I simply “suggested” that CG could further emphasize his humility If he added some (h)umble pie to his IMOs, but it was completely up to him whether he wanted to (h)umble things down a bit or not; so far it seems like he has been humbled by my suggestion, for his signature now reads: “IMHO.”
Furthermore, I’d ask that you all take a bite from Pete’s humble pie, for it is made humbly by yours truly 🥧
IMHO…….!
Pete14 Furthermore, I’d ask that you all take a bite from Pete’s humble pie, for it is made humbly by yours truly
There, you’re not the moderator, but you’re telling us what to do? Nope, I’m not taking it!
Pete14 This would be like Coke allowing their name to be used next to Fentanyl; because, you know, why would Coke care about knowing who is using their likeness, or what it is that they “are doing”…..the nerve you people have!
That would be a great opportunity for them. "Now the drug cartels can sell our Coke!"
IMNSHO, of course.
I see no need for humility.
None at all.
(IMO)
MacMacMac I was just playing Pete's game. 🙂 Of course, I disagree with his views on it, but I'll keep it up for his sake to show how strange this way of talking it is, if not dumb. 🙂 So I'll only talk to him in this way, not to you.
CyberGene How do we know that Modartt are not milking you with one and same model being EQ-ed and a bunch of hidden knobs being turned?
Actually we do know that they do exactly that. They have said that to create a model (say the new Bosendorfer) they just turn a bunch of knobs (which are not available to users, not even in the Pro version) and here the model comes. They even tried (not too strongly) to encourage a marketplace of "knob turning" in which people could turn the (user available) knobs to change Steinway into Baldwin (just to mention an instrument they don't sell). In fact this knob turning seems a really hard problem for the average customer, and they typically make it sound worse. I personally don't see any problem with that.
CyberGene Are you still not getting it why Pianoteq is in a desperate need of brand endorsement?
Not sure if it's "desperate" but it certainly helps their marketing, and hence why most people (including in this thread) think that Modartt pays the acoustic brands to use their names and logos. AFAIK the terms of the agreements (who pays who, if at all, let alone the amount) has never been disclosed.
Pete14 This would be like Coke allowing their name to be used next to Fentanyl; because, you know, why would Coke care about knowing who is using their likeness, or what it is that they “are doing”…..the nerve you people have!
Obviously Pete is exaggerating in his usual way, but he has a point. Modartt has been able to secure the names and logos of pretty much all the major acoustic piano manufacturers still in business today, with the exception of Kawai (I'm counting Yamaha in with Bosendorfer which they control, and I'm not counting Mason and Hamlin since it's a pretty small volume manufacturer -- if you want add those two and say "all manufacturers but 3").
If you want to dismiss that, fine, but it's a pretty huge accomplishment, in my opinion. At least one of this must be true:
Did I forget any other possibility? Here are my opinions on these options
If my opinion is correct (which might or might not), I'm even willing to say that the ones who hate/dislike it could have an above average or even excellent hearing in some ways which I tried (and failed) to characterize. And of course there would be "borderline" people, like myself, who could hear some flaws in the Pianoteq instruments, but not so much to make it unbearable (I'm speaking of the last version, the previous ones were indeed not good enough for me).
RIP I think the second is definitely true for some manufacturers, but it can't be true for them all. For example, Steinway refuses to sell their stencils to registered piano technicians as described in ... so it would be very strange that they forbade the use of their trademark to those that repair their product following their guidelines, but allow such use to Pianoteq, without checking it and deeming it at least okay.
Those piano technicians, selling used Steinway piano's are in direct competition with Steinway. Modartt does not compete with Steinway, nor do any of the other VI makers, so Steinway probably are not loosing any sleep over their products carrying the Steinway name. Instead they get some advertising directed towards mostly young people, who may one day be wealthy enough to upgrade to an acoustic.
Anyway, that is how I see it.
RIP Actually we do know that they do exactly that. They have said that to create a model (say the new Bosendorfer) they just turn a bunch of knobs (which are not available to users, not even in the Pro version) and here the model comes.
Well, that is the exact explanation behind why Pianoteq need the endorsement. Without it many people might be unwilling to spend money on what is supposedly a minor tweak they could’ve done themselves. Whereas an official “blessing” seals the deal for them. Imagine you’re a customer, you hear a new sound that Modartt is selling you as a “Steinway”. How do you know it’s actually a Steinway? It can be anything 😃 So, if Steinway blessed it (for money) it suddenly becomes a Steinway.
It’s also why sample piano manufacturers don’t need to purchase any approval or brand sticker, as I explained before. Because unless you think they EQ-ed some of their existing samples, the basic purchaser trusts that they really sampled the actual piano. Any endorsement will cost money and it’s dubious it will improve the sales.
So, with Pianoteq endorsements it’s a bit of everything: Modartt need it, piano manufacturers get some money and Pianoteq sounds good to the general public. It’s a mutual benefit.
