Virtual piano comparison

Pathbreaker you can’t upload files as a newbie, which is a protection against spammers. I made you a regular. You should be able to upload now. You can edit your post now and upload the files directly.

That makes sense, thank you @CyberGene ! They are a bit over 30mb so I will adjust them down and then share when I get a chance.

Here's the new files:

N1X external

v-20241115-130302-es0-15-11-24-15-30-14-429-brahms-116-6-norm.mp3

Mondern D

3253-3739-brahms-116-6-modern-d-11-15-24.mp3

Garritan CFX

3253-3739-brahms-116-6-garritan-cfx-11-15-24.mp3

I think the N1X external recording benefits a lot from the additional compression. There's so much noise in that recording. I could have made it better if I had a clue what I was doing. I took the video recording (there is more than one video version that goes with these), removed the audio into a wav, then normalized that in audacity (the only way I know how to make it somewhat presentable). Then I exported that wav to mp3 in this most recent upload. I think it makes for a good comparison of all 3. The VST versions came from cubase as wav files but I still did a default normalize in audacity for those. Then the same mp3 export to reduce the size.

I'm also reviewing your original post again and will try your garritan midi file in my own preset. Yours sounds amazing so I might want to try it (not sure if you posted it anywhere). Also, I never would have guessed the first one was pianoteq since it sounded way better than I expected.

I would run it through Ivory 3 if I knew how to render the midi file through cubase. Same with Modern D, I don't know how to do that. I only know it in the Aria player for Garritan, so I always record the Modern D performance through cubase as I play it and that's what generates the midi file which I render in Garritan. I previously did it the same with with Ivory 3. Some of the Modern D performances suffer from this since I can't respond to that piano's behavior. The garritan suffers a little less because it's a similar piano behavior to the N1X CFX.

CyberGene curious to hear your opinion on the later files I posted for Kawai and Bösendorfer, I don’t hear the extra ringing on the Kawai one, for example, but we don’t all have the same ears.

dikrek sorry, I’ve been a bit busy these days. I will listen to these files when I have some time for music.

@CyberGene "Piano 2" sounds richer and fuller than "Piano 1", I like it better. However, I'd say that 1 might suit better certain scenarios in a mix, however for solo stuff I'd definetely choose 2. 😉

dikrek I just listened to these two Kawai demos of PT. The first one is your best so far. And is probably the least noticeable Pianoteq I’ve heard. There are only certain places where I can somehow notice unnatural blending of some phrases but if I’m not concentrated I may not notice it’s Pianoteq. They should hire you to make patches for them 😃 That’s still not at Garritan CFX level though (my second example in the very first post) but is much better than that PT preset in my first example which is awful.

Your second file is not as good though.

In all examples, the Pianoteq samples sound to me more nasal, brighter, with more mid/high-mid frequency information, less sustain and sharper transient. These are the things that I'm looking for the least in a solo piano context – I would rather aim for a piano with richer overtones, darker, more low-mids, beter sustain for ballads. Highs and high mids I can always easily acquire even with simple post EQ, but the other characteristics that I mentioned above are not so easily achievable.

I remember using back in the day Synthogy Ivory Studio for solo piano/recital performances, and to make it even fuller sounding had to add post EQ + slight tube saturation, so then it sounded "real". Nowadays I can live with the integrated samples of my Numa Compact 2, however for recordings I would rather look at something at the level of Garritan CFX. Here's an example sound of the library:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKejrqV9N88

Koobenot even this sounds nasal to you?

https://pianoclack.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2024-11-12/1731444888-125331-pianoteq-kawai-midi-2.flac

I haven’t EQd it - it would be trivial to do so.

CyberGene thanks but I haven’t modified almost anything. I use the basic Stage version. Just adjusted instrument conditions, increased dynamic range a bit, lowered volume, removed limiter, lowered the Pianoteq reverb.

Then I added my usual DAW FX like better reverb and saturation.

The standard version is ridiculously tweakable and it’s easy to modify it to whatever

I think a lot depends on your speakers or headphones plus the type of music.

Even real recordings sometimes sound plastic and metallic due to micing methods.

dikrek as I said, it sounds good compared to average Pianoteq but nevertheless isn’t something that makes me want it. I responded just because you asked. It’s still far from the good sampled libraries like Garritan CFX and Modern D.

