Yet another Pianoteq critique

MacMacMac

CyberGene there’s nothing more harmful to a product than having only people praising it

There is one thing more harmful to a product: Being a crap product.

MacMacMac

David B the sound does not inspire me when I play it, but everything else about the product is great.

Yes, everything about this audio product is great ... except for the audio. 🙁

That reminds me of an old saying that my father introduced me to ...
The surgeon proclaimed "The surgery was a success! But the patient died."

CyberGene

MacMacMac not the same analogy, so a pure off-topic (apologies to @navindra). We have this saying: I just managed to teach the horse not to eat, but then it died due to bad luck.

Del Vento

MacMacMac The surgeon proclaimed "The surgery was a success! But the patient died."

CyberGene MacMacMac not the same analogy, so a pure off-topic (apologies to @navindra). We have this saying: I just managed to teach the horse not to eat, but then it died due to bad luck.

I understand you not liking PTQ sound and to a degree I am with you since I think it has way to go to be better. However these two are too much of a hyperbole. I mean, I've heard much, much worse piano sound in cheap (non-weighted) keyboards recently, and even in very old weighted ones (say 20+ year old). Do you guys think PTQ is even worse than a Clavinova's from the '90s? Sure we are not in the 90s anymore, but still those instruments were sold as the "perfect technology" back then….

Johnstaf

CyberGene We have this saying: I just managed to teach the horse not to eat, but then it died due to bad luck.

Which reminds me of Frank Lloyd Wright's saying that “A doctor can bury his mistakes, but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.”

I know someone who had cancer many years ago. The doctor told him that the cancer wouldn't kill him -provided he survived the chemo. Which he did and he's still going strong.

I think people can sometimes come across as ideologically opposed to a particular methodology in creating an instrument. I'm sure that when the patient eventually survives the modelling treatment Pianoteq will be great. Some sampled pianos already are. I thought TruePianos, which is a modelling/sampling hybrid, had great promise but it seems to have barely developed in recent years.

Deleted

Del Vento Do you guys think PTQ is even worse than a Clavinova's from the '90s? Sure we are not in the 90s anymore, but still those instruments were sold as the "perfect technology" back then….

Actual 90s Clavinovas still sell used for good money and the 90s Clavinova technology is still alive and sold new in sub $1000 products. They are what most people using digital pianos ever hear.

For me PC software is stuck right in the 1980s, up there with FM synthesis and early attempts on brute-force sampling.

vagfilm

I am with @Del Vento in this. Although I am unable to enjoy pianoteq when compared to high-end sample engines, I think that it is still better than many DP internal engines (roland, casio and korg). So, I can easily understand why so many take the ptq pros (very good and adjustable dynamic range, small footprint, wonderful standalone with recording, full tweakability) and do not mind the cons (nasal tone, awful presets).
I am constantly tempted to buy it, until I play a bit with the demo and get tired of trying to adjust it. I have my laptop on "hybernate" so my system is also easy to launch without tinkering every time.

MacMacMac

vagfilm I think that it is still better than many DP internal engines (roland, casio and korg).

I can't speak for today's pianos ... but Pianoteq is better than the native piano sound in my 2005-era Clav. That's not really saying much because I despise the latter and I never use it at all.

As for comparison with Roland/Casio/Korg ... I cannot say. I've never touched a Korg and I've not seen a Roland in around ten years (in the early supernatural days). I don't know what they're like today.

The dearth of those brands (or my perception of the dearth) arises from the utter lack of carrying dealerships during my eight years in Raleigh. There were Kawais aplenty. Yamahas, too. Among the high-end Clavs and CA-series the sound was pretty good. Startlingly better than my old Clav.

Pete14

There is only one “perfect technology”, and that is Pianoteq!

Everything else is hyperbole wrapped in laziness complacency, and outright madness!

The world is getting compact whilst samples keep getting larger; do you see the dilemma? Samples simply don’t fit in today’s world!

We’re not in the 80s anymore, so heavy/huge does not necessarily equate with quality; au contraire, the smaller the better!

P.S.

I have a million e-books in my kindle; try cramming a million hardcover-books into a tiny device like the kindle and it/they won’t fit; you will need an entire building to house all them hardcovers; it’s the same (in principle) with samples, so get over it (the 80s) and embrace the new year (2022) and Pianoteq!

CyberGene

I was just being off-topic, not relating to Pianoteq.

I think I’d prefer an old Clavinova rather than Pianoteq but don’t hate me for that 🙂 I will nevertheless hate both the Clavinova and PT. It’s just that I have some “genetic” incompatibility with modeled pianos. I’m not sure what it is but I’ve long ago given up and I don’t even believe in it ever getting “there”. For me. Whenever I smell the fake synthetic character it spoils it entirely for me… With badly sampled pianos there’s another big pile of problems and fakeness but you can still hear real piano underneath. Or should I say it this way, even the worst sampling can’t hide that we’re still hearing a real recorded piano underneath. And even the best modeling can’t hide that there’s no life underneath.

