2017 was our 20th year online!

Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Shop our online store for music lovers
SEARCH
Piano Forums & Piano World
(ad)
Best of Piano Buyer
 Best of Piano Buyer
(ad)
Faust Harrison Pianos
Faust Harrison 100+ Steinway pianos
(ad)
Wessell Nickel & Gross
PianoForAll
Who's Online Now
49 members (Almaviva, AprilE, Carey, AlphaTerminus, AC Singapore, bsalad, 12 invisible), 1,309 guests, and 642 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 400
N
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
N
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by FloRi89
Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Not true about Pianoteq. It’s a very recognizable metallic sound.


Not sure why we discuss such controversial topics over and over.

Both things have their benefits, theres no better or worse.
And you don't have to forget, that it's really dependent on the velocity, how it will sound.
Digital Pianos with integrated sounds seem to aim for the sweet spot, masking the sensing inaccuracies.

Although it gets less obvious with models like a Yamaha N1X.

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by FloRi89
Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Not true about Pianoteq. It’s a very recognizable metallic sound.

Yeah, Pianoteq is right in the middle of the uncanny valley. As is Roland.


Yamaha P-515
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,172
9000 Post Club Member
Offline
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,172
Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by FloRi89
Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Not true about Pianoteq. It’s a very recognizable metallic sound.

Yeah, Pianoteq is right in the middle of the uncanny valley. As is Roland.

You can de-metalicise it you know . . . .


"I am not a man. I am a free number"

"[Linked Image]"
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,048
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,048
Does a photo of a pizza taste as good as a pizza?

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,675
B
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
B
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 14,675
Ask not what your piano can do for you; ask what you can do with your piano - Herr Hammerflügel (after JFK)

I can do lots with my V-Piano........because it's modeled smirk .

"All else is gaslight" - Herbert von Karajan grin


"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
F
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
F
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Originally Posted by FloRi89
Because nobody outside the industry can tell the difference between the recording of a Steinway and a VST (or Pianoteq for that matter). That’s exactly the point I was making.
Not true about Pianoteq. It’s a very recognizable metallic sound.

The people on this subforum are hardly representative of the rest of the world. It also depends a lot, if you have a direct comparison of the unedited “recording” or if we are talking about a produced part in a mix.

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,459
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,459
With all due respect, Flo, this ‘subforum’ is indeed representative of the rest of the world.

This is why Yamaha, Roland, Kawai, etc.. have spies infiltrating this forum on a daily basis!

Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
F
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
F
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by Pete14
With all due respect, Flo, this ‘subforum’ is indeed representative of the rest of the world.

This is why Yamaha, Roland, Kawai, etc.. have spies infiltrating this forum on a daily basis!

We are talking about people who play the piano in the first place, on a digital in the second and then are tech savy enough to go into a forum on the Internet.

I guarantee you, 90% of people who own a digital piano won’t be able to answer you what a VST is.

Nevertheless this is a very interesting target group for manufacturers, that doesn’t mean its representing anything else then the target group.

In marketing terms, we are some kind of persona like “John Doe, tech savy, mostly male” or something like that.

Trust me, they are analyzing the other personas like “Jane Doe, cares mostly about how the piano looks like in her living room as well”

(Please excuse the gender stereotypes, but unfortunately the that’s how the marketing world works)

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 18
X
Junior Member
Online Content
Junior Member
X
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by CyberGene
The conclusion is that modeling is still not very convincing because of missing features in the model as well as inability to understand and model dissipation.

That wasn't the conclusion! That was just the end of section 3 describing the current state of pure "physics all the way down" theoretical piano modelling where you run a simulation for 24 hours and get a couple of seconds of inaccurate audio for your trouble.

Section 4 goes on to describe more practical modelling methods for real world synthesis.

