vagfilm can you please listen to your files with headphones. Is it how you expect it to sound? Just to eliminate it's not something messed up in the rendering.
And of course we have different tastes about pianos, otherwise there wouldn't be Pianoteq and so many flame threads, and all the hundreds of sampled pianos 😃
🍻
To be honest, I put the file into reaper, render it, and upload, with only a marginal listening with the earphones. Did not use the good phones, but frankly it sounded ok...
I've re-rendered CG's Piano 1. MP3 is provided for folks with slower connections. I would love to hear what folks think about this render, including criticisms. It sounds amazing to me. 🤷♂️
navindra I've re-rendered CG's Piano 1. MP3 is provided for folks with slower connections. I would love to hear what folks think about this render, including criticisms. It sounds amazing to me.
Too shrill for me. I have to lower the volume when the upper-mid and upper register notes are played. To my ears the VSL BI has an even tone from top to bottom. It sounds good no matter what register is being played.
God Bless,
David
navindra Listen to what starts at 0:52, the scales. I think it still retains the metallic hollowness, becoming congested and muddy, almost like losing high fidelity and lacking the "wooden" ambiance of piano, instead becoming kind of synthetic. It's very difficult to describe that with words but listen to the VSL BI or the Fazioli rendering at the same spot to compare. Maybe it's a matter of taste after all. I can re-render that with Garritan too (since that was the PT MIDI file).
navindra Hmmm, is this an improvement for you?
Improvement compared to what?
David B Your previous criticism regarding shrillness.
navindra Hmmm, is this an improvement for you?
Well, I think it is an improvement, although not enough but it is. What did you change? However after 1:20 the short scales that I do slightly higher still have that shrillness.
CyberGene Interesting. The EQ3 effect was boosting the higher freqs, so I just set it to flat (I guess I could have just disabled the effect entirely). I also decreased the Hammer hardness at Forte from where I originally had it at 1.28 to 1.08, making the tone mellower at higher velocities.
navindra I remember when I was beta-testing one of the Pianoteq versions (Grotrian, if I remember correctly). I would do exactly the same comparisons as this one and Philippe and the team would take it into account and would attempt to fix it in the next beta version. However we didn't know what they did, it was just an iterative approach and it was always they fixed something I didn't like in a version but then something else was worse elsewhere... I've been a little disappointed by that and is when I lost my faith in Pianoteq. I guess it may be possible that what Modartt do behind the scenes, if exposed to more people in an extended Pro version would be better. However they probably do the offline recalculations and whatever their secret sauce is.
navindra Your previous criticism regarding shrillness.
I'm not sure if it's an improvement. I'm not a fan of enchiladas no matter how my wife prepares them. 😀
God Bless,
David
I think the boxy sound was a conjugation of wrong setting of render volume with Reaper and lack of normalization. I redid the renders, and since the original file uses low MIDI values, I now used the linear MIDI velocity in the Synchron player. If there is "nasalness" here, I have been calling nasal to something else...
Among all of these, I like the original PTQ from @CyberGene which I have been able to reproduce with my demo from his MIDI. The original Garritan is a close second.
All the rest are quite distant from that sense of presence, power and delicacy of these two. And many have a rather questionable timbre that I don't like, particularly the VSL! The Fazioli is fantastic for being a free library, but I like PTQ and Garritan much better.
Actually, I initially tried rendering the MIDI file with PTQ Classic (rather than "Classical Recording", see the description in CG's post) and it sound horrible, that setting is definitely the worse of the group. Since everybody can do that rendering on their own with a PTQ demo, I'm not bothering to post it, but I encourage everybody to do a comparison between the two… For this MIDI file that setting is unacceptable IMHO (so much for all PTQ instruments and settings sound all the same: to me the best and the worse are the same PTQ instrument with only slight differences in settings…. Does anybody know, perhaps @navindra, what the differences are between the two?)
RIP I don't have any insights other than what they advertise. Classical may be better for a player perspective and Classical Recording for an audience perspective.