I know that people get triggered by my hate for Pianoteq. I understand it because I’m also sensitive when people blatantly dismiss something I like. I don’t know what to say or do. But I’m completely honest and I’m not doing it to insult people 😢

Del Vento

Pete14 Once again, samples don’t fit our new reality

Pete, I think literally everybody even @MacMacMac and @CyberGene agrees with you on this. But they both don't like the PTQ somewhat synthetic sound.

CyberGene I think I’d prefer an old Clavinova rather than Pianoteq but don’t hate me for that

Why hate? I actually asked for your opinion on that. I find it hard to believe, since the sound of those was so bad to my ears, but hey, everybody has their taste!

CyberGene Whenever I smell the fake synthetic character it spoils it entirely for me

Can you try to be more specific? You have in the past, and I appreciate and (somewhat less aggressively) shared some of your critiques of the sound. Since I believe you tried the latest update in demo, how about playing its demo blues with whatever piano seems more decent to you? Perhaps the NY Steinway D, if you have no preferences? What do you not like of the sound of that playing?

EssBrace

CyberGene I think I’d prefer an old Clavinova rather than Pianoteq but don’t hate me for that 🙂 I will nevertheless hate both the Clavinova and PT. It’s just that I have some “genetic” incompatibility with modeled pianos. I’m not sure what it is…

Me too. I just can't mentally 'relate' to the sounds because there's a synthetic nature to them - it's very difficult to define exactly what's wrong but it astounds me that some people simply don't hear it at all.

Occasionally I can hear PT, including on PT's website, and I can think it's okay. But when I'm the one playing I just cannot connect at all. What also amazes me is that whilst there are a few differences between the PT models (just listen to Pete Best on YouTube rave about the similarities to the pianos being modelled), to my ears they all share so much sonic DNA that they're basically all the same. And it amazes me again that others really seem to think there are meaningful differences. It's just a whole load of wrongness!

Pete14

If it doesn’t fit, you must a-quit samples and switch to Pianoteq.

Once again, samples don’t fit our new reality, and they are soon to be left in the dust; so please, I beg, take all your money out of ‘samples’ and invest it in ‘modelling’, or you will be left with a lot of sample stock(s) worth close to nothing; don’t say I didn’t warn you.

And yes, I’ll be here to say “I told you so” whence the tsunami hits!

jari42

MacMacMac I can't speak for today's pianos ... but Pianoteq is better than the native piano sound in my 2005-era Clav. That's not really saying much because I despise the latter and I never use it at all.

This. Miles better than my top-end 2002 Clav and its 4 layers of AWM samples, playability is dreadful (and that's not the keyboard, the GH3 might be heavy but it's actually very responsive with Pianoteq).

Frédéric L

An old Clavinova typically use CFIIIS samples… they are too bright for me, then I have switched to virtual pianos. Newer are CFX based which is much better… but I prefer virtual pianos to my recent N1X.

CyberGene

Del Vento CyberGene I think I’d prefer an old Clavinova rather than Pianoteq but don’t hate me for that

Why hate? I actually asked for your opinion on that. I find it hard to believe, since the sound of those was so bad to my ears, but hey, everybody has their taste!

I might be wrong. I haven’t played an old Clavinova recently. I remember my Yamaha P90 was a piano I really loved. Not sure which Clavinova it corresponds to but I have very fond memories of it.

MacMacMac

Regarding Pete's comment that "samples don’t fit our new reality" ...

Del Vento I think literally everybody even @MacMacMac and @CyberGene agrees with you on this.

Not so. I know of only one modeled piano (PT), but I know and have many samplers. Some of the latter stink, but many are quite good. I see no reason to say that samplers don't fit our reality. For me they're the only good-sounding VSTs.

CyberGene

It’s really hard to describe what exactly is wrong with the sound of Pianoteq. It’s always hard to talk about sound. But something that can point in the direction of what’s wrong is to use exaggeration: there has always been something that sounds like a Yamaha CP80. It’s very subtle, but if you somehow understand what exactly makes a Yamaha CP80 different than an acoustic piano sound, then that would be the trait/characteristic that’s making Pianoteq so ugly for me I can’t bear it.

Like this one:
https://youtu.be/JvjwFcCTHhg

Del Vento

CyberGene there has always been something that sounds like a Yamaha CP80

I guess you mean the tone and not the unrealistic soft attack and slow release. If so, I think I understand.

CyberGene Not sure which Clavinova it corresponds to but I have very fond memories of it.

I guess that's a moot point anyway.

Thanks for providing these two answers.

I am really interested in the third too, about that blues demo, if you get a chance!

