Modern D vs Pianoteq vs The People

Pete14 AI (or Machine Learning, to be strict) can help in creating better coefficients/curves/tables (or whatever they call these internal tuning parameters) to try to approximate the original recorded samples as close as possible but it can’t help in making faster computers 😃 I don’t believe we will ever have computers that are fast enough to run a detailed finite element model of a piano in real time.

I remember my work as a beta tester on one of the Pianoteq models. (My NDA has expired long ago). Philippe would prepare these internal calibrations and would give it to us. People would comment, record, discuss. Personally I used to create comparative recordings between Pianoteq and Vintage D (that’s what I had at the time). I would say something like: see how this phrase accentuates metallic overtones in PT and how nicely it blends in Vintage D. Philippe would then do another internal re-configuration based on beta testers feedback. Indeed, sometimes he addressed my comments but then something else got wrong. And in his words (not literal quote, but along the lines of): yes, it’s tricky because adjusting one of these (internal) params changes many things at a time. It’s also when I lost faith in PT. The entire beta process was just moving in circles and it never gradually went better, only changed certain aspects at the expense of others. This might be a subjective understanding and I may be biased but my participation was valuable and they invited me for a few other models but I declined politely.

ML can help in such a process by first learning when a piano sound and behavior is close enough to another one and then apply combinatorial tweaking of all the internal params iteratively until they approach the target sound, rather than relying on beta testers and one man who tweaks some knobs (figuratively) to address comments.

CyberGene I remember my work as a beta tester on one of the Pianoteq models..

Wait, you once “worked” for Pianoteq, and then decided to become a whistleblower? 😉

Perhaps it might’ve been better if you’d let us believe that it was indeed a real physical model, but I suppose you felt it your responsibility to blow the whistle on Philippe!

BTW, wouldn’t it be great if he stopped by? but come to think of it, he might not be too motivated considering the amount of “love” Pianoteq gets ‘round here….

P.S.

Has anyone tried a totally different approach to capture “the piano” other than a bunch of recordings, and/or a bunch of knobs? It would be great if we had a third option, and no, the “hybrid” approach (sampling + modeling) doesn’t count as a third option!

Pete14 Wait, you once “worked” for Pianoteq, and then decided to become a whistleblower? 😉

I thought you knew that. Many people know I’ve been on PT beta test team long ago, I’ve mentioned it numerous times on PW 😃

One great thing about VILBAS pianos is that their "modelling" or programming doesn't include noticeable sample distortion or artifacts, while I saw here, pw and vc, people report artifacts in the tone of Ivory 3 probably because of the hybrid modelling.

Honestly, CG, I didn’t know!

And, since we’re being honest, I’ll admit it, I was one of those who thought it a “physical model” until you came along and ruined that for us.

You know, CG, sometimes it’s okay to be a little bit oblivious to what’s happening behind the curtains, and perhaps you could’ve been a bit more gentle in breaking the news to us; because there’s nothing wrong with believing that Houdini was a “real” magician, and not just a trickster, but now you’ve ruined that for us, and on top of it, you won’t even give us a little hope that some day the magic will be real…….”It’ll never happen,” you say!

AI could train a piano library, but there hasn't been one yet I know. I only know Dreamtonics trained AI voice packs. They have standard voice packs but sounds like Vocaloid you know. Creepy unnatural voice singers, however many fans still like that.

BTW, beta testing for PT is volunteering. They found me on PW I guess (I was hating PT as always) and contacted me. We are not paid (I think I got free license for the version at the time) and we are not told how it works, nor any internal knowledge 🙂 I think Philippe once replied to me that my interpretation of their patent is not completely right (but he didn’t say it was completely wrong either) and he also said the patent is old and they have added many new things. He never explained any details though. He’s a very nice and knowledgeable guy as can be expected. What I am afraid though is, as the sole mastermind behind all of it, it’s only him who can make things better, yet he doesn’t have the ear of a recording engineer (hope he’s not insulted by my opinion) and is probably why he can’t approach the piano sound the way some of us expect it and there’s no one else who can do something. I hope I’m wrong 🙂

