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
51 members (cygnusdei, Carey, chopinetto, Alexander Hanysz, 36251, Ben_NZ, anotherscott, accordeur, 9 invisible), 1,324 guests, and 486 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
(ad)
Estonia Pianos
Estonia Pianos
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 612
S
500 Post Club Member
Offline
500 Post Club Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 612
Originally Posted by Del Vento
Last, I really can't believe 50ms would not be unpleasand as SoundThumb wrote: 50ms is a little short than half of a 16th note when playing at quarter_note = 120. So if you are playing at 120 anything that has a succession of a few 16th notes (such as a Czerny or Hanon exercise, something that any intermediate pianist can do, let's leave it aside whether or not it is useful) everything you play comes half a note later, so it'd feel like you are playing on the key release rather than the key press!!!! I had that sensation with Pianoteq at times and it is totally weird!

Eight notes/sec is considerably faster than I can play except possibly for a trill. So it is quite interesting that you can hear and associate the finger to notes at that speed. I would have thought that the brain would quickly adapt to a delay of 50 ms, but the fact that you could notice it is a good data point. When I play short fast notes, I have no concept of whether the note is sounding as my finger goes down or as it goes up. So this may just show how different individual are and probably why threads like this usually produce a range of opinions.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
P
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
When the ears don't hear what the fingers should have produced, the mind becomes confused.

I think a mismatch between the action and the sensory feedback by the consequences of that action is indeed the source of feeling 'disconnected'. The brain constantly monitors sensory input in relation to its own intended motor gestures, and produces an 'error signal' when sensory feedback does not match the prediction. This is fundamental to skill learning. The prediction depends on previous experiences.

Originally Posted by MacMacMac
That computer without ASIO and Presonus box introduced around 25 msec latency. It wasn't just annoying. It was unplayable.

But since the brain can learn the new (delayed) relation between motor gesture and sensory feedback, it may become better playable after a while, and become the 'new normal'.

IMO an underestimated factor in VST latency/disconnection/despair discussions is *random* variability in latency. This variation is unlearnable and will cause prediction errors all the time. By contrast, the latencies on an AP for different key velocities are variable but perhaps better predictable, and apparently sufficiently learnable because no one reports feeling disconnected to an AP.

I have seen (and provided) many latency measurements here on PW but these are always a single number like 10ms, which is either reported by the computer or measured as the difference between sound output in a handful examples. To get better insight into what's going on, it would be really nice if we had an idea of the variability in overall latency (i.e. action to sound output) on real-world systems.

One of the studies Del Vento lists finds that variation (jitter) as little as 3 ms around an average delay of 10 ms already causes subjects (even non-musicians!) to judge it as of 'lower quality'.

Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
D
500 Post Club Member
OP Offline
500 Post Club Member
D
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by pianogabe
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
My VST introduces a mere 2 msec over what the piano can do on its own. That's quite acceptable.
My old computer introduced 13 msec. That was annoying.
That computer without ASIO and Presonus box introduced around 25 msec latency. It wasn't just annoying. It was unplayable.

But since the brain can learn the new (delayed) relation between motor gesture and sensory feedback, it may become better playable after a while, and become the 'new normal'.

True, but how have these numbers been measured? Just what the computer reported, hence just the buffer latency, not the end to end? If so, they are of little interest.

Originally Posted by pianogabe
IMO an underestimated factor in VST latency/disconnection/despair discussions is *random* variability in latency. This variation is unlearnable and will cause prediction errors all the time. By contrast, the latencies on an AP for different key velocities are variable but perhaps better predictable, and apparently sufficiently learnable because no one reports feeling disconnected to an AP.

I have seen (and provided) many latency measurements here on PW but these are always a single number like 10ms, which is either reported by the computer or measured as the difference between sound output in a handful examples. To get better insight into what's going on, it would be really nice if we had an idea of the variability in overall latency (i.e. action to sound output) on real-world systems.

One of the studies Del Vento lists finds that variation (jitter) as little as 3 ms around an average delay of 10 ms already causes subjects (even non-musicians!) to judge it as of 'lower quality'.

I would love to be able to measure that. Unfortunately, as I have described, I have troubles measuring even a single latency number, let alone many latencies to estimate its jitter.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Please read what I've twice written above.
Originally Posted by Del Vento
Originally Posted by pianogabe
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
My VST introduces a mere 2 msec over what the piano can do on its own. That's quite acceptable.
My old computer introduced 13 msec. That was annoying.
That computer without ASIO and Presonus box introduced around 25 msec latency. It wasn't just annoying. It was unplayable.
But since the brain can learn the new (delayed) relation between motor gesture and sensory feedback, it may become better playable after a while, and become the 'new normal'.
True, but how have these numbers been measured? Just what the computer reported, hence just the buffer latency, not the end to end? If so, they are of little interest.
I measure the TIME DIFFERENCE between the piano sound and the VST sound.

Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
D
500 Post Club Member
OP Offline
500 Post Club Member
D
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Please read what I've twice written above.
Originally Posted by Del Vento
Originally Posted by pianogabe
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
My VST introduces a mere 2 msec over what the piano can do on its own. That's quite acceptable.
My old computer introduced 13 msec. That was annoying.
That computer without ASIO and Presonus box introduced around 25 msec latency. It wasn't just annoying. It was unplayable.
But since the brain can learn the new (delayed) relation between motor gesture and sensory feedback, it may become better playable after a while, and become the 'new normal'.
True, but how have these numbers been measured? Just what the computer reported, hence just the buffer latency, not the end to end? If so, they are of little interest.
I measure the TIME DIFFERENCE between the piano sound and the VST sound.

Sorry for missing that part of your message and thanks for repeating it. This is very interesting and consistent to my experience with the few tests I've run with a MacBookPro and a oldish but beefy Linux box -- without being able to measure the absolute latency per my discussion in my previous message. Setting Pianoteq buffer size for a reported latency of more than 5ms was definitely noticeable and more than 10ms was annoying.

How did you measure that difference? I suspect with something similar to what I described in my other message? Is there any way that you can turn down the volume of the piano sound to make it comparable to the key bottoming noise, and measure the latency of the internal piano sound, which should be pretty close to the difference between the key bottoming noise and the piano sound itself?

Do you have any way to do the measurement a few times to see if the jitter, as pianogabe suggests, that is "more annoying" than latency itself?

Thanks!

Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
P
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Del Vento
I would love to be able to measure that. Unfortunately, as I have described, I have troubles measuring even a single latency number, let alone many latencies to estimate its jitter.

I am thinking out loud here, but previously I measured DP internal vs VST latency the way you also did this, by recording both simultaneously in audacity (or equivalent) and then manually look at the difference in 'sound start time'. I guess one could produce a script to create a midi file that plays the same note for a few hours, record both internal and VST output, and then use some simple threshold algorithm to find the note beginnings in the audio file. Since the note is always the same, and there is little noise involved (make sure output level is high), that might work sufficiently. If it doesn't one could use crosscorrelation or so. If you allow for more complex programming, you could use different notes and levels. Of course, because of different 'attacks' you can only measure variability for specific notes and levels.

This could also test the assumption that the internal DP engine does not have any appreciable latency variation.

Sounds like a nice programming project smile

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
That's what I did ... recording piano and VST in Audacity.

As for the programming/automation ... I'll leave that to others. I'm retired from tech. smile

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
Jesus Christ! Have we not measured enough already (pivots, keys, music rests, sample length/decay time, bench height/width, coffee table, piano apparel, etc.)?

I ask again, why do we have to measure the heck out of everything? Is there an underlying collective obsession that drives us to do this? Are we compensating for a collective want we do not -all- have? Is tiny, nano, small ever enough? Why? Why? grin

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Why measure? Because my ears said "this stinks". So I measured. It stank.
I got better equipment. My ears said "this rocks". So I measured. It rocked.

That was years ago. Since then ... no more measuring.
But when someone asks, I respond.
Originally Posted by Pete14
Jesus Christ! Have we not measured enough already ...
BTW ... Jesus measured. A lot! He was a carpenter.

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
Originally Posted by Pete14
Jesus Christ! Have we not measured enough already ...
BTW ... Jesus measured. A lot! He was a carpenter.
laugh

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,563
3000 Post Club Member
Offline
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,563
The advantage of a measure is that it is objective. Let’s say you hesitate between a Steinberg UR22 and a Focusrite 2i2... latency measures can help you choose if you are very picky about latency.

If I told you my UR22 is Ok (for me), you won’t learn anything about if it is Ok for you.

And it is rare to find a music shop with both audio interfaces ready to be compared... sometimes, you have to trust some other opinions (it is ok), interpret some specs (well a 4ms latency should be ok), and perhaps make some mistakes ! (But I would prefer to make a $150 mistake about my audio interface than a $8000 mistake about my N1X... Surely the later was bern tested in a shop !).


http://www.sinerj.org/
http://humeur-synthe.sinerj.org/
Yamaha CLP150, Bechstein Digital Grand, Garritan CFX, Ivory II pianos, Galaxy pianos, EWQL Pianos, Native-Instrument The Definitive Piano Collection, Soniccouture Hammersmith, Truekeys, Pianoteq
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
P
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Pete14
Jesus Christ! Have we not measured enough already (pivots, keys, music rests, sample length/decay time, bench height/width, coffee table, piano apparel, etc.)?

