didn't immediately have an issue with when I first heard it was the Garritan CFX. On that one, I can alter the sound quite a lot through changing settings such as mic perspectives, decay parameters etc.. and while some settings are preferable to others for me, I actually enjoy the sound on almost all of them. By contrast, with most other piano VSTis, including Pianoteq, I can fiddle, get to a point where I think I'm happy, but an hour later and the flaws are all too evident again. I think there is a basic sound that is either right or not right, and no amount of changing the settings can alter that. That applies to sampled VSTis as well as modeled ones.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 10:41 PM

I agree that a VST should shine for you right out of the box.

I had a chance to play a real Yamaha C5 at Von Maur - this is after months of playing with VST's - and I couldn't believe how loud and resonant it was! No volume control. No knob to turn down sympathetic resonance. I had to be much more careful with my pedal or else everything would sound convoluted. There was no knob for damper duration. I would have to say that it would take me a few weeks to adjust my ears and playing style to a real grand. But when the jazz virtuoso was playing it minutes before, it did sound incredible, but under my inexperienced fingers it was like an untamed horse.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 10:46 PM

@EssBraceI

I encourage you to get a Std. version. Then a) set the Dynamics slider to at least 60 dB. Next, do something to mask the Pianoteq artificial nature: b) play with a reverb (ratio and duration), don't be shy to add more of it; c) play with microphones positions, set them to somewhat significantly distant.
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 11:30 PM

This generalization just cannot stand:
Originally Posted by karvala
In my experience, a good rule of thumb is that if you like something on its default settings, you'll like it on most other settings, and if you don't like it on its default settings, no amount of fiddling will give a lasting level of satisfaction.
Perhaps that is, indeed, your experience. But do you mean it to apply more broadly? I cannot.

Cases in point:

I bought Galaxy's Vintage D long ago. I did not like the initial sound. It was dull and lifeless. It needed an increase in the colour setting. That fixed it. Much better.

I bought NI's The Grandeur piano a few years later. As with the Vintage D did not like the initial sound. It, too, was dull sounding. The resonance setting had to be tweaked. That did the trick.

On the other hand, I've tried five different versions of Pianoteq and could not tweak any of them to satisfy.
Ditto for Alicia's Keys, Piano in Blue, and two of the 8DIO vintage pianos. No amount of tweaking would satisfy.

So for me ... Your rule is true, when it's true. And false otherwise. So it's not really a rule at all.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 11:49 PM

Fair enough. It seems to work for me, but it's useful to know that it might not work for everyone.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 09/30/17 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
@EssBraceI

I encourage you to get a Std. version. Then a) set the Dynamics slider to at least 60 dB. Next, do something to mask the Pianoteq artificial nature: b) play with a reverb (ratio and duration), don't be shy to add more of it; c) play with microphones positions, set them to somewhat significantly distant.


Yes, I would definitely agree with these. They still don't get PT to sound convincing to me, but they certainly improve the sound more than anything else. The microphone positions in particular (and indeed, microphone types) make a huge difference to the sound, and are often overlooked by people.
Posted By: TheodorN

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 10:19 AM

I have a question about microphones in Pianoteq.

As I assume everybody here knows, Pianoteq is modelled, or calculated, not sampled. Which obviously means no microphones were used in recording the pianos, simply because they weren't recorded, or were they?

How do they model different microphones never recorded with, or different mic perspectives? Or do they record the pianos which are the sources of the models, and then try to mimic that sound? If not, how do they do it?

I know there must be some trade secrets Modartt understandably will not reveal, but I'm asking about the general procedure.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 10:46 AM

Modartt haven't said themselves, but I would assume they are modeled. Modartt's general approach is to model known physical characteristics rather than to optimise parameters based on the minimising the distance between produced and recorded sound (which is a valid alternative approach, but quite different). Microphones have a characteristic frequency response which is generally known for each model; Modartt could take that and apply the microphone as a filter based on that response, with an additional spatial filtering component included to reflect the location, direction and reach of the microphone. I would imagine that's what they do.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
I have a question about microphones in Pianoteq.

As I assume everybody here knows, Pianoteq is modelled, or calculated, not sampled. Which obviously means no microphones were used in recording the pianos, simply because they weren't recorded, or were they?

How do they model different microphones never recorded with, or different mic perspectives? Or do they record the pianos which are the sources of the models, and then try to mimic that sound? If not, how do they do it?

I know there must be some trade secrets Modartt understandably will not reveal, but I'm asking about the general procedure.


It's a very good question and one you could ask from the opposite point of view: how often are real michrophones used for sampled pianos such as Vintage D etc etc.?

So called convolution reverb is, afaics, the reverb equivalent of modelling: it uses advanced mathematical algorithms to recreate spaces; often known spaces such as Chatres Cathedral or St Paul's. Actually, all digital reverb is a sort of modelling, I suppose, but 'convolution' is more specific and with more sophisticated algorithms.

So it is totally fitting and logical for Modartt use these kinds of procedures. But my other question still stands: do sampled piano packages do the same after having captured the basics with close michrophones in almost anechoic conditions, or do they actually use concert halls and what-not to create their audience perspectives, and the rest?

.......probably a bit of both.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by toddy

So called convolution reverb is, afaics, the reverb equivalent of modelling: it uses advanced mathematical algorithms to recreate spaces; often known spaces such as Chatres Cathedral or St Paul's. Actually, all digital reverb is a sort of modelling, I suppose, but 'convolution' is more specific and with more sophisticated algorithms.

