KVR :: View topic - Best Plugin For Solo Piano Works ???

KVR :: Instruments » Best Plugin For Solo Piano Works ??? [View Original Topic]
There are 141 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2

musicworld - Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:14 pm

Hi

With the intent on recording a solo piano album what VST plugin would be best recommended ? I've sampled through EWQL Pianos, Galaxy 2, Steinway Vintage D and Ivory 2.

I know it's down to personal preference but advice would be helpful.

Thanks.

Shy - Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:21 pm

If you want to record a solo piano album and must use a virtual piano, use a Yamaha CP300 (rent it or something if you must). It's the only virtual piano other than CP5 and CP1 that will give you a really good sound for a solo piano album. Before anyone says "but hey it's not a plugin and this is a plugin forum", whatever, I don't have the heart to tell the guy to use any of the plugins he mentioned for his solo piano album.

anzoid - Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:43 pm

You could check out 4Front's "TruePianos" and the very very recently (like yesterday) released Pianoteq 4 by Modartt. They're both physically modelled pianos rather than a bunch of samples (no offense to samples...) From what I understand they have both been used on solo projects quite successfully.

lowcloud - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:09 pm

You probably don't need another option, but Sampletekk 'Black' is a recently released piano plugin.
http://www.sampletekk.com/proddetail.php?prod=STDELIVER-039-KONT

qube123 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:17 pm

Of that list I've used EWQL & Ivory 2. I think the East West plug has a slight edge on the sound, just sounds more inviting. Both need a decent machine with SSD's to get high polyphony. They also can sound a little raw on their own and need a bit of production adding to them to get the right sound.

EvilDragon - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:43 pm

Solo piano? Pianoteq 4, freshly released! Nothing else plays better or sounds better.

www.pianoteq.com

Burillo - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:49 pm

I second Pianoteq... finally, string resonance done right! you can silently press and hold a note, then hit an octave-lower note (and quickly release it) and hear how your original note resonates. Try that with sampled instruments.

qube123 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:52 pm

I demoed Pianoteq 3 and although it was nice n light it sounded too 'modeled' & artificial for me. Not tried 4 mind so that might be a lot better.

EvilDragon - Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:55 pm

PTQ4 is indeed another quantum leap in modeling achievements. A lot of satisfied users back at Modartt forums, seems like everybody loved the upgrade price of 29€ (and mind you the upgrade price for Pianoteq 1-3 was FREE!). I must say that I absolutely adore the addition of convolution reverb, preamp simulation (a Fender Bassman, so it's great for EPs!), and compressor.

EvilDragon - Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:01 am

Burillo wrote:

Yep, that doesn't happen with sampled pianos. And no sampled piano has repedalling done correctly, no sampled piano has the harmonic pedal (which is an amazing effect in its own right!), no sampled piano has a correct response when hitting an already vibrating string (phase cancellations occur, this thing is pretty much impossible to achieve with samples), etc...

Nothing plays like Pianoteq. Bar none.

Shy - Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:23 am

I've tried to figure out how much better Pianoteq 4 is than 3, and I can just say not much, and it's definitely not something I'd use for a solo piano album.

THIS is something I'd use. It sounds excellent and like an actual, quality piano (even YouTube's horrible compression can't hide that) and it's very "playable" as well (just like CP300). Sorry about my earlier post, I completely forgot about the CP33 which has the same sounds but costs half as much as CP300.
When some software gives me something like it, I'd instantly recommend it for a solo piano album and more.

Edit: demos with better sound quality here and here

afreshcupofjoe - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:05 am

Are you joking, Shy? I can't imagine you are serious. The CP300 uses a 40mb 3 layer sample set. It may be a really nicely sampled piano, but it's still a 40mb sample set with only 3 velocity layers. That's laughable compared to most software sample sets. Physical modelling plugins like Pianoteq and sample sets like Ivory have surpassed the CP300 by miles. The CP300 not even in the same league as far as sound authenticity. I listened to that youtube clip and quite honestly it sounds incredibly fake and silly.

It's a very nice keyboard and I'm sure it's a great instrument for performance or to use as a midi controller. I'm sure it's a dream to play, but as a sound module for recording a solo piano album? Come on! Laughing

Shy - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:13 am

No, I'm not kidding. I don't know what it uses, but it sounds much better than Ivory at anything (and sounds more "authentic"). If you listen to Pianoteq and still think it can be suitable for a solo album, what can I say? "Are you joking" is one thing I could say.