CyberGene What I am afraid though is, as the sole mastermind behind all of it, it’s only him who can make things better, yet he has no the ear of a recording engineer (hope he’s not insulted by my opinion) and is probably why he can’t approach the piano sound the way some of us expect it and there’s no one else who can do something. I hope I’m wrong 🙂

But I’m assuming he has a “team” giving him constant feedback and helping in the process; it can’t just be Philippe all on his own, even though he most certainly has the last word….

pipAT AI could train a piano library…

Are you saying there’s hope? 🤔

Pete14 there’s certainly a team but I think Philippe is the one behind the math, the rest is rather software engineers, etc. I guess it’s obvious but we weren’t employees or something like that 😃 We didn’t have a contract. We were just piano enthusiasts on the Internet who were being sent multiple alpha/beta pre-releases and were expected to provide feedback through email and in an internal forum. Nothing else.

CyberGene I guess it’s obvious but we weren’t employees or something like that 😃 We didn’t have a contract..

Dare I be the devil’s advocate here?

Perhaps you weren’t under a contract, but there was a quid pro quo of sorts, so, is it fair to say that you were at least a “consultant” for Pianoteq?

I believe there are still rooms for improvements for PTQ. Otherwise, well known piano manufacturers won't easily give their certifications to PTQ to ruin their brands and fames for a piece of "toy-like" synth.

Pete14 is it fair to say that you were at least a “consultant” for Pianoteq?

I’d love to think that way. But it’s also possible that my feedback wasn’t useful to them and they didn’t take it in mind 😃 But I’ve had replies from Philippe on some of my feedback regarding very concrete remarks about the sound of particular notes. Now, what I’m gonna say is surely arrogant but sometimes the next alpha had great two or three notes fixed following my feedback, but on the next alpha it got screwed up and I wondered if any of my other “colleagues” could be the one to blame 😃 At the time I got frustrated with the constant setback after a slight progress and (arrogantly) thought that if it was only me giving feedback, or if I had access to the internal workings of PT, the result would’ve been much better 😄 IMHO!

pipAT Otherwise, well known piano manufacturers won't easily give their certification to PTQ to ruin the

there are plenty of vi manufacturers that claim brand names for their products
like native instruments stradivari violin
it says it's a Stradivarius violin but nobody gives a F because there's no f+king way this vst is even comparable to a good violinist with a real stradivari
it's just a name, a marketing bullshit if you ask me
nobody would think with buying that vst they'd have a Stradivarius violin and an outstanding player (for that you need to deal with a real player, a real stradivari and expressive studie time)

and that's also true with the ptq, it says steinway but only stupid people who can't tell the difference between pianos and guitars would accept that (and those people aren't the market place for acoustic piano companies such as steinway and sons)

Pete14 And, since we’re being honest, I’ll admit it, I was one of those who thought it a “physical model” until you came along and ruined that for us.

I certainly believe that Pianoteq is a physical model. "Physical model" simply means that the model is based on an understanding of how the underlying system works. Since Pianoteq includes sliders for piano length, hammer hardness, and soundboard impedance, it seems overwhelmingly plausible that it is a physical model. It does not need to be based on finite elements in order to be a "physical model".

I thought e-instruments borrowed these historical instruments from a museum. These are masterpiece of historical makers, not belong to still running business companies. Yes, there are cases of famous companies playing this kind of game. Approved by one or two maybe not so hard, there are 7. I wish Garritan could get another authorized certification from Steinway.

pipAT
yea they're a piece of history but a lot of people still have them
and you won't believe this, a single stradivari violin costs 17 - 25 million dollars💀

pipAT I thought e-instruments borrowed these historical instruments from a museum.

i wish they've done a better job with them, the playability of this series is very bad, the legato sounds are super hard edged and annoying and there's a certain digital quality to all of them that disgusts me

i find the emotional violin to be a lot better but still it's not as playable as something like audio modeling swam violin

QuasiUnaFantasia

Thank you! That’ll help me sleep better tonight, and what the heck, I’ll go back to calling it “physical modeling” even if it’s not “physical” per se! 😁

Let’s get physical, physical…..I wanna get physical, physical…..(remember that song? Oh, they don’t make ‘em like they used to)……

pianow Maybe they were afraid to break these dearly instruments and the museum wouldn't allow players do aggressive movements. The tone is quite nasal.