Sorry, wrong. Well, actually correct to some degree (as you CAN call everything inside a computer an algorithm), but still not in the definitions. There are a convolution reverbs and algorithmic ones, they are technically different. The very approximate comparison will be - the convolution reverb is like a photo, the algorithmic one is like a painting. Both have their pros and cons. For more detailed explanation please google it.

To the microphones question. When you model something virtually inside a computer, be it say, 3d graphics, you'll be amazed how many additional things you actually NEED to be modelled apart from your main focus, just for it to be more or less existent. You need to model a) a lighting conditions b) a video camera c) material the object is made from, etc.

Same with modelled piano, it just need to have a virtual microphones to be modelled so the sound can be simply heard. Regarding the placement and the different types of microphones - it is all based on modelling this parameters virtually, say, for more distant placement the quiet sounds will be masked by the louder ones and some frequencies will behave differently over distance, etc.

Sampled pianos use real microphones in a real places, no mumbo-jumbo here (almost).
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 12:56 PM

Sampled pianos use real microphones in a real places, no mumbo-jumbo here.

Do they do this for all their perspectives, though?
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:04 PM

@toddy

Yes, exactly. That's why their size is so big in gigabytes sometimes. Say, they may use a) close mics Nuemann U87 - the whole piano lib, b) close mics - some ribbon ones, c) some small capsule mics d) some vintage mics, e) middle microphones perspective - all previous microphones brands mentioned and etc. etc. for the distant perspective, etc.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
Sampled pianos use real microphones in a real places, no mumbo-jumbo here.

Do they do this for all their perspectives, though?


I would imagine so; certainly for all the VSTis I own, that's the case, and I've never heard of one that isn't. In many cases you can actually get photos of the setup with the microphones in place, so you can see it. In general, the most compelling evidence that it's always real microphones is in the limitation of the microphone perspectives on offer - usually 3 or 4 at most, with particular microphones in particular locations which can't be moved in any way, and the user is limited to just mixing these together. If they were using virtual microphones, there would be no reason not to offer the end user a better range of options.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
Originally Posted by toddy

So called convolution reverb is, afaics, the reverb equivalent of modelling: it uses advanced mathematical algorithms to recreate spaces; often known spaces such as Chatres Cathedral or St Paul's. Actually, all digital reverb is a sort of modelling, I suppose, but 'convolution' is more specific and with more sophisticated algorithms.

Sorry, wrong. Well, actually correct to some degree (as you CAN call everything inside a computer an algorithm), but still not in the definitions. There are a convolution reverbs and algorithmic ones, they are technically different. The very approximate comparison will be - the convolution reverb is like a photo, the algorithmic one is like a painting. Both have their pros and cons. For more detailed explanation please google it.
(almost).


Yes, of course. In fact, it would make more sense to call convolution reverb an example of sampling rather than purely modelling because the space is literally sampled with a noise in the first stage of the process.
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:24 PM

I play currently Pianoteq under Linux.

Recently I had a chance to reinstall Windows 10 on my pc for some tests.
So, I tried again my 2 sample libraries that are not Linux compatible: Galaxy Vintage D and Ravenscroft 275.

It is now definitely clear to me that Pianoteq has the advantage over these 2 libraries.
Yes, the Vintage D and the Ravenscroft do sound good, but there is something wrong with the resonances. Nothing comes close to Pianoteq on that. The richness of Pianoteq and its perfect response to each intention makes it the best of these 3 products for me.
Even on the sound alone, I tend now to prefer Pianoteq over the others.

I am not saying Pianoteq is perfect. Yes, you still can feel something artificial but despite this, with this new version 6, the sound has become really great. Plus, the advantage on playability is perceptible.

For someone used to Pianoteq, I think it will be difficult to return to sample libraries again, IMO.

They did a great job on this v6.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:25 PM

@toddy

Actually I think it is a very good idea to capture the piano in anechoic conditions and then use the convolution technologies to emulate the microphones models and placement. Say, Antares Mic Mod EFX can emulate the microphones and Audioease Altiverb have the spacial technologies... I'm afraid we are going too much off topic here.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
@toddy
I'm afraid we are going too much off topic here.


But we're consolidating our knowledge. At least I am. smile
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov


I encourage you to get a Std. version. Then a) set the Dynamics slider to at least 60 dB.



With respect, I disagree.
By setting the Dynamics to 60dB, you make Pianoteq too easy in playing ppp. The feeling is totally unreal and the dynamic range is too high.

For me, in a player's perspective, if the keyboard sensitivity is well calibrated, the dynamic slider should be somewhere between 37 and 42.
Posted By: johnlewisgrant

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 01:56 PM

"Someone recently said that playing PT is a whole lot nicer than listening to it . . . "

That's the ESSENTIAL point!

Many, perhaps most, piano vsts are made to be PLAYED. A small number are made primarily to be LISTENED TO, and often they are awful to play.

The distinction can easily elude us, because the ear ACCOMMODATES quite readily to a particular piano's tone/touch.

That's not a problem if you're play mainly for your own personal enjoyment. But put any well-engineered recording of a piano (solo) up against a recording of most piano vsts and, in quite a few cases, the difference is huge and glaring.

That difference, of course, won't be obvious on every set of headphones, or on every speaker, or for every piece of music. But run any piano vst through a smattering of the entire gamut of piano music with high-end equipment (or even reasonably good equipment) and the difference will be pretty obvious.