Kees49 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:16 am

I just tried the demo of Pianoteq 4. It sounds very artificial.
The best piano I can recommend is TruePianos, the Emerald module.
It has that woody Steinway sound I like. Love

afreshcupofjoe - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:46 am

Shy wrote:

I don't think there is any substitute for a real piano, personally. But I don't see how it's possible that a 40mb 3 layer sample set sounds "more authentic" than something like Ivory or Pianoteq. I don't care how nice of a keyboard you package that sample set in, it's still a just a 40mb sample set with only 3 velocity layers. The youtube videos don't help your case much. They sound like a digital stage piano to me.

What's more likely, that Yamaha has some sort of magical sampling technology that allows them to cram an unprecedented amount of realism into a 40mb 3 layer sample set, or that you are deluding yourself into thinking the CP300 sounds more realistic because it has a fantastic keyboard that feels and responds like a real piano (with almost zero latency)? My bet is on the latter.

EDIT:

And to the OP, if you want my vote on the most authentic sounding sample set for solo work, definitely give these a look:
http://www.imperfectsamples.com/

For physical modeling I prefer Pianoteq over Truepianos, but personally I would use a sample set for best authenticity if I couldn't record a real piano. As with everything, there are trade-offs, and physical modeled pianos are a lot better for capturing certain nuances of a performance. They also "feel" better than playing a sample set, but in the end I just don't think physical modelling is quite there yet. There is something still too dead and sterile about physically modeled pianos, even though they sound fairly realistic.

-My 2 cents.

fmr - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:52 am

I wonder why didn't anybody mention yet the Roland V Piano (specially the V Piano Grand). If hardware and rental is an option, and the use of a REAL Grand is out of question, my option would be the Roland V Piano Grand. For a plug-in, I would too advise to take a look at 4-Front True Pianos.

EvilDragon - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:11 am

Of course, college of naysay has to have their say. There is really, absolutely nothing fake left in Pianoteq's sound in version 4. Anything else is pure hatetalk or defying to admit superiority, or living in the past still being deluded by samples.

For a solo album? Definitely Pianoteq, because no sample library can do all the intricate things pianos can do. But Pianoteq can. There is nothing to joke about that decision. TruePianos is nowhere near Pianoteq's model.

qube123 - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:23 am

Will try PT again this eve.

My favourite digital piano is the Korg SV-1 think it sounds amazing and very lovely to play.

Most of the difference between hardware keys and plugs is the post-processing on the sound, if you play a plug on it's own it'll often sound a bit raw and cold.

tony tony chopper - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:35 am

for what it's worth, the piano presets in Harmor are progressing:
http://www.image-line.com/support/FLHelp/publicfiles_gol/Piano5_HangingOnMelody_2.mp3

3ee - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:59 am

Pianoteq is the best!
I have the demo version 3.5 installed for a pretty long time and been comparing it to a number of different pianos including True Pianos.

I can't believe someone would disagree that Pianoteq is truly remarkable to say the least!

People in those situations are either testing an early version (2.5 for example) or are simply "gelous" of Pianoteq and didn't give it chance.

It feels great and can sound beautiful.
note: A big difference in the sound character is achieved by messing around in the microphone section.

Burillo - Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:02 am

Velocity curve is also something to look at - a lot of it depends on your playing...

izonin - Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:58 am

musicworld wrote:

With the intent on recording a solo piano album what VST plugin would be best recommended ? I've sampled through EWQL Pianos, Galaxy 2, Steinway Vintage D and Ivory 2.

Synthogy and SampleTekk have nice libraries. Which one you'll choose depends on the style of your record.

musicworld - Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:09 am

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Personally I'm not in to "Modelled Pianos" i believe third generation "Sampled Pianos" commit to a more realistic sound overall, that being said, Galaxy 2, Galaxy Steinway Vintage D and Garritans Authorized Steinway are among the best on the market for todays third generation Sampled Pianos. I think I've made my choice ?

Thanks.

EvilDragon - Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:31 am

Perhaps a realistic isolated played note. But not a realistic chord, not a realistic pedalling behavior, and definitely not realistic sympathetic resonance behavior in any way.

FrankT - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:04 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

Shy wrote:

I second the recommendation for imperfectsamples. Very expressive instruments. And I mean instrument !
Otherwise happy user of TP!
But: what is actually the style of music of this solo album ??

koolkeys - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:13 am

EvilDragon wrote:

Burillo wrote:

Actually, there are a couple of sampled pianos that have gotten close on the resonance. Not AS good, but they at least did it somewhat right. Alicia's Keys and the Garritan Steinway both do what other libraries have just left off.

That being said, even without trying Pianoteq 4 yet(I plan to soon), Pianoteq has done the resonance correctly for a long time.