However, I wouldn’t draw any extended conclusions from a mutually beneficial deal like the one between Modartt and piano manufacturers, such as e.g. how superior PT must be to “earn” big names’ endorsements. As I pointed already, it’s a special need for Pianoteq to be endorsed. Sampled developers don’t have that need.
QuasiUnaFantasia Those piano technicians, selling used Steinway piano's are in direct competition with Steinway.
Not exactly in competition because (in the past) to get the stencil they must have used all parts from Steinway. So the used piano was still a profit for Steinway. But even so, why Pianoteq and not Modern D, nor VSL, nor anything else? And even with the justification that "none of the sample libraries don't want to waste any money in getting the endorsements" (which I find a bit strange, really no one of them? not even one?) I had plenty of other arguments you are ignoring in your reply. You cut a tree or two, but the forest still stands.
CyberGene They first tell you you can make any piano with that bunch of knobs and how lame the sampled pianos are because they have no bunch of knobs, figuratively speaking.
Not sure what you mean here. They actually say that sampled pianos are lame because they have only a limited number of layers, whereas they have at least 127 (in regular MIDI) and even more in the extensions and MIDI 2. To a lesser degree they also brag about the sympathetic resonances, pedal behavior and that sort of things. I've never seen they saying anything about the "lack of knobs" (which actually would go against their own marketing since the entry level product has no knobs).
Then they realize the sampled libraries can sell you a Steinway, a CFX, a Bosie, etc and are making tons of money, whereas they can’t sell you new models.
If by "models" you mean a new release, they do sell that, at a very low price. If you mean different "knob-turning" with the name of a manufacturer attached to it, they also sell that at a relatively low price too (compared to samples). You can argue that knob turning should be much cheaper than recording a gazillion of layers on an acoustic instrument and in fact it is. You can argue that it's still too expensive, and I guess that's fine with me, however as a "free market" guy I think it must be priced close enough to optimal, otherwise they would not make enough profit or they would not sell enough of them.
CyberGene Philippe is a mathematician (and piano technician AFAIK?), so they know the intricacies of the piano working. But ultimately Pianoteq needs to produce the equivalent of a recorded sound in the computer and that's where they fail (IMO). Contrary to recording engineers. They know how to record a piano properly and is what they do but they are not good at ensuring all the intricacies of half-pedaling and resonances are provided, so we end up with sound that is so much better than Pianoteq (IMO) as a recorded wave file but lacks refined behavior.
I totally agree with this above… (yes, Philippe is both mathematician and piano technician)
CyberGene A sampled piano records a real piano.
Yes, but it does not completely sound like one to me. Like in Pianoteq, there is some artificialness in the sound of a performance on a sampled piano, which is not the same as the recording of an acoustic one, to my ears. I agree that the sampled piano performances tend to be more close to the acoustic one than Pianoteq, but not by an enough large difference for me to make me jumping through the hoops I don't want to jump (such as OS switch).
In any case, I think these are happy times in which we can have this argument (compared to the past when the discussion was "definitely nothing sounds close enough") and that we can agree that there is progress on all fronts so probably the difference gap will be closing
RIP I'm even willing to say that the ones who hate/dislike it could have an above average or even excellent hearing in some ways
Thank you! I don't consider myself having above average hearing, but others like to believe so, so I'll just say, thanks for your compliment, though it wasn't originally intended to be. 🙂
That said, if you listen to recordings of acoustic instruments long enough, and then you are suddenly given a recording featuring a tweaked PianoTeq model, it won't be difficult for you to hear how it's sounding, and how it's still lacking compared to the qualities of how that actual acoustic piano sounds.
RIP I had plenty of other arguments you are ignoring in your reply. You cut a tree or two, but the forest still stands.
That was the only point I wanted to comment on.
David Lai Thank you! I don't consider myself having above average hearing, but others like to believe so, so I'll just say, thanks for your compliment, though it wasn't originally intended to be. 🙂
I actually am one who believes you have much better hearing than most 🙂
David Lai That said, if you listen to recordings of acoustic instruments long enough, and then you are suddenly given a recording featuring a tweaked PianoTeq model, it won't be difficult for you to hear how it's sounding, and how it's still lacking compared to the qualities of how that actual acoustic piano sounds.
Oh, that's for sure. Even without the "sudden" part of switching from acoustic to Pianoteq: given a (random) recording, without anything else before. But my point is that I hear a similar "lacking" with sampled instruments, so for me it's not that Modern D (or whatever) is identical to the acoustic and Pianoteq sucks: they are all somewhat different than the acoustic. In fact for a while my daughter and I played a game: when hearing a recording on a radio (typically of Pop or Jazz music, but anything was fair game), we independently wrote on a piece of paper if we thought the piano was acoustic or digital. We agreed 100% of the time and we were right 100% of the time that we could verify (e.g. googling a video of the performance, or looking at the notes from the recording session if they mentioned the instrument).