W.R.T. dissipation for example: It might be difficult to make a finite element model of a soundboard that does accurate dissipation, but that doesn't matter because practical real world implementations don't model the soundboard like that anyway. Instead they use soundboard models which are computationally much simpler, but are more accurate because they are based on the measured responses of actual real soundboards.

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,459
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,459
I guarantee you, 95% of people save 15% or more by switching to Geico!

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by xooorx
Section 4 goes on to describe more practical modelling methods for real world synthesis.

W.R.T. dissipation for example: It might be difficult to make a finite element model of a soundboard that does accurate dissipation, but that doesn't matter because practical real world implementations don't model the soundboard like that anyway. Instead they use soundboard models which are computationally much simpler, but are more accurate because they are based on the measured responses of actual real soundboards.

"Measured responses of actual real soundboards" is just a convoluted term for "sampling" BTW.

And that's the truth in it: All "physical modeling" approaches in real world use are based around samples of certain real world piano models. They approximate those samples, but don't get anywhere close.


Yamaha P-515
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,095
7000 Post Club Member
Offline
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,095
Originally Posted by xooorx
Originally Posted by CyberGene
The conclusion is that modeling is still not very convincing because of missing features in the model as well as inability to understand and model dissipation.

That wasn't the conclusion! That was just the end of section 3 describing the current state of pure "physics all the way down" theoretical piano modelling where you run a simulation for 24 hours and get a couple of seconds of inaccurate audio for your trouble.

Section 4 goes on to describe more practical modelling methods for real world synthesis.

W.R.T. dissipation for example: It might be difficult to make a finite element model of a soundboard that does accurate dissipation, but that doesn't matter because practical real world implementations don't model the soundboard like that anyway. Instead they use soundboard models which are computationally much simpler, but are more accurate because they are based on the measured responses of actual real soundboards.

Well, then it means even real kick-ass modeling is far from perfect for even offline rendering, hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?


My YouTube, My Soundcloud
Currently: Yamaha N1X, DIY hybrid controller -> Garritan CFX
Previously: NU1X, ES7, MP6, CA63, RD-700SX, CDP-100, FP-5, P90, SP-200
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,048
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,048
Input: fingers ... and it had better feel right.
Output: sound ... and it had better sound good.

In between input and output: who cares?

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Well, then it means even real kick-ass modeling is far from perfect for even offline rendering, hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?
That's pretty much what is it: "You get an approximation of samples we took so you save the storage space for those samples."

But storage space hasn't been an issue for more than a decade now. There is no advantage to this approach.


Yamaha P-515
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 18
X
Junior Member
Online Content
Junior Member
X
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by CyberGene
hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on
Indeed, as can sometimes be observed in the forums of certain modelling softwares.

Originally Posted by CyberGene
but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?
No, it's a computationally efficient model of a known response. It's a model. It responds. So you're listening to what a soundboard would do *now* given what the string models are all doing *now*, rather than listening to a sound collage cobbled together from a bunch of recordings of different strings sounding at different times like you get from a sampled piano.

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,741
E
EPW Online Content
1000 Post Club Member
Online Content
1000 Post Club Member
E
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Well, then it means even real kick-ass modeling is far from perfect for even offline rendering, hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?
That's pretty much what is it: "You get an approximation of samples we took so you save the storage space for those samples."

But storage space hasn't been an issue for more than a decade now. There is no advantage to this approach.

You can't make blanket statement like that. The advantage if the play-ability of the modeled engine compared to the sampled one. Now granted the super-mega sample size pianos do sound great and I would use Garritan if I was recording solo piano. But for practice playing I 100% prefer to use Pianoteq modeled piano for it play-ability. Especially if I knew I was going to be playing on a acoustic piano the piece. IMHO, see it is my opinion not making a blanket statement as fact, both have a place in the vsti world. Choice is good.

Peace


All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
F
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
F
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 281
Originally Posted by EPW
Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Well, then it means even real kick-ass modeling is far from perfect for even offline rendering, hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?
That's pretty much what is it: "You get an approximation of samples we took so you save the storage space for those samples."