There’s something else though. Where I have most issues with Pianoteq is when I actually play it. I started this thread with a particular Pianoteq preset and an improvisation that meant to target the worst in that preset, those up-down scales, for instance. Not sure how much that’s audible but when I play it myself, it’s awful. Now, you can tweak and re-render to alleviate and remove those. But again, I have most issues with PT when playing it, it’s when I really feel something plastic, the way it responds, the way it blends notes, the sustain. Many people often say: Pianoteq may not sound perfect but is very playable. Well, oddly enough, I think it’s rather the opposite for me, it’s very unplayable but once exported as an audio, it may not easily show what’s bad.

My idea with this discussion (started in 2022) was to check whether I can demo selectively what’s bad in that particular PT preset.

I’m not interested in re-exports of my MIDI files that can fix those issues in PT. It will be fixed for me only if I can play it and not get annoyed. However, I really have no time for that recently, I don’t even have time for playing the piano at all, unfortunately 😕 And I’ve consistently proven to myself that Pianoteq never works for me when playing it, regardless of what tweaks and settings are applied.

CyberGene FYI both Kawai demos I did use the exact same settings and FX. I just replaced the MIDI file. Given the style of playing is similar, not sure why the second one sounds different to you. Human hearing is funny.

also - all the FX are zero latency so this sound is something people can do real-time.

dikrek FYI both Kawai demos I did use the exact same settings and FX. I just replaced the MIDI file. Given the style of playing is similar, not sure why the second one sounds different to you. Human hearing is funny.

My MIDI file 1 was recorded when playing Pianoteq, while file 2 was when playing Gartitan CFX, so my touch would depend on the aural feedback I was getting from the actual piano. Thus the touch response might be different. Funnily enough, the non-Pianoteq file sounds better with Pianoteq in your exports 😃 BTW, I always felt that I played better in the second file because the playability and sound of Garritan CFX inspired me and improved my feel.

To add to the confusion, when I said your “first” file, it was actually my MIDI file 2 since that’s how you ordered your links 😃

CyberGene cool - anyway, now you know the only difference is the MIDI file itself. And pianoteq is crazy configurable regarding touch response.

vagfilm Hey Vagfilm
Just dropped you a message on the PianoWorld forum about your post on the velocity script. That idea of generating a full curve from a few velocity mappings is super cool . I’d definitely be interested if you decide to share that Python script. thank You

[deleted]

Hi. I don't visit the PianoWorld forum anymore.

To be quite honest, I don't remember what was my idea about the velocity mapping (which means that the idea was probably not that good 😊). As far as I can tell, I don't remember doing any python script on midi mapping.

Was that about having individual midi mappings for each key? So the mapping in bass keys was diffferent from treble keys? Or was it something different? If it was the individual mapping, that is an easy script to create, but quite useless and difficult to calibrate. Not really worthwhile…

vagfilm its ok man..Thanks so much for getting back to me here..and no worries at all if you don't remember the original idea clearly. It .. something you posted a few years ago.

The post I was referring to was actually your old one on the Kontakt velocity mapping, where you shared a script for remapping MIDI input velocities using a %map[128] array. I thought it was a clever workaround..to shape response curves in Kontakt. Your suggestion about using Excel to generate the curve and then pasting it into the KSP script struck me as something that could potentially be automated with a bit of Python, hence my question.

I was mostly curious whether you'd ever gone that route..automating the creation of the 128-value curve, possibly interpolated from just a few anchor points. Totally fair if you didn’t, of course. Just thought I’d check in case anything came from that idea since.

Anyway  thanks ..)

this is your post 2022

''I have made a small Kontakt script for velocity mapping. It is convenient and can be adapted to any Kontakt library, but it still is a pain to fine tune the curve...

What you do is:

1. Open Kontakt and the library (Noire in this case)

2. Click the KSP button on the top right (below the NI logo and CPU meter)

3. On the window that opens, paste the following code:

on init
declare %map[128]:=(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,...
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,...
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,...
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,...
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,...
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,...
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,...
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 )
end on

on midi_in
if ($MIDI_COMMAND = $MIDI_COMMAND_NOTE_ON)
ignore_midi
set_midi ($MIDI_CHANNEL,$MIDI_COMMAND_NOTE_ON,$MIDI_BYTE_1,%map[$MIDI_BYTE_2])
end if
end on

and then you wrote .. If this velocity script is of interest to a few, let me know and I may write a simple Python script to generate a full velocity curve from a list of mappings. You simply provide a few mapping points velocity-in, velocity-out such as:

2,2

10,8

60,40

90,72

127,120

and the program will generate the entire range of 128 values, ready to be copied and paste into the Kontakt script.

PS It works for me as is, but that Python script you mentioned..to generate a full velocity curve from a list of mappings...would definitely make things more comfortable..I just wanted to ask in case you had something in mind back then..