Pianoteq is a case in point. Fantastic to play.... not realistic (listened to over a broad spectrum of music) to listen to.

All subjective, in the end, though. If you like it; if it works for YOU: that's what matters!
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:07 PM

Here's a Pianoteq 6 review: https://441k.com/review-modartt-pianoteq-6-modeled-piano-vst-plugin-11204264de17
Posted By: lolatu

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by TheodorN
As I assume everybody here knows, Pianoteq is modelled, or calculated, not sampled. Which obviously means no microphones were used in recording the pianos, simply because they weren't recorded, or were they?

Pretty sure the modelled instruments are sampled, then these data (frequency strengths relating to different vibration modes etc) are used as the basis for the model. I vaguely remember there being acknowledgements for the guys who did the sampling for Pianoteq somewhere.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:11 PM

johnlewisgrant said:

"Someone recently said that playing PT is a whole lot nicer than listening to it . . . "That's the ESSENTIAL point!
Many, perhaps most, piano vsts are made to be PLAYED. A small number are made primarily to be LISTENED TO, and often they are awful to play.


Could you give an example of two of a VSTi (or other digital piano) which is great to listen to, great to record but not so pleasant to play?
Posted By: stamkorg

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by toddy


Could you give an example of two of a VSTi (or other digital piano) which is great to listen to, great to record but not so pleasant to play?


The Imperfect Samples pianos maybe, or the Art Vista pianos.
Gorgeous sound but I read bad reviews about their playability.
Nobody seems to play them here although their sound is marvellous.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:35 PM

^ exactly my thoughts, Imperfect Samples.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Beakybird

What always surprises me is when people recommend the high-end speakers/headphones to be used with Pianoteq. My thoughts are that the better the audio - the clearer you hear the modelling artifacts; at the same time on a bad speakers it sounds and feel, well, like the real one. I mean not like playing the real piano, but like "playing as listening to a recording" through a not so good speakers. Like the sound of archive recordings of early 20-the century pianists.
Posted By: mcoll

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by stamkorg
Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov


I encourage you to get a Std. version. Then a) set the Dynamics slider to at least 60 dB.



With respect, I disagree.
By setting the Dynamics to 60dB, you make Pianoteq too easy in playing ppp. The feeling is totally unreal and the dynamic range is too high.

For me, in a player's perspective, if the keyboard sensitivity is well calibrated, the dynamic slider should be somewhere between 37 and 42.




My thoughts exactly. I find a dynamic range of 35-40 to be realistic. The same with the CFX. On acoustics, even the quietest notes are heard quite clearly and loud enough. Values louder than that feel unrealistic to me. I've see people setting the CFX to 70-80 but maybe it was just for recording purposes. I don't see how it could be played and still feel like an acoustic with this setting.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by mcoll
Originally Posted by stamkorg
Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov


I encourage you to get a Std. version. Then a) set the Dynamics slider to at least 60 dB.



With respect, I disagree.
By setting the Dynamics to 60dB, you make Pianoteq too easy in playing ppp. The feeling is totally unreal and the dynamic range is too high.

For me, in a player's perspective, if the keyboard sensitivity is well calibrated, the dynamic slider should be somewhere between 37 and 42.




My thoughts exactly. I find a dynamic range of 35-40 to be realistic. The same with the CFX. On acoustics, even the quietest notes are heard quite clearly and loud enough. Values louder than that feel unrealistic to me. I've see people setting the CFX to 70-80 but maybe it was just for recording purposes. I don't see how it could be played and still feel like an acoustic with this setting.


On Pianoteq the setting is for dB, on the CFX is % of the original sample amplitudes, so it could be argued that 100% is actually the acoustically realistic setting for the CFX (certainly not for Pianoteq, though). In practice, it is heavily dependent on the velocity curve, the instrument used and the sound production equipment (i.e. speakers, headphones, amps), so I'm not sure any general recommendation can really be applied to anyone. I can easily manipulate the velocity curve to make 30% or 80% in the CFX feel equally like an acoustic.
Posted By: Andrei Kuznetsov

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 02:59 PM

^ if you compare it to an average home piano then yes, you are right. But the top class grands often have a huge dynamic response.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by lolatu
Originally Posted by TheodorN
As I assume everybody here knows, Pianoteq is modelled, or calculated, not sampled. Which obviously means no microphones were used in recording the pianos, simply because they weren't recorded, or were they?

Pretty sure the modelled instruments are sampled, then these data (frequency strengths relating to different vibration modes etc) are used as the basis for the model. I vaguely remember there being acknowledgements for the guys who did the sampling for Pianoteq somewhere.


Modartt understandably keep this information locked away for commercial confidentiality reasons, but there's pretty good evidence that they actually do both. Their description of their basic piano models is that they use the physical characteristics of the actual instrument, i.e. string length, soundboard width etc.. in order to produce the distinct sound of each instrument, and there is no mention of sampling or optimisation. Furthermore, at least one of the instruments (the K2) is a purely virtual invention; there is no physical model in existence to sample. That's the evidence for a purely modelling approach.

On the other hand, with the KIViR instruments they explicitly acknowledge that the sound of missing notes is produced through numerical optimisation of tunable parameters based on recordings of other notes, so in that case sampling definitely plays a role as well. So they seem to use both approaches.
Posted By: johnlewisgrant

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Andrei Kuznetsov
^ exactly my thoughts, Imperfect Samples.