But storage space hasn't been an issue for more than a decade now. There is no advantage to this approach.

You can't make blanket statement like that. The advantage if the play-ability of the modeled engine compared to the sampled one. Now granted the super-mega sample size pianos do sound great and I would use Garritan if I was recording solo piano. But for practice playing I 100% prefer to use Pianoteq modeled piano for it play-ability. Especially if I knew I was going to be playing on a acoustic piano the piece. IMHO, see it is my opinion not making a blanket statement as fact, both have a place in the vsti world. Choice is good.

Peace

Or you could record yourself using Pianoteq because of the better playability and then render it out in a different VST of your liking. I there are hardly any limits in the digital world I guess.

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
2000 Post Club Member
Offline
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by EPW
Originally Posted by JoeT
Originally Posted by CyberGene
Well, then it means even real kick-ass modeling is far from perfect for even offline rendering, hence current modeling approaches are not exactly what many people imagine is going on but rather a simplified approximation of a pre-recorded sound?
That's pretty much what is it: "You get an approximation of samples we took so you save the storage space for those samples."

But storage space hasn't been an issue for more than a decade now. There is no advantage to this approach.

You can't make blanket statement like that. The advantage if the play-ability of the modeled engine compared to the sampled one.
There is no advantage in "play-ability" anymore. You can apply the same algorithms to simplified approximations of samples as you can to actual samples.

Quote
Now granted the super-mega sample size pianos do sound great and I would use Garritan if I was recording solo piano.
These are not the competition, because PC software doesn't represent state of the art technology. It's behind both approximation modeling and sample-processing hardware.


Yamaha P-515
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 231
Full Member
OP Offline
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 231
An aside : Marketing wise, it is obviously in the interest of the makers of Yamaha (also owner of Bosendorfer) or Kawai to condone sampling of their own excellent acoustics. Roland has no such choice, and its ADN is in synths.

Long term, my bets are on modeling. It may be fashion, but also the best brains are always more attracted to creating than to copying, and I think the best mathematicians are now working for Roland and Pianoteq.

On the other hand, you can argue that even perfect modeling tools are designed to the purpose of duplicating nature. It always struck me as ironic that some of the best efforts of IT geniuses were directed, in the end, at exchanging baby pictures or facilitating teen-age mating rituals.


Life is a smorgasbord, and I want to taste everything.
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,741
E
EPW Online Content
1000 Post Club Member
Online Content
1000 Post Club Member
E
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,741
[/quote]

Or you could record yourself using Pianoteq because of the better playability and then render it out in a different VST of your liking. I there are hardly any limits in the digital world I guess.[/quote]

Some have luck with that approach and some not. But you are right in the digital world there are quite a lot of different approaches to get the job done. I just don't like the fighting that you have to be in one camp or the other. I use what works for me at the time. After all the software is just a tool to help get the job done IMO.


All these years playing and I still consider myself a novice.
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Piano World 

Link Copied to Clipboard
(ad)
Pianoteq
Steinway Spiro Layering
(ad)
PianoDisc

PianoDisc
(ad)
Piano Life Saver - Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad)
Mason & Hamlin Pianos
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Chopin 48/1 - progress report
by Chris James - 07/25/21 09:28 PM
ES110 now?
by mikechang503 - 07/25/21 08:40 PM
What is this notation?
by Sam S - 07/25/21 08:03 PM
P255 Controller Software search
by BWV846 - 07/25/21 07:54 PM
Playing small chunks
by Sebs - 07/25/21 07:05 PM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics208,210
Posts3,116,336
Members102,238
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
Please Support Our Advertisers

Faust Harrison 100+ Steinways

Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver

 Best of Piano Buyer

PianoTeq Bechstein
Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads



 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | MapleStreetMusicShop.com - Our store in Cornish Maine


© copyright 1997 - 2021 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5