Modern D vs Pianoteq vs The People

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.

RIP CyberGene A sampled piano records a real piano.

Yes, but it does not completely sound like one to me.

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.

David Lai

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!

https://youtu.be/rgYkL_V1pmE?si=fmWUUebuZ9msezOk

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!

Pete14 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!

Guess i’ve been feeding the troll here, because that’s what you’re describing.

And no, I’m only stating facts here. These are things I did. It goes to show that I do depend on my hearing and memory, and they didn’t let me down. So the fact that you equate my hearing to ego is rather absurd, and I wanted to point it out

Pete14 Oh please, don’t flatter yourself; what you do have is an above-average ego!

I'm surprised by such a bitchy comment from you.

Pete14 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?

No, it doesn’t make you dumb. But it does signal to me that you don’t play music very often. Instead you spend your time thinking of absurd points to post on forums, mocking sample libraries in the process.

Johnstaf I'm surprised by such a bitchy comment from you.

I suppose you missed the part where he called me “dumb,” and inferred that he has to talk to me differently than he would others, like Mac?

David Lai

You really have no idea how fast my brain/mind works; go ahead, and see how quickly I composed that post; which was a direct response to your “can you do that?”

There’s no way I could’ve spent all day planning, concocting, and preparing the post so that I could immediately respond to your insolence; unless you truly believe that I can see the future, and I knew in advance that you would post that….”can you do that?”

Did you miss the train analogy? I wonder how long it will take your “genius” mind to come up with that.

David Lai No, it doesn’t make you dumb. But it does signal to me that you don’t play music very often. Instead you spend your time thinking of absurd points to post on forums, mocking sample libraries in the process.

I’m sorry, but I can’t let that slide.

You post way more often than I do, so, are you playing the piano whilst you post? ‘cause I’m not sure how that would be possible.

I do not like it when things are taken out of context, and it is easy to point the finger at me, when in reality we’re all constantly “mocking” each other, and “trashing” each other’s preferences.

Pete14 I suppose you missed the part where he called me “dumb,” and an inferred that he has to talk to me differently than he would others, like Mac?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Pete. I didn't regard you dumb. I only mentioned that your points can be rather stretchy, regarding a bunch of IMHO's and how we, according to you, should talk. Don't you realize by now that when one posts something publically on a forum, it's his or her comment / opinion? So THERE IS NO NEED for an IMHO, because it's a given.

And yes, I did understand the train analogy. You started something, then we follow along, and then you continue to develop your points, inforcing us to believe in what you're thinking.

That sounds to me a lot like feeding the troll.

Now, since I've shared my music here, why not sometime you also share something you've been working on? That way, at least I can regard you more as a musician. Right now I believe you are just a person who want to argue with me, and post things that are rather provocative and controversial.

The fact you equate my hearing to ego really made me angry. That was not my point, and you accuse me of arrogance. So I had to tell you what I'm able to do to let you know that I do have some sort of hearing, good or otherwise, and I can hear a difference between a piano and a synth.