Ditto on Imperfect and Ars Vista (both of which I own, but don't actually use much).

I might add Orchestral Tools Steinway D (not the B) the expensive Vienna Bos (forget the brand), HZP Steinway... all of which might be called "scoring" vsts, mainly because they focus on sound, not on playability.

I don't own the Vienna Bos, but the other two I DO own, and with my somewhat dated computer and interface they are impossible to play. But they can be made to sound incredibly "realistic" (hard to distinguish from your average post 80's professional solo piano recording) in a pretty wide spectrum of solo piano rep.

For my money, the much-maligned and overpriced HZP Steinway is pretty amazing with the right massaging for CLASSICAL music. But a lot of that is personal taste.

Take this little ditty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR9oWeWklAQ&index=23&list=PLP5BZzcdRkq0zO0dfrE3ZIGMcQTQQ9XTj

But there's quite a bit of relativity in these sort of assessments. Pick ANY vst out there, and with the right massaging, the right music, the right verb, the right musicianship, etc., you can produce something pretty darn close to a "real" recording (circa 1940, '50, '60 and on).

It's a question of how much work (endless fussing) with the sample and the midi file you're prepared to do.

Obviously the power of your rack matters, alot. The Production Voices full version Yamaha will play, but only with a very up-to-date rack. And the sound is very Yamaha, so not necessarily what your ears would be accustomed to hearing for classical rep. Ditto, I expect, with the CFX Yamaha, the demos for which are pretty convincing to my ears.

Many variables here. Many dollars, too. No question, though, that Pianoteq is incredibly playable, but it wouldn't be my first choice (personally) if my main purpose were to record.
Posted By: Grazilerimba

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/01/17 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by johnlewisgrant
HZP Steinway... all of which might be called "scoring" vsts, mainly because they focus on sound, not on playability.

I don't own the Vienna Bos, but the other two I DO own, and with my somewhat dated computer and interface they are impossible to play. But they can be made to sound incredibly "realistic" (hard to distinguish from your average post 80's professional solo piano recording) in a pretty wide spectrum of solo piano rep.

For my money, the much-maligned and overpriced HZP Steinway is pretty amazing with the right massaging for CLASSICAL music. But a lot of that is personal taste.


Did you ever find a work around for the issue that HZP has? When you use the pedal after pressing down notes, there will be a drop in volume or a loss of 'sound thickness'. Several people wrote about it in the forums, I can't find a particular thread about it though.
The Bach piece you linked doesn't use any pedal at all. I would imagine if you use HZP mostly for Baroque music that doesn't need any pedaling then you wouldn't encounter that issue at all. I'd be interested what you think about this problem, if you encountered it yourself and if you found a way to improve it.
Posted By: johnlewisgrant

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Grazilerimba
Originally Posted by johnlewisgrant
HZP Steinway... all of which might be called "scoring" vsts, mainly because they focus on sound, not on playability.

I don't own the Vienna Bos, but the other two I DO own, and with my somewhat dated computer and interface they are impossible to play. But they can be made to sound incredibly "realistic" (hard to distinguish from your average post 80's professional solo piano recording) in a pretty wide spectrum of solo piano rep.

For my money, the much-maligned and overpriced HZP Steinway is pretty amazing with the right massaging for CLASSICAL music. But a lot of that is personal taste.


Did you ever find a work around for the issue that HZP has? When you use the pedal after pressing down notes, there will be a drop in volume or a loss of 'sound thickness'. Several people wrote about it in the forums, I can't find a particular thread about it though.
The Bach piece you linked doesn't use any pedal at all. I would imagine if you use HZP mostly for Baroque music that doesn't need any pedaling then you wouldn't encounter that issue at all. I'd be interested what you think about this problem, if you encountered it yourself and if you found a way to improve it.


No work around that I've managed to find. And, as you say, that's exactly why baroque works, but romantic rep is more challenging.
Posted By: oscar1

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 05:26 AM

I've got addictive keys studio grand as a freebie with novaton controller... any idea about it? Worth installing?
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by oscar1
I've got addictive keys studio grand as a freebie with novaton controller... any idea about it? Worth installing?


Addictive Keys is frustrating because it is potentially a very useful product totally ruined by the complete absence of any partial pedal or repedal support = useless for serious classical repertoire. XLN have been told about this countless times by people, but classical pianists are not their target audience and they just don't care. It's frustrating because the instrument itself is okay (not great), and very well sampled (even across the board, reasonable interpolation across velocity layers), and with the variety of mic perspectives, the sound can be quite well customised. It will never sound quite as nice as a properly sampled instrument intended for classical use (such as those that John mentions, and of course the Garritan CFX), but as the vast majority of piano VSTis are very poorly sampled (uneven sampling, poor velocity interpolation, individual notes popping out, instrument not tuned properly, only ambient mic perspectives, poor post-processing etc.; the list of screw-ups is endless), then it would still be one of the leading contenders just for not messing things up. But the lack of pedal support sadly cancels that out entirely.

If you have it for free, it's not a difficult or long install, so you might try it just to play around with the different sound options. Just don't expect to able to play classical repertoire with it.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by karvala

Addictive Keys is frustrating because it is potentially a very useful product totally ruined by the complete absence of any partial pedal or repedal support = useless for serious classical repertoire.....

........ so you might try it just to play around with the different sound options. Just don't expect to able to play classical repertoire with it.