RIP They actually say that sampled pianos are lame because they have only a limited number of layers, whereas they have at least 127
I know that and I’ve seen people citing it with a wrong preconception. Even if it was only one single sample layer (and even if there wasn’t any filtering applied), it would still be replayed with 127 different gain levels, depending on the MIDI velocities, so that’s already 127 different sample layers. Or 1024, or whatever gain multiplier you apply. And many modern samplers use interpolation (and filtering), so the discrete sample layers are just reference points but you will have as many different spectral and volume differences in between, as there are MIDI velocities. Same as Pianoteq. So that’s a moot point.
I’ve mentioned this across different forums and threads, even in this discussion, but listening to a recorded piano (as in a commercial recording by an artist) doesn’t sound like listening to a real piano at a concert.
If you need actual piano experience, then the software (modeled or sampled) is only one part of the goal. There’s the reproduction system, vibrations in the keys and so many other things.
I personally don’t need that. I use software to produce studio quality recordings. Sampled libraries give me exactly the same quality and feel.
Oh please, don’t flatter yourself; what you do have is an above-average ego!
I’ll give you a good one here: Rubalcaba (a master musician) doesn’t have perfect pitch; he can’t tell a C from a D (from ear) if his life depended on it, yet this idiot down here does (have perfect pitch), and he can’t play a tritone substitution if his life depended on it!
Pete14 Rubalcaba (a master musician) doesn’t have perfect pitch; he can’t tell a C from a D (from ear) if his life depended on it
He’s a jazz player. I’ve been growing a rather negative opinion about jazz for the last 10-20 years but to me the lack of perfect pitch is maybe a must for jazz. There’s the need to change between various patterns like ii-V-I in any possible tonal center for it to sound scary (Giant Steps anyone?), perform fast chord-scale stuff, tritone subs and all the mechanical stuff that is there to make you think it’s so complex and respecting, whereas it’s just a bunch of weird chords and scales, so perfect pitch gets in the way, you need to press keys instead of listening too much to what you play 😃 No wonder jazz is dying. There are so many musicians who can produce all these things in realtime but is that comparable to a symphony? Not at all. IMHO 😃 Jazz is fine for a few tracks. Then I need classical music. IMHO.
BTW, David Foster has produced many original and memorable songs. You chose one of the lamest 😃
Damn, CG, that was harsh!
And yes, I’ll admit it, David produced “I will always love you,” and I do like that song! 😊
Pete14 what you do have is an above-average ego!
Nope, sir, I do have perfect pitch. And I do play classical music by ear. I learned this piece in 2 days, and this one in 4, plus the accompaniment for this song in 2 days. Granted, the latter 2 was for an exam, but I still can play them.
Can you do that?
P.S.
Upon re-reading your harsh post above, I noticed something unique: “it’s just a bunch of weird chords and scales….”
And surely you didn’t mean that as a compliment, so no, don’t give me the whole “English-is-not-my-first-language spin, because you knew very well what you meant (a criticism) when you said “a bunch of recordings” regarding sampling, so I ask, why don’t you own your criticism?
It could very well be that we find flaws in both techniques, one a “bunch of recordings,” and the other (according to you), “a bunch of knobs to tweak.”
I’m still willing to meet y’all in the middle, if only you people give an inch and allow yourselves to be critical of sampling. Granted, CG did “allege” that both sampling & modeling might be guilty of double-dipping, and for that I commend him! 😉
Pete14 you knew very well what you meant (a criticism) when you said “a bunch of recordings” regarding sampling, so I ask, why don’t you own your criticism?
Well, sure! I’ve never said sampling is perfect. For the moment it’s just better than modeling to these ears. Which is why when I have to take side, I take that of sampling even if I have to defend it more than it actually deserves. You know I’m longing for the moment I can live far from neighbors and can fancy a shiny acoustic grand 😉
David Lai Can you do that?
Wow, that is the very definition of arrogance!
Look, Pete, I can play really, really fast; can you do that?
And no, David, “I can’t do that,” but I wonder, does that make me dumb, or someone to whom you speak differently than you would, I don’t know, an intellectual like Mac?
Keep in mind that I can create a world of fantasy, but that doesn’t mean I live in one, and yes, I can have fun and still make a coherent point, and the most recent example is my “Coke & Fentanyl” analogy; sure, it’s “fun,” but there’s also more to it, and it seems like Del Vento dug below the “humorous” surface and realized that there were more layers to it.
Do I sometimes get on the “absurd train”? Yes, but this train will only go as far as the other passengers allow it, so, if no one gets on the absurd train with me, it doesn’t move too far; hence, the “IMHO,” and the reason that “train” keeps going is because the passengers just keep coming aboard……all aboard, I say!
P.S.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but my “exclamation” point at the end of IMHO is meant ironically, and Quasi, CG, DelVento, Frankly (and other passengers) get it!
IMHO!