Modern D vs Pianoteq

dikrek

Hi all, making this its own post - thanks for the feedback on the other thread.

It became clear we need a great real performance to compare, not some robotic MIDI file, so I used David's own (obviously I don't have the proper velocity curve but let's see).

This is his performance on YouTube:

Here are 3 renditions with Pianoteq.

debussy-lai-sunken-cathedral-hbd.mp3

debussy-lai-sunken-cathedral-nyd.mp3

debussy-lai-sunken-cathedral-bluthner.mp3

@HZPiano to your earlier point - I feel I can connect with the music with this tone. Still lipstick on a pig? 🙂

@David Lai I didn't try to get exactly the recording tone of Modern D but more the essence.

@QuasiUnaFantasia still hear a Wurli player mixed with a synth bass player?

@David B compare to v8 and tell me if it sounds better to you.

@emily still xylophone? 🙂

@Pete14 constructive comments if possible 🙂

[deleted]

hey dikrek ) should i be in the tag or emily? 🤣

dikrek

[deleted] well you’re here now 🙂

I think it’s a much easier comparison VI vs VI

[deleted]

dikrek no no i mean the tag..look who you’re tagging when talking about the xylophone, i thought you meant me

dikrek

[deleted] I did mean you and I know what you meant, I guess I tagged the wrong person. But is it still like a xylophone or does one of the 3 renditions sound like a piano?

Now you have the modern D to compare with the identical MIDI; minus the velocity curve and other dynamics adjustments of course, which are truly crucial though.

[deleted]

dikrek no worries man..its cool.. i’d like to say this i’m impressed with your tests because you don’t give up easily, and that’s fun. i like your enthusiasm, although. i can hear that you’re missing some things at the core when it comes to the sound of this kind of modeling. i couldn’t listen for too long because everything is covered with that strange tone, although… i don’t know exactly which second or minute to point out. randomly, i’ll say… listen closely to the sound at 1:56 or 2:01, because it happens a lot. the synthetic tone is almost everywhere (except, for example, the sound at 2:11 .. that one sounds cool). i’m just giving a random timestamp i could get to. there are others before and after. i didn’t listen for too long. you still don’t hear it. the third example you gave is probably the worst, but never mind. again its interesting that you do this.

[deleted]

and when i say like a xylophone it’s a joke..its more like pipes or smth hehe… for example i really like roland sounds, and they are modeled too man. )))

dikrek

[deleted] the third one has extra resonance from the aliquot strings, which can be a bit much but can be turned down.

Ironically I think the third one is by far the best.

[deleted]

dikrek hey.. if you simply don't hear certain motifs in this vst, then there's really no issue . i mean, as i mentioned before, i really like the sound of the roland, it's great for me, even though i know it sounds a bit strange, a bit synthetic, but in a completely different way that i like. and i can, for instance, play rock pieces on it, no problem. it’s just an interesting stuff but it doesn’t have any big meaning. another person likes a sound, another person doesn’t. so, sometimes, i admit, it’s worth discussing this, but i don’t think it has a huge significance, although your test still interests me dikrek

David Lai

First of all, you don't have the correct difference between loud and soft passages. The soft passages are good, but the loud passages are not enough.

Apart from that, the difference between PianoTeq and my Modern D demo lies in the core tone. The third is the worst as far as the sustain and shimmer of the notes are concerned. As for the first and second examples, the attack is dull in the mid range, synthetic in the treble, and unrealistically booming in the bass. In short, this isn't how a piano should sound compared to what Modern D is able to produce. It doesn't past the listening test.

HZPiano

dikrek Still lipstick on a pig? 🙂

That was @QuasiUnaFantasia 's line 🙂.

dikrek

HZPiano mixed you up 🙂

So - thoughts on the comparison?

HZPiano

dikrek

No time…

Pete14

I suppose I’ll have to stay out of this one; because I’ve been asked to be “constructive,” and my nature is to deconstruct; as in “Deconstructing Harry.”

But before I leave, yes, I do believe that Pianoteq is the future-now (overall), and sampling is on its way out, just like the acoustic, which is essential to sampling, because without the acoustic, what is there to sample? whereas Pianoteq already has all the “data” it needs, so, it doesn’t need to go back to the source (acoustic) over-and-over, but rather, Pianoteq is now the source!

