Modern D vs Pianoteq

dikrek · 2026-03-05T01:51:23+00:00

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 🙂

David Lai

dikrek Right from the first notes, the treble chord on the right hand sounds tinny and like pounding on glass. The over all resonances are still a bit bloomy (loud). The middle C octave is unnaturally nasal and synth-like, and the octave below as well.

The octave above middle C is passable, and so is the lowest bass notes. But compared to Modern D / an actual acoustic piano recording, this is still quite far away.

Failure on PianoTeq's part.

[deleted]

dikrek i just came back from work and i am listening to this now. i have to admit i admire your efforts. but no, it always sounds the same. i gave you specific minutes ,moments so you could pay attention to them, because those moments are like peaks of that synth like flavor, but overall it does not really change. it keeps sounding the same. it is like a tin can. everything sounds like it is coming from a can or pipes. it has a synth like sound and there is no real difference.

David Lai

[deleted] Like I said to him repeatedly, there's nothing he can do to change the synth state of PianoTeq. He may think this is "better." Sometimes, when listening to something repeatedly many times, the mind is fatigued, and one may conclude that that's "better." But like I pointed out specific defects of the tone earlier, it's the software's main problem, and it cannot be changed.

locture

CyberGene I believe one of the reasons Garritan feels a lot more forgiving and effortless is it doesn't switch you back from pedal down to pedal up samples when you hold a note and release the pedal. It's a small flaw in its repedalling mechanism that you always have some resonance left, but it does good when you pedal normally.

jenpal

Thanks CyberGene. 😊

HZPiano

David Lai Sometimes, when listening to something repeatedly many times, the mind is fatigued, and one may conclude that that's "better."

This!

Sometimes when I edit one of my photos/film scans after long hours I come to a result that I just LOVE and then I'm so happy and satisfied.

Until I look at it freshly the next morning and go Wow that's plain horrible, What Was I Thinking???

Happens more than once…

🤦

CyberGene

locture that may also be contributing but I think the main reason is the natural reverberation of the Abbey Road Studios that smooths out the sound and makes everything more cohesive.

dikrek

[deleted] thanks. I did focus on those moments. What do you use to listen to this? Very specifically?

RIP

Wow, guys, so hard to keep pace with you…

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 so funny you say that and reinforce my view that we all hear things differently. I think the attack (at least for NYD) is more than decent.

[deleted] the third example you gave is probably the worst

I agree, it's too bright.

CyberGene 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,

I agree with this too and I have the same problem with Modern D which to my hears also sound synthetic! Maybe just a tiny bit less synthetic than pianoteq but more apparent even without doing this "many adjacent" tests.

CyberGene Who knows, it’s so difficult to describe these things.

We don't have the vocabulary. People who study remote tribes learn this soon, and it's quite interesting to see that they have words for something that we all know as human beings but it's funny how many other words are needed in own's language. My favorite example is actually between English and Italian: there is no word for accountability in Italian, you have to say something like "obligation to own your choices and to respond to their later effects"

johanibraaten 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,

That's a great way to put it, I agree!

johanibraaten 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.

Agreed, and that is the kind of acoustic pianos I like (Bosendorfer and M&H come to mind). In pianoteq, this has been introduced more recently. Older versions than pianoteq sounded very dull in the bass and only when they "fixed" that I pulled the trigger and bought it (just to say how important this is to me).

_sem_ I don't think it is overhyped

I think it depends on how one plays and what one seeks by doing this. If you play as a "performance" somewhat similar to how one would listen to someone's else performance, then yes, it may not matter. If you play as an "expression" or "improvisation", similar to you talking to somebody without a predetermined speech, it does. Again, I don't think we have vocabulary for this. The best I can do is comparing with language: imagine that sensation (more common in a second language for me) in which you utter a sentence maybe during a heated discussion and you think "Wow, that's really strong and convincing, how did I say that??"

[deleted] Minute 1:56, 2:01

Another funny example here, demonstrating how different we are!!! To me those moments sound great, almost perfect!!! If anything I dislike around 1:43-1:47….

David Lai In short, this isn't how a piano should sound like.

I appreciate your opinion which as we said elsewhere is informed by your superior hearing, surely developed so well at least in part because of your blindness. What I don't understand, however, is how can you be so harsh with Pianoteq (which to my hears is not perfect, but it's decent enough to be useful) and not hearing the different-but-equally-irritating defects that I hear in Modern D!!? So let me be very blunt and ask you: either in playing or listening of a recording, would you mistake Modern D for an acoustic piano? If the answer is no, do you mind explain in words (the best you can, as you have with Pianoteq comparisons) what do you hear different about it?

David Lai doesn't sound like a piano, but rather, a xylophone (with longer resonances) or a celesta.

Just to get an OT, this remind me to that novel by Edgar Allan Poe in which there is a crime committed by somebody which nobody saw but many heard. All witnesses think that they heard a language different than the one they can speak/understand. I won't spoil the ending in case somebody has not read it and want to, but I'll bet that some xylophone or celesta player would say that it sounds like a piano rather than like their instrument 🤣

dikrek

dikrek @RIP did you check this last one I did? (Click on my name next to yours to take you to the post). To me it’s much better than my initial attempts in this thread.

RIP

dikrek did you check this last one I did?

