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.
dore_m The piano was in good condition, the paint was flawless LOL (old joke, I know). Actually, I think it might need tuning and some regulation, but was overall well kept and has been rebuilt not long ago. I didn't expect the same clarity of a DP, and I'm aware even the best baby grands have a smaller sound than what you hear on a concert grand, even if sampled. Which would be okay with me since I play jazz and don't need a big sound.
At my present level, I'm fine with a DP, but sure an acoustic, even as an object, has an attraction, and I'd like to get to the point where I can really could use one some day. I strumped a couple of upright before, but this was the first time I played a baby grand. I think a newer piano would be closer to what I'm accustomed to. I'll keep looking, as any discovery proecess, it's fascinating.
Where I live there are no piano stores and it's hard come across grand pianos to try. There's a Chas. M. Stieff 9 footer for sale 100 miles away. I wouldn't even fit into my house, but I'd sure like to try it to see what is like to play a concert grand.
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. …
I don't have much experience with grands, but when I was trying some uprights I wasn't happy with the sound of new entry models under 120cm of any of the popular brands available in stores around here. While used acoustic pianos often sound dull due to worn hammers. On a budget, finding a good acoustic piano is quite challenging 😉
Pianoteq's pros:
MacMacMac 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."
A long overdue follow-up, but WTH ... another lovely item from my dad:
A flat tire isn't so bad. It's only flat on the bottom!
I started with Pianoteq 2.3 and gave up on it after version 6. Yes, it's small, runs on anything, fun to tinker with, but the only "piano" in the line up that I feel sounds acceptable is the Erard 1922, and that comes from the KIVIR project. All of the other "pianos" remind me of the General Midi voice "Jazz Guitar" with various degrees of EQ.
On the other hand, what I like about Pianoteq is how easy it is to produce a midi file, even from something you might have played in the past few minutes, a day ago, or longer. I also think it's fun to play odd notes and see what chord Pianoteq thinks I'm playing. Beyond that, I'm pretty done with it.
Piano Monk I started with Pianoteq 2.3 and gave up on it after version 6.
Me too.
Version 2 was utter crap. To call it a piano is like saying an outhouse is like the Biltmore.
Version 3 was notably better, but still crap.
Version 4 was ever so slightly better, but still crap.
After that there was scarcely any change. They just added more so-called piano brands.
I find it quite hopeless.
It's like this. As bruce says/said. Boards don't hit back. So for the board, we have to hit back - for them. Basically, with pianoteq, if it has/had a voice for replying directly to your comment, it would say that your piano and/or music 'skills' are cr$$, or not at a level worthy of using pianoteq. Aka … you do not qualify for using it - until your piano and music etc skills become better.
Basically … you diss it, then it diss you in return.