I ask again, why do we have to measure the heck out of everything? Is there an underlying collective obsession that drives us to do this? Are we compensating for a collective want we do not -all- have? Is tiny, nano, small ever enough? Why? Why? grin

laugh ha I think I share your sentiment, and will shamefully go back to playing my piano in minute. But rationally I agree with Frédéric that this objectifies things and can be a great help, e.g. to see how to minimize latency if it appears to bother you. That and MacMacMac's argument that Jesus is on our side is also compelling.

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
Imagine a little boy hitting a makeshift ‘piano key’ and then never ever hearing a corresponding sound, a note, or even a hiss; well, imagine no more because ‘that little boy was me’!

Yes, it’s easy to take latency for granted when all you have to wait for is a few milliseconds to hear something.

Pete never had that luxury; growing up playing on a keyboard painted onto a wooden table. Yes, my dad was so poor that all he could afford for me was a can of white, a can of black, and an old crooked wooden table. That’s all that little boy had for a ‘piano’. So you see, that little boy played an ‘F’ but he never heard that note because latency was, by definition, infinite. The note never sounded, you guys, it never sounded.

So yes, I take a little offense when I hear some ‘round here complaining about a few milliseconds when that little boy had to wait till he grew up and bought a P-515 to ever hear that ‘F’ ring. Shame on you!

Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
D
500 Post Club Member
OP Offline
500 Post Club Member
D
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 500
Originally Posted by Pete14
Pete never had that luxury; growing up playing on a keyboard painted onto a wooden table. Yes, my dad was so poor that all he could afford for me was a can of white, a can of black, and an old crooked wooden table. That’s all that little boy had for a ‘piano’. So you see, that little boy played an ‘F’ but he never heard that note because latency was, by definition, infinite. The note never sounded, you guys, it never sounded.

So yes, I take a little offense when I hear some ‘round here complaining about a few milliseconds when that little boy had to wait till he grew up and bought a P-515 to ever hear that ‘F’ ring. Shame on you!

I can relate with you. I am an adult piano learner because of a similar situation: when I was kid I did not have a piano and my piano teacher told me to draw a keyboard on something like a roll of toilet paper which according to her would have been much better than the toy organ I had (that was basically a melodica with an electric pump). So I did not play neither the toy organ nor the toilet paper and I went to the lessons not prepared. Soon enough I gave up and here I am learning as an adult.

On the other hand, there are poor people today. Should we all sell our instruments to feed them? Or should we learn to play well to honor the Lord as J.S. Bach did? Since you mentioned Jesus in a previous message, this is a truly serious moral question. But it is OT in this thread, as we always end up doing...

Assuming we want to learn to play well, the question remains on what is the best instrument we can afford? Measurements can tell at least part of the story.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 14,439
Pete ... All this talk reminds me of The Three Yorkshiremen.
Originally Posted by Pete14
Pete never had that luxury; growing up playing on a keyboard painted onto a wooden table. Yes, my dad was so poor that all he could afford for me was a can of white, a can of black, and an old crooked wooden table. That’s all that little boy had for a ‘piano’. So you see, that little boy played an ‘F’ but he never heard that note because latency was, by definition, infinite. The note never sounded, you guys, it never sounded.

So yes, I take a little offense when I hear some ‘round here complaining about a few milliseconds when that little boy had to wait till he grew up and bought a P-515 to ever hear that ‘F’ ring. Shame on you!

Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
P
4000 Post Club Member
Offline
4000 Post Club Member
P
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,565
grin

Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 73
P
Full Member
Offline
Full Member
P
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Del Vento
- However I cannot measure such a time in the interface: both in the original and in the slowed down version there is no clear point where the noise or the sound "begin", the attack is so "blurred" that I could measure anything between 2ms and 100ms (and that is on the same recording!)

So here I am with something I can hear and measure and see on the screen, yet I cannot quantify.

For this particular question, you can do the following:

- Adjust DP volume to become the loudest sound source
- Record DP sound plus action noise plus ambient noise with a microphone (as you did)
- Simultanously record line-out from the DP (void of action/ambient sound)
- Normalize and correlate the two signals to find the best match. This indicates the time-relationship between the two recordings.
- Find the first indication of generated sound in the line-out recording. This indicates when the DP "knew" that a key has been pressed.
- Find the first indication of action noise in the microphone recording. It won't be buried below the piano sound because it's earlier.
- Possibly compensate for different sound travel time from action/piano to your microphone.

To be more exact about the action noise detection, you can create multiple recordings of the action noise and "average" them to create a synthetic ideal sound patch (once). Position the microphone to reduce noise that you repeatedly create with your fingers/body/bench. Or use different playing techniques for different samples so that unavoidable noise will average-away in the final result. Correlate this ideal reference sound patch with your recordings to extract the action timing.

