RIP Assuming that PTQ limiting factor is the FFT at a size
I am not sure Pianoteq is based on FFT… it would be to simple : any MP3 decoder includes a real-time FFT decoder.
The Modartt patent describes an additive synthesis with partial whose the frequency are not multiple of the FFT buffer frequency : you can’t apply (inverse) FFT in this case.
In agreement with Frédéric L, I'm fairly convinced Modartt uses physical based modelling, implying modelling the vibrations of strings and soundboard using differential equations (applied mathematics stuff). FFT does not seem at all relevant here, unless they use them for convenience to operate in the Fourier transformed space, which may or may not apply, but I suspect it doesn't.
Frédéric L I am not sure Pianoteq is based on FFT…
QuasiUnaFantasia FFT does not seem at all relevant here,
Well, we can argue whether or not FFT is "essential" or "convenience" for PTQ and we can look at their patent(s) and paper(s) for that, but in any case it's just speculation, since the software is closed source. What is definitely true is that they do use FFT transforms (and inverse), as it is clear from https://www.modartt.com/user_manual?product=pianoteq&lang=en#intellectual-property
But you guys are nitpicking on a detail. My (admittedly poorly explained) point was "the CPU improvements these days are mostly coming from increased number of cores and only a few applications can take fully advantage of that", hence PTQ can not "ride" the CPU speed increase as many applications did before 2007. Yes, PTQ can "ride" marginal increases in overall CPU performance, which are still happening, but those are marginal. On the other hand, sample-based virtual pianos can "ride" the storage speed and capacity increases which are happening at faster pace compared to CPU performance increase. And I say that with discomfort, because from a software point of view I like PTQ much better, but the hardware situation is what it is. In the end, anyway, as @MacMacMac says
MacMacMac All that matters is the result.
Didn't someone from Modartt say that Pianoteq is partly pre-rendered and that it's not actually doing all the calculations in real time. Whether that's just the software taking shortcuts to get the same result as running entirely in real time on a supercomputer, or if it's something approaching finished samples, it doesn't really matter.
I think it's very unlikely that the differences between say a Blüthner and a Steinway model come from physical measurements e.g. soundboard wood properties of actual instruments. The Bechstein model didn't even use a real piano, but a sampled one, so unlesss they use a different type of model for that, I assume they fit whatever parameters they can to match the sound.
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.
Johnstaf Didn't someone from Modartt say that Pianoteq is partly pre-rendered and that it's not actually doing all the calculations in real time.
The Modart patent describes a synthesis module (quite simple additive synthesis) and a « presynthesis » module.
Then one module pre rendered wouldn’t surprise me.
See https://patents.google.com/patent/US7915515B2/en
The idea of the patent is to pre-calculate within the presynthesis some coefficients used afterward in the synthesis module for some velocities, then with interpolation of the actual velocity we can get the coefficients to be used.
RIP But you guys are nitpicking on a detail.
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).
Never mind Laurel and Yanny, maybe the real correlation is between what people think of Pianoteq and what they think the Modartt patent is saying.
xooorx Never mind Laurel and Yanny, maybe the real correlation is between what people think of Pianoteq and what they think the Modartt patent is saying.
I've expressed that idea many times, of course I'm on the other side of the fence but I basically agree it works both ways. For instance, I think some people who love Pianoteq are mostly preconditions by the assumption of how better the modeling approach should be compared to sampling. And an opposite explanation can also be found I guess. For instance I started following Pianoteq since version 1 and at the beginning I really wanted to believe it is the superior approach but was repeatedly disappointed by those initial versions which were pure cr*p, let's face it. I guess the long history of subpar piano sound with all the Pianoteq versions up to 4 might have influenced me to the point I'm now very disappointed by modeling at all, in principle, and thus I tend to expect the worst before even hearing what the actual progress is. I think I may have exaggerated how bad Pianoteq currently is. It's not bad. But I still wouldn't use it for either personal playing, nor audio exports for my videos since I sincerely and honestly find sample-based pianos to work better for me in both cases.
Isn't this a contradiction?
CyberGene I think I may have exaggerated how bad Pianoteq currently is. It's not bad.
But I still wouldn't use it for either personal playing, nor audio exports for my videos since I sincerely and honestly find sample-based pianos to work better for me in both cases.
