MacMacMac And the feeling that I'm hearing a piano being played in another room rather than in front of me is startling
That part is really strange (at least to me): Pianoteq can be played without reverb, and with practically no latency (and very loud).
If it doesn’t fit, you must a-quit!
I’m sorry, Mac, that’s just the way it works. I don’t make up the rules; I simply enforce them!
So I say, a-quit now, and stop trying to fit an elephant into a tutu!
Clarification: the elephant in the proverbial room represents ‘samples’, and we, the new ‘reality’, embody the tutu. You don’t want to tear the tutu into pieces, now do you?
QuasiUnaFantasia That part is really strange (at least to me): Pianoteq can be played without reverb, and with practically no latency (and very loud).
I wasn't clear about that ...
It's not a lack of loudness. It's a sense that the piano is elsewhere.
Note: I use headphones. Would the impression be different if listening through speakers?
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!
RIP No matter how strongly I tried, for the normal clip I can only hear Laurel and never Yanny.
Let's see if there is any correlation between what we hear in this test and how we like PTQ. Vote here: https://pianoclack.com/forum/d/277-pianoteq-laurel-and-yanny-what-do-you-hear-and-like
This is a good description. When approaching a distant piano (or perhaps, one being played in a far room of the house, around a corner or two), the most apparent deficiency would be the absence of volume. However, a secondary deficiency is that through the effects of intervening walls, hallway turns and corners, and other factors, there is also a difference in the sound quality apart from volume. If one could amplify this sound it would just become a louder distant sound. It seems as if there is some element in a real piano tone that Pianoteq misses.
I've been tinkering with Pianoteq recently. I've been greatly elevating the velocities of my VPC1 keys using the VPC1 Editor while simultaneously diminishing the volume level via the Ptq Note Editor, and vice versa. I think I'm starting to notice that the distant characteristic is part of the note fundamental sound, not the harmonics, attack, or resonances. When sounding Ptq notes with hammer hardness reduced and hammer noise reduced and with velocities set low to remove the brightness, the Ptq note should sound like a plucked or strummed piano string. But, it does not. The stripped down Ptq notes just sound like an on-tone sound from some distance away.
Frankly I never have this impression. And I am constantly exposed to "a piano played elsewhere", for example right now my daughter is playing our acoustic M&H several rooms down the house. The sound does not have any of the "bad" qualities of PTQ, even with closed door. I experimented a bit with it, and the most I could make was to add some "nasalness" by listening to it with the closed door, one ear attached to the door and the other closed with my finger. Yet, I think the "bad" part of PTQ sound is elsewhere, but I still can't point it out.
Ralphiano I've been tinkering with Pianoteq recently.
Looking forward to hearing more about that.
RIP 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.
Deleted For me PC software is stuck right in the 1980s, up there with FM synthesis and early attempts on brute-force sampling.
You forget to mention that in the 1980s, there was not streaming and the memory size was up to 1MB. Now, sample streaming can make available multiple GB of samples. Many virtual pianos also add sympathetic resonance or other piano details we haven’t in the 1980s.
It is like saying Formula 1 are stucked with the four stroke engine of the late 19th century.
I don’t see it that way…….
Yes, we have more space to store massive sampled pianos, and yes, we can add ‘sympathetic resonances’, etc; but in the end, this is all pre-recorded in very much the same way it was done back in the 80s; only, now they’re using slightly better microphones; still, it will always be a recorded event that was and is inherently limited.
There’s only so many ‘resonances’ that can be captured/sampled and then reproduced by the player; unlike the real thing, where resonances seem infinite, and modelling gets much closer to this.
Sampling has reached its limit (as a technology); whereas, modelling is just taking off. I don’t understand why more people can’t see this, and instead obsess over subjective perspectives as to what a real piano should sound like.
I’m sure that Beethoven’s piano sounded very ‘real’ to him, but by today’s standards I’m not sure that many would like that ‘tiny sound’ with ‘short decay’.
Regarding samples ...
Pete14 it will always be a recorded event that was and is inherently limited.
You forgot one thing: At least it will sound like a piano!
No, it will sound like Mac’s idea of a piano!
Pete14 I’m sure that Beethoven’s piano sounded very ‘real’ to him, but by today’s standards I’m not sure that many would like that ‘tiny sound’ with ‘short decay’.
That is very true. In fact we have many historical instruments like these and we don't have to guess what they sounded: some people can try it. I haven't tried any myself, but I'm told that they sounded much more like an harpsichord than a piano. So tiny sound and short decay is exactly how I'd describe a piano sounding like an harpsichord.