Now, Pianoteq is designed to be used with a proper weighted controller. Playing it on a synth-action controller is going to deter the sound and probably give the player the wrong impression about it. But if you have a good weighted controller, I have yet to see something that PLAYS better than Pianoteq. And the fact that it sounds pretty darn good sure helps.

Looking forward to trying version 4 though.

Brent

3ee - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:23 am

musicworld wrote:

I respect an honest opinion, but as a sound designer specializing in hybrid physical modeling I beg to disagree!

It seems that you have a sort of established opinion of "modelled" instruments that might be harmful in your decision making.

I just invite you to reconsider your opinion about certain things, especially if you are more likely to reject "modelled" stuff .. just as people tend to reject SE or SM plugins thinking that they are bad.

As a random fact; wave samples are "modeled" approximations of the real thing that most of the times are of lower quality that physical modelling for example.. and many more other factors some as EvilDragon mentioned as well...

Physical modeling done right is :insert snake oil term here: HiHi

RonDP - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:32 am

Pianoteq has held my love for quite some time. It can create the heart you have.

I've recorded sampled piano ballad midi, which sounded great. Then switched to Pianoteq and heard what I really felt.

Also having fun with EZkeys for midi chord enhancement.

Ron

kelvyn - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:49 am

Imperfect Samples have really great sounding pianos Smile

musicworld - Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:18 pm

Quote:

afreshcupofjoe
And to the OP, if you want my vote on the most authentic sounding sample set for solo work, definitely give these a look:
http://www.imperfectsamples.com/

Thanks! for that link, I must say these are the most authentic pianos samples I've ever heard. Apart from the Fazioli and the Hohner Baby Grand, it was the Steinway Concert Grand samples that amazed me.

How did they get the pianos to have such a realistic response when their Sampled not Modelled ?

FrankT - Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:41 pm

musicworld wrote:

Quote:

afreshcupofjoe
And to the OP, if you want my vote on the most authentic sounding sample set for solo work, definitely give these a look:
http://www.imperfectsamples.com/

Sampling has come a long way! Deeply sampled libraries contain thousands and thousands of samples and have e.g. round robins on sustains and staccatos, which are recorded in multiple microphone positions and deliberately contain 'imperfect' noises. The concept of deep sampling aims to capture the very specifics of the unique instrument as well as the natural ambience it is recorded in, something modelling (still) struggles with.

Jelly - Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:39 pm

I have a CP1, it is absolutely the current state of the art.

Played a CP300 for several hours last night in church (and do so regularly - used to own it!), I think you would get away with it just fine for solo piano recording - though both these have quite a distinctive 'Yamaha' sound (and CP1/5 beats 300/33 by a country mile).

Long time Pianoteq fan, but no longer own it as piano is the one instrument that I still think hardware beats software for. PTQ4 demo is superb - but still the key-to-sound connection ('feel') even after the new calibration wizard is not as good as hardware, at least using the CP1 keybed.

More than the sound, I think that it's this connection that brings the best performance out of the player.

musicworld - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:16 am

OP here

Again thanks to all for your contributed opinions it's been a long an debated discussion. However the outcome of my choice is to go with a Sampled Library, that being Galaxy 2, Galaxy Vintage D and the amazing sound from Imperfect Samples.

I think going with these library's after certain FXs have been applied in the creation process, Tone, Resonance, Articulation, Convolution Reverb etc, and of course a good Master, i would hope after post production the recorded Material should be at a standard acceptable for retail.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:21 am

FrankT wrote:

But sampling still cannot cope with some important aspects of the piano as an instrument. Therefore it will always be flawed as a principle for recreating the true behavior of the piano.

tony tony chopper - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:30 am

Quote:

finally, string resonance done right! you can silently press and hold a note, then hit an octave-lower note (and quickly release it) and hear how your original note resonates.

Is there a place when this can be heard?
What's the theory behind it?

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:43 am

The theory behind is in the piano mechanism. You can press a key on a real piano very slowly and because of the escapement in the mechanism the hammer won't actually hit the string, but it will lift the damper from the script. So when you play other keys while you hold this "silent key", sympathetic resonances occur.

No sampled library ever does this.

tony tony chopper - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:48 am

I see, it's this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNKiFGvigrQ

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:51 am

Precisely.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:32 am

EvilDragon wrote:

Perhaps a realistic isolated played note. But not a realistic chord, not a realistic pedalling behavior, and definitely not realistic sympathetic resonance behavior in any way.