Just like Picasso, I deconstruct, and then, in the process of putting things back together, I end up with something that appears completely different than the original, but is it, really? whilst the exterior appearance seems convoluted, the essence of “that thing” I just deconstructed remains; for, we can split the atom, move particles around by simply observing them, and even disentangle quantum entanglement, but we cannot alter the core structure of “that thing,” for you see, unlike what Newton believed, we can’t change copper into gold!

Perhaps I should make it clear, since this is an “MD vs. Pianoteq” thread, sampling is the “copper” trying to be gold!

Okay, I’m done (deconstructing), so please, go on with the experiment…..

CyberGene

Pete14 whereas Pianoteq already has all the “data” it needs

Funnily enough, Pianoteq depends on samples. The samples are the data that it models. Not the piano. So, no, it doesn’t have the data it needs.

The chain of hierarchy is this: acoustic piano (the king) -> samples (the king’s photographer) -> Pianoteq (the photographer’s wife who tries to sleep with the king by redrawing her husband’s photos into pictures that make the king slimmer). And guess what, we, the public, are… the Queen! And we’re pretty pissed with these caricatures made by that b1@tch!

dikrek

David Lai OK - I think I fixed the dynamics (mostly - I don't have your curve). Also - the tone to me sounds much closer now.

debussy-lai-sunken-cathedral-nyd-jazz.mp3

srodrigo

I still think that the problem with Pianoteq is the attack, or the initial 0.5-1.0 seconds. It's like a "gong" more than a hammer hitting strings. That makes it "tiring" to listen to (although not even as much as it used to be pre-v9). I don't know whether the sound connoisseurs would agree.

CyberGene

srodrigo I agree, I have the same issue with it too. My other issue is with the sustain portion sounding synthetic, however this is not immediately apparent and to notice it you have to hear similar sustains in many adjacent notes, like scales, etc. I would offer a wild guess. A real piano has many natural imperfections that make each string slightly different. Maybe in Pianoteq they can’t achieve the same behavior and all note sustains “develop” in exactly the same way, possibly overtones/partials always follow the same envelopes. And after a while our brain detects this as too repeating and “same”, hence synthetic? Or maybe I’m wrong… Who knows, it’s so difficult to describe these things.

[deleted]

srodrigo i think this is it. this description is right. i agree with it completely. and if it does not bother someone, it sounds magnificent. it is that simple to me.

so to me it works like this.

one person hears a piano with a kind of synth like gong quality and does not like it at all.

another person hears a piano with that same synth like gong quality but does not care because it is good enough and plays well.
.....
a third group hears it simply as a piano and does not notice any synth quality at all, and they love it. this third group is simply something i do not experience myself.

johanibraaten

dikrek I like this kind of threads, it's a good ground for discussion (or deconstruction😉)

First I want to commend @David Lai for the playing which is very beautiful,🎶 Everything from here on is only regarding the tone of the VI:s in question. It's funny as this piece used to be the jingle from Modartt when they release new products.

The modern D version would obviously fool more people that it is an acoustic piano and it sounds very nice but I actually like the Pianoteq renderings too, especially the first NYD one and there are things there that I actually prefer over the Modern D and vice versa. Although, as David said, the dynamics are a bit restricted. First of all, one thing that can be annoying in Pianoteq is the overly energetic treble with sometimes an unatural long sustain but in this piece I think it sounds nice and the character reminds me more of a Bechstein than a Steinway. I think if there is an acoustic counterpart to Pianoteq that have that energetic, long sustained treble it would be Bechstein. And as Debussy himself said “Piano music should only be written for the Bechstein” (although the Bechstains from that time sounded quite different from the modern ones). I think the sustain in the treble on the Modern D is a bit on the short side. I also think the MD sounds very "clean" with very controlled resonance that could even be described as a little sparse. I like the shimmer and more chaotic resonance in the ptq version even if it sometimes can be a little over the top, especially in the later rendering with fixed dynamics by @dikrek. The bass on the Pianoteq feels a little boosted but I don't think it's that bad and in certain acoustics even an acoustic piano could have that boost, especially other brands than Steinway. When it comes to the midrange timbre the MD wins hands down for authenticity and Pianoteq sounds synthetic but again, not in a particular unpleasant way. In the opening the Pianoteq has also more of what we in swedish call "malm-klang" which would translate to something like "ore-sound" that remind of something dark, heavy made of metal.

Thanks @dikrek for the effort and @David Lai for the playing.