Not everyone would be so categorical about the necessity of half pedalling and repedalling though all would agree they are important.

The video here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u1EfMdbwxtM
....is serious and classical to the highest degree I'd say but I don't think the software used had those features. Someone will correct me if it did.
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 02:10 PM

I have a great respect for Philip and his abilities but I think he is not representative for piano software usability. It is known that he doesn't play through the VST sound and instead uses his AvantGrand sound for monitoring when recording his videos. He uses VST-s only to export the sound at a later point, for the sole purpose of obtaining high quality studio piano sound, which is usually the great advantage of sampled libraries. Furthermore, his videos are mostly dedicated as a show-off for his abilities and as a result are mostly virtuoso repertoire and very rarely lyrical pieces that are what requires half-pedaling. So, with all due respect but the fact a gifted virtuoso player can create stunning recordings using a toy piano doesn't mean we don't need good piano emulations smile
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 02:20 PM

As usual you make excellent points, indeed, cybergene., and I did say in the post above that these pedal features were important - just not perhaps essential.

Also, you could argue that both half pedalling and repedalling are undesigned and originally unwanted artifacts of the acoustic piano mechanism. If the were starting out from scratch, they might not be part of the apparatus at all.......just a thought. And not to deny their usefulness and desirability.

the fact a gifted virtuoso player can create stunning recordings using a toy piano

LOL. Sir (or madam), you go too far. wink
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 02:24 PM

OK, my apologies, that was a "lost in translation" situation but with that quote I didn't refer to Philip and any particular hardware/software piano at all laugh It was just a hypothetical situation: imagine a virtuoso who's able to create fantastic recordings using an imaginary toy piano. That wouldn't mean we all should be OK with whatever rubbish piano we complain about laugh
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 02:26 PM

.....I think we're broadly in agreement. smile
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 02:30 PM

Speaking of which... Jordan Rudess plays KORG Tiny Piano
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
As usual you make excellent points, indeed, cybergene., and I did say in the post above that these pedal features were important - just not perhaps essential.


Well it's certainly repertoire and style dependent, I'd agree with that at least. Glenn Gould, to take an extreme example, I'm sure would have been quite happy playing Bach without a half-pedaling or re-pedaling available, and I would generally be okay with that and indeed have actually used the AK Studio Grand for playing Bach sometimes. On the other hand, there are quite a few 19th and 20th century works that I couldn't imagine playing without those pedal effects available, and indeed when I try it sounds pretty bad. Of course, partly that's just because I've learned those pieces, and more generally that style, with those pedal techniques available, and perhaps it would be possible to re-learn some pieces without using them, but I think it would be to the detriment of the music in many cases, and in all cases detrimental to my time. I'd rather have something that matches the instrument we currently have as far as possible.

Originally Posted by toddy

Also, you could argue that both half pedalling and repedalling are undesigned and originally unwanted artifacts of the acoustic piano mechanism. If the were starting out from scratch, they might not be part of the apparatus at all.......just a thought. And not to deny their usefulness and desirability.


Historical piano performance and the instrument is a whole can of worms that we'd best not open, but it's always worth remembering that the instrument we play on now (unless you're lucky enough to own a historical instrument) is not the instrument 18th and 19th century music was written for, and so we must offer our modern interpretations in that context using all facilities available to us. That's a whole area of debate and differing opinions, though, which is why I'm not really going there. ;-) Look at the debate around Chopin's tempo markings and his pianos to give one specific example.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene


Oh my goodness, that was just too funny. laugh And he's so good on it too; very even and accurate for the size of the keys!

N.B. Almost the funniest thing was going to the Korg Tiny Piano website afterwards and seeing the LP-380 listed under "Related Products". I think Korg are trying to tell us something....:)
Posted By: dire tonic

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
Not everyone would be so categorical about the necessity of half pedalling and repedalling though all would agree they are important.

All? Not me, chum. Ok, so I'm a dabbler where classical is concerned, but there's a very long queue of technical difficulties for me to overcome before I'll start to worry about pedalling refinements, and there's plenty of repertoire that can be played well without them.
Posted By: johnlewisgrant

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 03:58 PM

"Furthermore, his videos are mostly dedicated as a show-off for his abilities and as a result are mostly virtuoso repertoire and very rarely lyrical pieces that are what requires half-pedaling. So, with all due respect but the fact a gifted virtuoso player can create stunning recordings using a toy piano doesn't mean we don't need good piano emulations smile"

That Etude Tableaux recording doesn't sound like a "real" piano at all, to me; yet it's technically excellent and more important.... musically interesting. Good illustration of that fact that the realism of the vst isn't even what might be called a "necessary condition" of making music, and certainly not of practising at the piano. Like many or most of us here, I grew up playing on a horrific piano. The worst modern electronic keyboard would have been vastly better in every way. But I used my imagination; and my ear accommodated.

That's why Pianoteq is appealing. It's super-responsive and (from my limited experience of it) an excellent alternative to a real piano, even though to my ears, it doesn't sound much like a real piano.

What I would like to see is a vst that has accurate pedaling, is playable, AND can yield recordings that are at least as convincing as what I can get from the HZP.

I wouldn't be surprised if HZP, with enough "post-playing-midi-editing" could do a reasonably convincing Chopin Nocturne, even in the absence of realistic pedaling; but it's a lot of work, and who can really be bothered?

The higher end Yamaha VSTs (CFX and Prod Voices come to mind) appear to have made progress on the pedaling front, but nothing on the Steinway front.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by dire tonic

All? Not me, chum.