Now, that said, if one simply wanted a different instrument, they will be used a synth. With PTQ, people want something that is "somewhat" resembling a piano. A few can hear a huge difference between PTQ and an acoustic piano, and still liking PTQ. But the majority either hears a huge difference and dislikes PTQ, or does not hear that much of a difference, and likes PTQ.
Pete14 There’s only so many ‘resonances’ that can be captured/sampled and then reproduced by the player; unlike the real thing, where resonances seem infinite, and modelling gets much closer to this.
It's not so clear cut. Many "samplers" use modeled resonances, and AFAIK, even PTQ uses samples for the hammer impact on the strings and for the action noises.
Good points, delvento.
But if I may go out on a limb, is there something more important than just the ‘piano-sound’?
I mean, Glenn Gould once said he didn’t like the sound of the piano, and on the face of it this sounds counterintuitive, or just GG being GG; but I think he was making a bigger point about the fact that the process/act of playing the piano is in fact more important than the resulting sound itself; because, let’s face it, there is a sameness that simmers in after years and years of listening to ‘the piano’; however, the almost evangelical act of sitting down in front of this machine, as if for a prayer, is what truly keeps us going.
Sampling is a sin!
It’s me, again, but I felt it necessary to make a clarification for those who are not very clear about Pete!
Yes, I ended my previous post with a little peteism (an attempt at a joke), and whilst I’m certain that some ‘get’ this, others might not; so, yes, the GG statement is very real (look it up, if you will), and yes, I truly believe we do obsess too much over what ‘sounds like a piano’, and not enough over other more-nuanced aspects of playing the piano. The line, ‘as if for a prayer’ is meant to be poetic, but if some find it absurd, that’s also fine.
There’s a difference between living in ‘The Matrix’ completely oblivious of the fact, and/or simply tapping into it occasionally; because the ‘real’ world can be so much more absurd.
BTW, is this place still catering to going off-topic?
EssBrace Completely agree
Pete14 There’s a difference between living in ‘The Matrix’ completely oblivious of the fact, and/or simply tapping into it occasionally; because the ‘real’ world can be so much more absurd.
The point is not here… I prefer to « go in the Matrix » and play without disturbing my family with half finished pieces of music, it would be a casus belly ! (My choice of a N1X was « as close as possible to the real thing without disturbing my family »). Then the question is not in or out the Matrix, but between a realistic Matrix, and a vectorised approximation of the Matrix. Nowadays, only sampled based virtual pianos are the most accurate. Perhaps modelled piano will be better if I wait for a time. But Pianoteq and Roland didn’t convinced me.
I really wonder why there is so much discussion on this kind of matters. Piano playing for us, amateurs, in mostly for our own pleasure. So, if someone enjoys Pianoteq better than, let's say, VSL Synchron Pianos, or it is the other way… why should anyone else discuss that and say absolutely things, as if there is only one truth?
My 10 months old grandson enjoys his toy piano (*) better than my acoustic upright. Should I forbid him to enjoy his piano, as it is just a lofi sampled piano sound, zero pivot length and has no sustain?
I know sometimes discussion here is just for the joy of it, but I get tired of this ping-pong threads.
Yes, I can just ignore them and keep playing what I enjoy, I know…
Jose
(*) A gift from his grandfather 😃
I was just trying to stress that 1980s samples and 2020s samples pianos are a bit different : we can’t underestimate the difference.
It is the same with modelling : in 1980s, we had roughly FM, now, Pianoteq is likely (according to a Modartt patent) to use heavily a additive synthesis.
And yes, we should use what enjoy us the most, be it acoustic (if neighbourhoods constraints permit), modelled, samples…
Frédéric L Perhaps modelled piano will be better if I wait for a time. But Pianoteq and Roland didn’t convinced me.
Not ‘perhaps’; it’s a given that modelled pianos will be better in the not-so-distant future.
So, you’re not fully ‘convinced’, and I respect that; but if I may, I wasn’t very convinced by the very first iPhone, and said, “it’ll never be better than my BlackBerry”; well, the iPhone has rendered the BlackBerry obsolete (go ahead, anyone, try using your BlackBerry). Yes, the BB has been officially taken off life-support!
Samples, as delvento points out, are now modelling resonances, and this is an admission that mics can’t capture the elusive and mysterious resonance(s) the way modelling does.
I’m not saying we take samples off life-support now, but pretty soon the burden will be burdensome, expensive, and not worth the effort; and, like the BB, samples will be humanely put to sleep.
Now, Mac says we’re decades away from the future; I say we’re no more than a few years away, so, go ahead, place your bets!