Yes and I like it a lot. I should also add that Debussy isn't my favorite composer, so I have not listened all the recording multiple times for a full comparison, but I have listened enough key points that I liked or not in previous ones (say, about 30%-50% of what you posted)

dikrek To me it’s much better than my initial attempts in this thread.

Well, it depends on your definition of "much", but I agree it's better. For me it's much, much better than the bluthner examples you posted at https://pianoclack.com/forum/d/87-all-about-pianoteq/508

dikrek

RIP thanks. So at least with my playback gear (balanced very accurate headphones without a crazy treble boost) those strong passages sound good.

So now we have some people to whom this sounds like a piano, and some people to whom it’s totally synthetic etc etc.

The logical choices:

One of the two groups hears differently
One of the two groups is using gear that overly hypes some frequencies
One of the two groups doesn’t know what a piano sounds like
One of the two groups is lying (I’m just including it for completeness)

I’m at a loss.

David Lai

RIP "either in playing or listening of a recording, would you mistake Modern D for an acoustic piano?"

And this applies also to Garritan CFX -- No, because the characters of that specific piano used for sampling will be there in the recording. So I can tell that this is such a piano VST, just like I can tell that it's PianoTeq.

However, what differs the likes of Modern D and Garritan from PianoTeq is the tone. When I hear Garritan CFX or Modern D, my hearing informs me "this is an acoustic piano recording." But PianoTeq, with its defects, informs me "this is a synthesizer trying its best to sound like a piano." And I regard these two very differently:

For a recording, I judge it on the basis that it began life as an acoustic piano. However, the synthesizer started life as a synth, that's why it has all the defects that some of us are talking about.

It's true that there are things in the CFX or Modern D that I hope can be better, but the tone and how they respond under my fingers is enough to win me over, but the PianoTeq tone is uninspiring to hear, and such tones, if it doesn't inspire me, I find it hard to play or work with.

The Microsoft text-to-speech voices I posted on a different thread as an example, you'd surely think that they started life as an actual human voice talking, and then be made into a synth. But there are voices capable of greater intonation and pitch differences that sound more synthesized. These voices, many blind people like using, but not me, because they don't sound "human." That's why they're not selected to be the voices talking inside our devices, like the smart assistants, ETC.

Sorry I digress.

RIP

dikrek The logical choices:

I think it's clearly

dikrek One of the two groups hears differently

Perhaps with minimal influences by the

dikrek One of the two groups is using gear that overly hypes some frequencies

And maybe not even in only two groups, but perhaps several which we for simplicity characterize in two (like it? yes/no). Maybe it's one-dimensional (like it? 1 to 100). Maybe it's even multidimensional!
But let's see what David Lai says about Modern D because depending on what he says I may become more puzzled than you.

[deleted]

hey dikrek thanks for the convo, but i’m going to step out of this thread. i think i already explained everything i wanted to explain and there’s not much more for me to add. thanks man

RIP

David Lai When I hear Garritan CFX or Modern D, my hearing informs me "this is an acoustic piano recording." But PianoTeq, with its defects, informs me "this is a synthesizer trying its best to sound like a piano."

Interesting. I don't get that "this is an acoustic recording" feeling at all with either Garritan or Modern D. It actually gets closer (but still not quite) with @dore_m The Experience -- so for me they are all synthetic….

David Lai For a recording, I judge it on the basis that it began life as an acoustic piano. However, the synthesizer started life as a synth, that's why it has all the defects that some of us are talking about.

This is puzzling to me. There are some drugs that began their life as poop (literally!) -- I don't judge them that way, but by their safety and effectiveness.

So on the basis that sampled pianos began their life as a recording of an acoustic piano, I am actually shocked about how "bad" they sound and I like them even less if I take that into account. But I don't take that into account: they sound synthetic but acceptable in a sound-signature-different but usable-similar way compared to Pianoteq

Very strange how people hear differently.

Pete14

RIP This is puzzling to me. There are some drugs that began their life as poop (literally!) -- I don't judge them that way, but by their safety and effectiveness.

For the record, Bono began his life as a poop, “#2” (literally), and look at the great man he grew into; so I say, we should never judge a crap by its look, but rather by its potential to turn into something special despite its initial appearance (and stench):

David Lai

RIP So on the basis that sampled pianos began their life as a recording of an acoustic piano, I am actually shocked about how "bad" they sound and I like them even less if I take that into account. But I don't take that into account: they sound synthetic but acceptable in a sound-signature-different but usable-similar way compared to Pianoteq

I don't seem to agree with you. I view the piano sound like this: it began life as an acoustic instrument, someone managed to capture how it sounds and behaves, and we have a playable software package. That is still a faithful representation of the playable acoustic, so how can it be synthetic?

On the other hand, when it comes to mathematical modeling, unless they do what Roland is doing, the sound is just plainly synthetic, with all kinds of defects known only to PianoTeq.

So, 2 different products, 2 different approaches. One faithful to the original, the other synth-y and not-so-piano-like.

Pete14

David Lai On the other hand, when it comes to mathematical modeling, unless they do what Roland is doing, the sound is just plainly synthetic, with all kinds of defects known only to PianoTeq.

And what, exactly, is “Roland doing”? because as far as I know, Roland doesn’t do much at all (other than brag)…

David Lai

Pete14 Their modeling sound engine sounds more realistic than PianoTeq. I'd rather pick that over the synth-y PianoTeq. It's the lesser of the 2 evils.

« Previous Page Next Page »