OK. Instead of 'all', I should have said 'many of those concerned with learning and playing the piano repertoire of music in the European tradition, especially from the mid 19th to early 20th century'

Thanks for pointing that out smile
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 04:12 PM

I'm wondering if Pianoteq deficiencies in timbre are due to CPU limitations and the need for real-time playback. If so, how about offline rendering engine that won't compromise on anything and will take its time (even a day, why not?) to render a recording that's indistinguishable from the real thing and would match sampled libraries in realism.
Posted By: toddy

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 04:16 PM

Just to clarify for people who might not have been following the whole partial pedalling VST saga (sensible people smile )

The VST you hear in the video by Philip Johnston above is a Garritan Yamaha CFX. On its release, it did not support half pedalling and repedalling. But NOW CFX DOES SUPPORT REPEDALLING AND HALF PEDALLING. According to accounts here, it does these functions well.
Posted By: johnlewisgrant

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
I'm wondering if Pianoteq deficiencies in timbre are due to CPU limitations and the need for real-time playback. If so, how about offline rendering engine that won't compromise on anything and will take its time (even a day, why not?) to render a recording that's indistinguishable from the real thing and would match sampled libraries in realism.


No reason why not. But is there a market?
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
Just to clarify for people who might not have been following the whole partial pedalling VST saga (sensible people smile )

The VST you hear in the video by Philip Johnston above is a Garritan Yamaha CFX. On its release, it did not support half pedalling and repedalling. But NOW CFX DOES SUPPORT REPEDALLING AND HALF PEDALLING. According to accounts here, it does these functions well.


Yep, and he even used the latest release with support for half-pedaling to record the Chopin's Ballade No.1 stating that this is a piece that can't be played without that. I fully agree because I play that Ballade too (enviously not as well as him) and I'd say almost all of Chopin's music actually requires half-pedaling.
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by johnlewisgrant

What I would like to see is a vst that has accurate pedaling, is playable, AND can yield recordings that are at least as convincing as what I can get from the HZP.

I wouldn't be surprised if HZP, with enough "post-playing-midi-editing" could do a reasonably convincing Chopin Nocturne, even in the absence of realistic pedaling; but it's a lot of work, and who can really be bothered?

The higher end Yamaha VSTs (CFX and Prod Voices come to mind) appear to have made progress on the pedaling front, but nothing on the Steinway front.



I would say the Garritan CFX is pretty close to fulfilling your first request. It's certainly highly playable (arguably not quite as much as Pianoteq, but there's really not much in it if it's properly configured), produces a great sound on recordings (for both an ambient style like the HZP, and a closer style, depending on your preference), and with CyberGene's fix, has fairly good pedaling.

I agree nothing on the Steinway front, sadly, but the acoustic CFX (and as captured in the Garritan library) is much warmer than Yamaha's usual fare anyway; to me, it's closer to a Steinway sound than it is to something like a C7. But perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me....
Posted By: karvala

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by toddy
Just to clarify for people who might not have been following the whole partial pedalling VST saga (sensible people smile )

The VST you hear in the video by Philip Johnston above is a Garritan Yamaha CFX. On its release, it did not support half pedalling and repedalling. But NOW CFX DOES SUPPORT REPEDALLING AND HALF PEDALLING. According to accounts here, it does these functions well.


Yep, and he even used the latest release with support for half-pedaling to record the Chopin's Ballade No.1 stating that this is a piece that can't be played without that. I fully agree because I play that Ballade too (enviously not as well as him) and I'd say almost all of Chopin's music actually requires half-pedaling.


Yeah, I would say that too. It was attempting to play various pieces of Chopin on the AK Studio Grand that I gave up in disgust and e-mailed XLN telling them what a bunch of fools they are. laugh
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 05:45 PM

I play Pianoteq because for me it sounds more like a piano than the only other sample I've played extensively - Ivory American Concert D and Italian Piano. I've been able to borrow a friend's laptop, and I've A/B'd American Concert D and the Pianoteq pianos for hours, and Pianoteq keeps on winning because it's more responsive to my emotions the way a piano is. ACD is a great piece of software, don't get me wrong.

I would love to have all of the samples on my computer to compare them all.

But often when I'm playing Pianoteq, my heart says, "YES." So I'm just going to go back to playing Pianoteq after lunch.

A caveat: I was really into Pianoteq 5, and then after a year or so, my ears started hearing un-piano-like sounds that were not-acceptable. This was after playing the modeled pianos on the FP-90 that IMO have other small sound issues completely unrelated to Pianoteq. For me, the Roland modeled pianos are pretty realistic but a little lifeless. Sometimes on the Roland, I hear what sounds like harmonic distortion in the chords I play, but it's probably just a convolution of sounds that is unappealing.

Maybe this disenchantment will happen to Pianoteq 6. You got to trust your ears.
Posted By: gvfarns

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by toddy
Also, you could argue that both half pedalling and repedalling are undesigned and originally unwanted artifacts of the acoustic piano mechanism. If the were starting out from scratch, they might not be part of the apparatus at all.......just a thought. And not to deny their usefulness and desirability.


Actually, I think an easier argument would be that the difficulty of half-pedalling in acoustic pianos is an unwanted artifact of the physical reality of strings and dampers. Better would be to have a pedal that continuously varied the amount of sustain and degree of sympathetic resonance from full to none. If this was easy to do well with felt and strings, I think it would have been done in the original instrument.