It's not bad … but you won't use it. To me that seems to say "it's bad".
To be perfectly frank, I find it amazing that a synthesis method (or modeling, or whatever it is called and is just a few megabytes) can produce a very realistic piano sound 🙂 Well, I wouldn't use it because I personally don't like it but I think it's more than good for what it does with the limited capabilities of their current algorithms and processing power. Kudos for that and I'm not being ironic.
CyberGene To be perfectly frank, I find it amazing that a synthesis method (or modeling, or whatever it is called and is just a few megabytes) can produce a very realistic piano sound
Finally, an admission! 😀
Gestapo Pete gets a confession from CG ?
CyberGene I guess the long history of subpar piano sound with all the Pianoteq versions up to 4 might have influenced me to the point I'm now very disappointed by modeling at all, in principle, and thus I tend to expect the worst before even hearing what the actual progress is.
I started with Pianoteq 5 and wasn't convinced by it either.
IMHO the best would be a cross-over of both worlds: modeling with samples (gee, where did I hear that?) or wavelets or something like that. I see it like this: PTQ is a specialized MP3 format for pianos. It's a stripped down version of the real thing, essentially using piano-psycho-acoustics. Put in some computing-intensive pre-rendered samples as the basis for the live modeling and it could get somewhere. But otherwise it will always try to hide its' inherent simplicity (combined with processing power abuse) and remain at the mp3 fidelity level. 🤓
I stumbled across this old, rather interesting thread and decided to add my two cents even if time has passed.
I just donated my Yamaha CLP115 (2003) to a music school, and have played with PTQ 8 demo quite a bit. As much as I cherished my Clavinova, I think there's no comparison whatsoever to PTQ when it comes to sound quality, realism, depth, etc. The Clavinova's timbre was very nice, but the difference is still huge.
Even though--after much tweaking and tinkering (and possibly getting accustomed to it)--I start to like my Roland F107's partially-modeled Supernatural sound better, I still think PTQ has an edge in terms of roundness and presence. PTQ basses are pleasanter and the trebbles are have more spark. I ignore the exact specs of most digital pianos sound engines, but my impression is that most VSTs sound better.
This is both baffling, since the main feature of DPs should be a great sound, but also makes sense, since if they weren't better, VSTs wouldn't have any reason to exist.
As for sampled libraries size vs modeled software, my take is this. While libraries might be comparatively big (say 5/6GB), SFZ players are rather economical. I made lots of testing, and PTQ consumption of both CPU juice and RAM is always higher than even the biggest SFZ libraries I play.
Just an aside.
As anyone new to pianos, I'm a sucker for the real thing. The other night, out of curiosity, I wen't to try a 1926 very well kept Cable baby grand for sale. I was quite excited, never played an acoustic before. Of course, it was quite a shock. Even compared to the Roland, it sounded disappointing. But I'll keep trying to play other acoustics to get a better perspective. For now, digitals are still the way to go for me, but some day, who knows?
It used to be the case (I don't know if it still is) that the memory used to store samples in digitals was much more expensive than computer memory. Digitals pianos have to prioritise reliability, simplicity, and usability, and it would probably take a very long time for a digital piano to start up if it had to load larger sample libraries, or to switch between piano sounds.
Many digital synthesisers now use Raspberry Pi or something similar, and we'll probably eventually see a digital piano that can run a decent-sized sample library.
I prefer Roland's modelled sound to that of Pianoteq. I don't particularly like either.
Johnstaf Everything you say, makes perfect sense. In fact, as someone noted somewhere in this thread, money-wise it seems more viable to buy a DP with a good action and rely on a VST for recording or sound quality. I don't know if this apply to high end DPs though, since I've never played one.
amc252 I wen't to try a 1926 very well kept Cable baby grand for sale. I was quite excited, never played an acoustic before. Of course, it was quite a shock. Even compared to the Roland, it sounded disappointing.
It was in good condition? I still find DP's digital reproductions of the real thing. An entirely analog piano allows a the player a closer connection to controlling the sound, and a real piano projects sound in a much different way than almost all DP's. Perhaps you just didn't like the tone of that particular piano. And perhaps you're used to concert grand samples or emulations that have a richer bass than a baby grand.