Personally, I started from Classical Recording and created a player perspective from it for my day to day usage.
Classical: This preset offers a BA micing perspective with a classical sound.
Classical Recording: This preset is recommended for classical recording. Equipped with 4 mics: BA micing plus 2 ambience mics.
The differences are fairly extensive, howeve:
navindra I don't have any insights other than what they advertise.
Thanks, even just that is more than I knew 🙂
navindra Classical may be better for a player perspective and Classical Recording for an audience perspective.
Frankly I don't hear much "difference" from that point of view in PTQ. The mono/recording/binaural/stereo do have a difference between them, but it's not as dramatic as e.g. recordings of Matthew Lien on YT when a binaural mic. Perhaps we can start a separate thread on this topic.
navindra The differences are fairly extensive, however:
I see, that's quite a long list and of some changes that are pretty dramatic for the timbre.
But you did not comment on my main claim:
RIP Among all of these, I like the original PTQ from @CyberGene which I have been able to reproduce with my demo from his MIDI. The original Garritan is a close second.
RIP I initially tried rendering the MIDI file with PTQ Classic (rather than "Classical Recording", see the description in CG's post) and it sound horrible, that setting is definitely the worse of the group.
What do you think about this rating? I know you must prefer yours, but do you hear such a large difference?
FWIW, I re-listened to it now, and as usual my impressions of PTQ change from one day to the other… Not as dramatically as in other cases for this test, but I would not call the difference so total as I did yesterday. I relistened to some of them and still VSL is definitely not my favorite, it sounds very synthetic to me 🤯
RIP What do you think about this rating? I know you must prefer yours, but do you hear such a large difference?
Among the Pianoteq options in this thread, I still like my Bluebird preset the best -- surprise! 😃
To satisfy your curiosity, I also tried to play with the Classical preset and I hated it. It is very loud and very direct, but it feels unrefined to me in terms of tone/control/dynamic range. I'm not sure why Modartt made it the first preset, but I didn't spend any time trying to fix it either as I have good presets already.
FWIW, I re-listened to it now, and as usual my impressions of PTQ change from one day to the other… Not as dramatically as in other cases for this test, but I would not call the difference so total as I did yesterday. I relistened to some of them and still VSL is definitely not my favorite, it sounds very synthetic to me 🤯
I don't think you can replay a MIDI against different VSTs (or even presets in some cases) and make truly valid comparisons.
Ever since David's videos, I've admired the Bosendorfer Imperial and Modern U but not the 280VC (as it just sounds like Pianoteq). I'm happy with Pianoteq U4 as Modern U equivalent, but I'd like something like the Bosendorfer Imperial in Pianoteq as well.
The Bosendorfer Imperial is quite special in my opinion.
navindra To satisfy your curiosity, I also tried to play with the Classical preset and I hated it.
Thanks, good to know it was not just me
navindra I don't think you can replay a MIDI against different VSTs (or even presets in some cases) and make truly valid comparisons.
Yes, I agree. But since we are making such a comparison anyway, I am posting my impressions 😆
I preferred number 2 for its less bright tone.
Also, I thought number 2 had too much extra sound outside the fundamental tone, perhaps resonance or harmonics.
Both pianos seemed like they were played with a lot of pedal.
navindra Ever since David's videos, I've admired the Bosendorfer Imperial and Modern U but not the 280VC (as it just sounds like Pianoteq). I'm happy with Pianoteq U4 as Modern U equivalent, but I'd like something like the Bosendorfer Imperial in Pianoteq as well.
I've owned every VSL Synchron Piano library at one time and the only one I find myself playing everyday is the Bösendorfer Imperial. Each one has a unique attribute that I appreciate, but the BI is the only one I feel has a more complete package. It's nice to have options and it's great to find something that inspires us. Tonight I switched to the N1X internal CFX sound and it only took a few minutes to realize how disappointing it is compared to the VSL BI.
God Bless,
David