Thanks

CyberGene

Del Vento I don’t understand what blues demo you refer to? Do you mean I have to listen to an audio demo or play a patch that’s called this way? BTW in this very moment I’m listening to the Chopin’s Fantasy demo which is the first Steinway D demo on the Pianoteq website and it has that CP80 “rubbery” and nasal feel. Bass notes are hollow, quick lines are twangy. It’s just so bad 😢

As to the Clavinova argument. Well, OK, maybe you are right that I may prefer Pianoteq to P90 although I highly doubt that but maybe it’s just nostalgia. But it still doesn’t prove anything for Pianoteq to beat a 16 year old romper with a 16MB ROM 😀 Because I’d choose my N1X’s internal sound over Pianoteq any day or night. Let alone Garritan CFX.

Del Vento

CyberGene I don’t understand what blues demo you refer to?

The ones which plays once you open the PTQ interface and press the "play" button (the triangle) at the very top. If the volume is too low, do not increase it with PTQ slider, but use your computer volume control or the external amplifier once, since the volume from PTQ itself has some side effects: leave everything as default.

CyberGene the Chopin’s Fantasy demo which is the first Steinway D demo on the Pianoteq website and it has that CP80 “rubbery” and nasal feel

I don't like that one much either. The Bach's Prelude and Fugue in Ab minor from the same page is much better, IMHO, but still not as good as the blues demo mentioned above (which you can play with various "brands")

Thanks -- and happy new year!

MacMacMac

EssBrace That sameness across the various PT pianos (starting back in v4 or v5 I think) came as a surprise. I could not (and still cannot) fathom why they go to the trouble of producing a batch of "different" pianos that are all so much alike. There are some who have written that these subtle differences are created by simply tweaking the many adjustments ... the same adjustments that are available to the user. I do not know whether or not that is true. But I'm not a fan of any those tweaked versions.

EssBrace I just can't mentally 'relate' to the sounds because there's a synthetic nature to them - it's very difficult to define exactly what's wrong but it astounds me that some people simply don't hear it at all.

That's the most perplexing part. I can easily see/feel/hear that PT is very responsive. Top notch in that respect. But the synthetic nature of the middle four octaves is unbearable. And the feeling that I'm hearing a piano being played in another room rather than in front of me is startling. Those two aspects of the sound render it unusable.

danno858

EssBrace Completely agree

QuasiUnaFantasia

I also find it amazing when people can't hear the uniqueness in Pianoteq's sound (but as I've mentioned before, there is the Laurel/Yanni conundrum, so the issue is a well-known one). However, even though many of the Pianoteq "instruments" sound quite alike, there are also differences. If you play the 1922 Erard out of the box, it does emphatically NOT sound like all the regular "instruments". Seek the difference, and ye shall find it.

But there is another issue which is impossible to ignore: the number of parameters available to influence the sound is very large, which means that Pianoteq sounds exist in a high-dimensional space. It is very … nay VERY difficult to search through that space to find the "best" place, and thereby the best preset. It's the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Del Vento

QuasiUnaFantasia I also find it amazing when people can't hear the uniqueness in Pianoteq's sound

I can. And as I said I don't like it. However, with recordings or demo I tried, I can hear the uniqueness of sampled pianos too (e.g. Garritan, VSL) and NONE sound anywhere close to the recording of the acoustic the claim to represent. So I similarly find amazing when people rave about these other products :-)

QuasiUnaFantasia but as I've mentioned before, there is the Laurel/Yanni conundrum, so the issue is a well-known one

That's the first time I hear about that. This auditory "illusion" is compared to the Necker cube or the Face/Vase illusion. For me the other two are totally different: I can see either the vase or the faces (and with effort even both at the same time!!) or either position of the cube at will if I concentrate modestly on what I want. No matter how strongly I tried, for the normal clip I can only hear Laurel and never Yanny. Only doing frequency shift with VLC (Tools->Effects->Audio->Advanced) I could hear Yanny (which was a "burped" Yanny) if I adjusted 12 semitones lower! If I increased that frequency shift slowly, by never more than 1 semitone at the time, I could hear Yanny as high as 2-3 semitones down from normal, but it was very unstable and easily became Laurel). If I did the other way around, i.e. slowly going down in pitch from normal, I could hear Laurel down to 8 or 9 semitone below normal!! At normal speed I only and exclusively and strongly hear Laurel and it's beyond me how anybody could ever even slightly hear Yanny!!!!! Yet, at low pitch shifts I could hear both, but as I said not at will only if "coming" from the appropriate direction. And the extremely funny (almost discomforting) thing is that the clip sounds really different when I hear Laurel vs when I hear Yanny. I mean, with the vase/face, I realize it's the same picture and it's me watching it differently. With this, if it weren't my computer with my software, I would suspect that a virus is changing the behavior and playing different audio files!!!

Thanks for posting!