You will probably get problems due to overlap between action and piano sound. You can trim the action reference patch to be shorter then the expected latency. Then there is no overlap. Likewise you can trim (all) line-out inputs by an arbitrary amount (from the easy to identify sound) and correlate only the remainder with the microphone input. For this, consider the unique sample length of your DP and when it starts looping the same waveform over and over (expect 1-4 seconds, or consult the corresponding megathread here on PW). Also, as recommended at the beginning, adjusting DP volume to be high probably makes this unnecessary.

To measure acoustic instruments, you can use a visual approach. Open the instrument and position a camera to capture both finger/key as well as hammer/string in a single frame. Capture a clock for a minute to make sure your nominal framerate is acceptable. Wobble the camera during a test capture to make sure it produces no tearing. If there is, the lines that compose the image are not being captured at the same instant of time. In this case, rotate the camera until all relevant components are aligned horizontally in the output (ideally all are visible in one single line). Record your data, then analyze the frames to count the time from touch to string.

Hammer travel time depends on velocity. You can use a player piano (pneumatic self-playing pianos like seen in western movies) to generate consistent velocities. Alternatively you can use a piano with silent system and MIDI out to read the actual velocity and reject recordings that fall outside of your target range. Lacking all, you may need to construct a device to get repeatable strikes (youtube has examples).

DPs also adapt to velocity, although probably less pronounced. The audio "peaks" may be less aggressive, or artificial delay may be introduced. For fair comparisons you should also control velocity on DPs.

I know this response is very pedantic, but you asked for it didn't you?

Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,665
O
1000 Post Club Member
Offline
1000 Post Club Member
O
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,665
Originally Posted by Del Vento
- I can artificially slow down the sound (without changing the pitch) and the delay becomes super-evident

- However I cannot measure such a time in the interface: both in the original and in the slowed down version there is no clear point where the noise or the sound "begin", the attack is so "blurred" that I could measure anything between 2ms and 100ms (and that is on the same recording!)

So here I am with something I can hear and measure and see on the screen, yet I cannot quantify. So I wonder how one can say "below x ms it's fine, above it's not". As many have said, the numbers reported by Pianoteq (or other software pianos) are only part of the mix, and I am interested in the full picture.

Has anybody attempted at doing this measurement and achieved any reasonable success?

The closest I know is MacMacMac's experiment where he recorded both Piano output and VST output in audacity and then compared the waveforms.

One idea if you have a high FPS video camera (such as some of the Go Pro that can do 240fps - so one frame almost every 4ms) with a good mic. If you record a video and audio and then have a software that can go through video frame by frame and also show the audio waveform, you may be able to calculate the time from beginning of the key going down to when the sound is heard (which should be a very distinct peak in the audio waveform). Perhaps a slo-mo mode in a high end smartphone can be used for the same purpose. I have a iPhone 12 Pro which allegedly can do "Slo-mo video support for 1080p at 120 fps or 240 fps".

Osho


Mason & Hamlin BB
Kawai Novus NV10 + VST + Genelec 8050B monitors.
Current VST favorites (in the order of preference): Pianoteq 7/VSL Synchron Concert D//Garritan CFX/Embertone Walker D Full

[Linked Image]
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,845
W
5000 Post Club Member
Offline
5000 Post Club Member
W
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,845
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I don't understand what you mean. How is that too quick? The goal is 0, right?
Originally Posted by wouter79
Originally Posted by MacMacMac
I was able to capture audio from the piano and audio from the VST, and examine the delay. The result: about 2.5 msec.

This does not include the delay inside the piano from keypress to audio output.
It just shows that the VST does not introduce much more delay compared to the piano itself.
That's too quick. Suppose goal is 4 ms total latency, then 2.5 is a big chunk of that budget already, and maybe too much.

Your reasoning is too quick. You're taking incorrect shortcuts


[Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image][Linked Image]
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Piano World 

Link Copied to Clipboard
What's Hot!!
Pianos - Organs - & Keyboards, Oh My!
Our Fall 2021 Free Newsletter is Out , see it here!
---------------------
Selling my Hammond & Leslie!
---------------------
My first professionally recorded piece
---------------------
Visit Maine, Meet Mr. Piano World
---------------------
Posting Pictures on the Forums
-------------------
Forums RULES & HELP
-------------------
ADVERTISE on Piano World
(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
KDP-120 D6-G6 Notes Sound Bad
by didyougethathing - 10/22/21 04:08 PM
Does anyone remember this quote?
by pablobear - 10/22/21 04:07 PM
KDP-120 D6-G6 Notes Sound Bad
by didyougethathing - 10/22/21 03:39 PM
Still Yamaha CLP-990 for "piano feel"?
by Evalon - 10/22/21 02:57 PM
Download Sheet Music
Virtual Sheet Music - Classical Sheet Music Downloads
Forum Statistics
Forums42
Topics209,696
Posts3,141,433
Members103,083
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