When I first got into digital pianos, I also had the idea that pedalling is mostly a binary operation. Either you have depressed the pedal or not. What I learned after playing a few pianos without half pedalling is that I often unconsciously have a moderate amount of force on the pedal and put some more when I want it depressed. The result was unexpected pedalling and lack of pedalling. All the time. I'm not sure I registered that this was the problem until I played some digitals had had partial pedal capability and found that suddenly they are vastly more "playable." I don't know if someone might argue that my pedal technique is poor, but I do play the piano and I have major problems playing digitals without partial pedal. It's an absolute necessity in my mind.

Actually, while speculating about how an instrument with continuous variation in the pedal effects, I might point out that if I had my way I'd do away with all annoying physical artifacts of the acoustic. For example, the letoff simulation in high quality digital pianos makes them, in my mind, much worse instruments. I have heard people say they use that sensation to guide them or play off the jack sometimes, but I do nothing of the kind and definitely would prefer to have it removed. Don't get me started on the various mechanical noises introduced to make digitals sound more real.
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/02/17 06:03 PM

I had a Casio with half pedaling - but not continuous half pedaling - the pedal sent only three MIDI messages: 0, 63, and 127. I sprung for a MIDI device that could give me continuous half pedaling. I could notice no difference between my Casio pedal and the continuous half pedal.

I do notice a difference between on/off and being able to get that in between point.
Posted By: lolatu

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/12/17 11:26 PM

Is it my imagination, or does the Steinway D sound way better than the Grotrian in Pianoteq 6?

The D has real dynamics and bite in the bass. The Grotrian sounds soft and dead in comparison.

I'm pretty sure that the D has got way better compared to PT5, but I don't have PT5 installed any more to check whether the Grotrian got worse!

Anyway, basically I've stopped using the Grotrian and the Steinway is now my go-to sound.

Discuss.
Posted By: zob

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/12/17 11:42 PM

Same here. Before I always went straight for the Grotrian. Now I can't stop playing the D.
Posted By: Fleer

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/15/17 01:02 AM

Well, I like the somewhat subdued sound of the Grotrian, but then again the Blüthner has a similar sound signature. The Grotrian also has a better bass and mid register than the Steinway D, in my experience, as the D's mids are quite harsh, maybe too harsh.
Posted By: anotherscott

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/24/17 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by karvala
Originally Posted by anotherscott
I hate to say it, but that bit (among others) reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI, particularly the 3rd-4th note sequence. There's something about the envelope and the static nature of the decaying tone, which seems apparent in certain note ranges at certain velocities that sounds really fake to me.


Yes! That's exactly the point I've tried to make a few times. While there are various issues in different registers, I think the notes in exactly that range are the most problematic as far as a realistic piano tone goes, and yes, it sounds like an old-fashioned electronic imitation of a piano in that range.

Funny thing... I heard an Art Tatum recording on the radio recently, from the 40s or 50s, and I heard something of that same character in the piano he was playing!
Posted By: Doug M.

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/24/17 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by anotherscott
Originally Posted by karvala
Originally Posted by anotherscott
I hate to say it, but that bit (among others) reminds me of an old 70s electric piano, like an RMI, particularly the 3rd-4th note sequence. There's something about the envelope and the static nature of the decaying tone, which seems apparent in certain note ranges at certain velocities that sounds really fake to me.


Yes! That's exactly the point I've tried to make a few times. While there are various issues in different registers, I think the notes in exactly that range are the most problematic as far as a realistic piano tone goes, and yes, it sounds like an old-fashioned electronic imitation of a piano in that range.

Funny thing... I heard an Art Tatum recording on the radio recently, from the 40s or 50s, and I heard something of that same character in the piano he was playing!



lol, leave God out of it
Posted By: Beakybird

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/25/17 12:08 AM

I find that the Grotrian has a rather rapid decay in the midrange. It's not my go-to piano in Pianoteq.

Besides being a matter of taste, one's preference would likely be influenced by speakers/headphone.

Lately, I like the YC5. I like the brassiness and the overtones that are evocative of a glass harp. I also love the Steinway B which is very balanced and beautiful from bottom to top. I agree with some others that the upper mids of the Steinway D can sound harsh.

My favorites are in this order

1. YC5
2. Steinway B
3. K2
4. Steinway D
5. Grotrian
6. Bluthner

I love all of them.

Most people probably won't care, but another thing I noticed about Pianoteq 6 is that they gave the Celesta another octave below so that the instrument has 6 octaves. The biggest Celeste piano that I have heard of has 5 1/2 octaves. The lower notes - as well as the whole instrument - have great vibe sounds. It's not an instrument that I could play for hours day after day, like a grand piano, but it sounds very sweet.

And with all of the instruments, try setting one of your left pedals to pinched harmonic. What a joy!
Posted By: David Izquierdo

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/23/18 08:44 AM

A cover of "Bella Ciao" featuring PTQ6 YC5 (Yamaha C5) on Kawai CA97

https://youtu.be/hEbfe3OzWOc

Hope you enjoy!
Posted By: CyberGene

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/23/18 08:59 AM

Nice playing! And you’ve turned the defect into effect smile The toyish timbre of Pianoteq is working for this piece especially for the honky-tonk parts.
Posted By: David Izquierdo

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 10/24/18 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by CyberGene
Nice playing! And you’ve turned the defect into effect smile The toyish timbre of Pianoteq is working for this piece especially for the honky-tonk parts.


Glad you liked it! 😊
Posted By: David Izquierdo

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/08/18 03:38 PM

Hi folks!

Another contribution using Pianoteq (Bechstein 1899) on my CA97, hope you like it smile

La Boheme - Charles Aznavour

https://youtu.be/UuOxZGiyMqI
Posted By: slobajudge

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/08/18 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by David Izquierdo
Hi folks!

Another contribution using Pianoteq (Bechstein 1899) on my CA97, hope you like it smile

La Boheme - Charles Aznavour

https://youtu.be/UuOxZGiyMqI

Nice playing David, I am really enjoying it, excellent presentation of Pianoteq on one of my favorite pianos Bechstein. Thank you for posting.
Posted By: David Izquierdo

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/19/18 05:01 AM

Pianoteq Ant. Petrof

Chopin's Nocturne in F Minor Op55 No1

https://youtu.be/-7sD1DgrZXE
Posted By: Vas

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/20/18 06:20 PM

Big Pianoteq 6 Pro sale at Jrr
$242 some one claimed
I am thinking about it
https://www.jrrshop.com/pianoteq-6-pro
Attempt to purchase and the price drops.

What is the lowest price For Pianoteq 6 Pro
ever offered?
Posted By: EPW

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/20/18 06:58 PM

I believe I paid $223 a couple years back for Pianoteq standard version 5 when it was on sale at 30% off.
Posted By: jackifus

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/20/18 11:27 PM

I paid $223.30 for standard
then $130 for a PRO upgrade

in 2017 (and I believe earlier years...)
Pianoteq has a summer sale for 30% off of Standard...
then in November there was 30% off of an upgrade to PRO

so I paid - $353.30 for PRO in total

cheers,

Jack
Posted By: MacMacMac

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/21/18 01:53 AM

I got the best deal of all!
I got the demo for $0.00 smile
Posted By: EPW

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/21/18 02:32 AM

Now now Mac.
I actually like the direction of the company and so I decided to buy in at version 5. Before that I was like I like what you're doing but sounds to artificial. At 5 it sounds a little thin and there is some metallic sound but that to my ears is not as much. I do enjoy playing it. Would I use it to record. Probably not and use a sample library instead. Hoping vbt version 7-8 to improve in the sound.
Posted By: Vas

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/21/18 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by EPW
Hoping vbt version 7-8 to improve in the sound.


Likely Version 7 will be fine. Then wait for a big sale then buy it.
Ok likely will not get Pianoteq 6 Pro, gotta say the price is right
but still a bit more than I want to spend. What to do!
Posted By: angmyu

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/21/18 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by EPW
Now now Mac.
I actually like the direction of the company and so I decided to buy in at version 5. Before that I was like I like what you're doing but sounds to artificial. At 5 it sounds a little thin and there is some metallic sound but that to my ears is not as much. I do enjoy playing it. Would I use it to record. Probably not and use a sample library instead. Hoping vbt version 7-8 to improve in the sound.


I also like the direction of the company. But I still hears too much metallic sound at Pianoteq to my ears. Of course it's the best in terms of playability and I'll spend my money generously if it can improve the sound. Actually the sound is getting better little by little. But I think there are still many good things in the sample world than many pianoteq users think.

However, this is my opinion, and it is no wonder that Pianoteq is the best instrument for those who feel that the sound of Pianoteq is nice. As you expect, I think Pianoteq will be surprisingly improved in the next version.
Posted By: Groove On

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/21/18 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by David Izquierdo
Hi folks!
Another contribution using Pianoteq (Bechstein 1899) on my CA97, hope you like it smile
La Boheme - Charles Aznavour https://youtu.be/UuOxZGiyMqI

Nicely done, fun music, and I liked the little latin rhythm-thing at the end.
Posted By: Felix_Felicis

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 11/27/18 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by David Izquierdo
A cover of "Bella Ciao" featuring PTQ6 YC5 (Yamaha C5) on Kawai CA97

https://youtu.be/hEbfe3OzWOc

Hope you enjoy!


Wow! Absolutely loved this. Thanks for sharing. The bright YC5 is the perfect choice for this piece as well!
Posted By: AlphaBravoCharlie

Re: Pianoteq 6! - 12/23/18 09:16 PM

My favourite PTQ sound, Steinway B. Christmas cover quickly played by ear:



Merry Christmas!
Posted By: David Izquierdo

The Godfather (El Padrino) - Bechstein DG (Pianoteq 6) - 03/05/19 07:50 PM

Hi guys,

Sorry for the mistakes, it's been quickly improvised (no scores and didn't ever hear the complete tune)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O41BCTmdXDQ

hope you enjoy!
Posted By: jamiecw

Re: The Godfather (El Padrino) - Bechstein DG (Pianoteq 6) - 03/06/19 07:17 AM

It's a Sicilian cover. It means Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes...:) I enjoyed listening to that David. Cheers for posting.
Posted By: sullivang

Re: The Godfather (El Padrino) - Bechstein DG (Pianoteq 6) - 03/06/19 08:29 AM

Very nice! Btw, I thought you were going to break into Hello (Lionel Richie) there at the end. 🤣

Greg.
Posted By: David Izquierdo

Re: The Godfather (El Padrino) - Bechstein DG (Pianoteq 6) - 03/07/19 11:41 AM

Glad youi liked it! smile
© 2019 Piano World Piano & Digital Piano Forums