Maybe the physical behavior is mathematically correct, but it sounds a bit artificial anyway. Just like a piano synthesizer.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:35 am

And that's what Pianoteq is, a physical modeling synthesizer, and a very good one. In version 4 it is extremely realistic. I value behavior and response when playing piano the most, and sample libraries DO NOT CUT IT FOR ME. Nor should they for anyone else who is serious about their piano playing.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:38 am

EvilDragon wrote:

WRONG! The Galaxy Vintage D can do that. And repedalling. And a quite realistic sympathetic resonance. And, besides of that, the sound is simply superior to the Pianoteq plugin.

Edit: I haven't tried Pianoteq v4, though.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:40 am

Sorry, I disagree. Galaxy doesn't do key repetitions correctly at all (striking an already vibrating string producing phase cancellations), and I don't find Galaxy's sympathetic resonance that convincing. I had my share of play with the Galaxy, and just don't find its response as good as what Pianoeteq does.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:48 am

EvilDragon wrote:

It doesn't do phase cancellation, but above you described this phenomenon:

Quote:

You can press a key on a real piano very slowly and because of the escapement in the mechanism the hammer won't actually hit the string, but it will lift the damper from the script. So when you play other keys while you hold this "silent key", sympathetic resonances occur.

Again: Vintage D can do that.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:52 am

Yes, that makes Galaxy the only sample library with the silent key feature, then. If only its sympathetic resonance would be as beautiful as Pianoteqs, but oh, it is not.

ariston - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:55 am

...and here we go with the "I played Pianoteq to a million people and they all identified it as being fake" examples.... it's that plastic/weird resonance/strange phasing/unrealistic attack-release what...ever...!

Thank the maker my ears are so poor that I'm easily fooled. Pianoteq all the way! Root root, jump jump, go team, and your samples can eat our rusted strings.

Sorry, I may need some coffee now. Carry on.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:57 am

Tastes are different. However, what I like about the Vintage D is its powerful bass. You can nearly hear the vibrating strings. Pianoteq 3 is a bit weak compared to the Vintage D. And the higher octaves are to bell-shaped. For me, it sounds like a (very good) attempt to simulate a piano sound with FM synthesis.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:00 am

ariston wrote:

Exactly this happened at a professional pianist's forum. Somebody posted a cover version with Pianoteq and the listeners asked about the strange sound. BUT, it was Pianoteq 2.0, so ...

ariston - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:35 am

opus_diaboli wrote:

ariston wrote:

Exactly this happened at a professional pianist's forum. Somebody posted a cover version with Pianoteq and the listeners asked about the strange sound. BUT, it was Pianoteq 2.0, so ...

I was poking some gentle fun at precisely this example (I remember you quoting it in an older PT bah thread). I'm sure there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Besides, you never know how the recording was mixed. You can make a real piano sound funny pretty easily if you don't record and mix it right.

It's just that this amusing give-and-take (my piano sounds realer (sic!) than yours) isn't really helping anyone. I've fooled "professional" pianists with PT. What does that prove?

Some of the tech insights can be helpful, and it helps if people know what do listen for, but I think we're a little beyond that here. We all play the piano, we all know what a "real" piano sounds like, but we have different tastes. Saying "the sound is simply superior" is just being deliberately rancorous.

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:43 am

I wouldn't say that "my" piano sounds better, but I seriously think that the physical modeling technique still has its weak points. Sampled pianos are not perfect as well, of course, but when you're looking for a realistic sound, sampled pianos are the better choice because a listener can't judge the playability and, in most cases, he isn't interested in physically correct behavior of phase cancellation. The top league of sampled pianos still produce a more pleasant sound.

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:45 am

EvilDragon wrote:

Yes, that makes Galaxy the only sample library with the silent key feature, then. If only its sympathetic resonance would be as beautiful as Pianoteqs, but oh, it is not.

Actually, as mentioned, there are other libraries that do this, including Alicia's Keys and the Garritan Steinway.

HOWEVER, they aren't as realistic as the Pianoteq resonance. I own Galaxy D, though I haven't played it for a while, but I don't remember it being any better either.

I think it's important also for people to understand that resonance is dynamic in a real piano and with Pianoteq. SOME libraries "fake" this resonance by having some standard resonance sounds that play the entire time, but they are not realistic because they aren't based on the exact notes depressed.

It's important when checking for true sympathetic resonance, that you listen carefully when performing the test. Hold down different combinations of notes with your left hand until they ring out, or softly enough that they don't make a sound. Then strike quick note combinations in your right hand.

Now, if done right, the resonance will completely change depending on which notes are in your left hand, and they will also sound different depending on the notes in your right hand as they blend and interact differently with the depressed notes below. In other words, it's not just a matter of having individual string resonances sampled and played when that note is down. It's the way that the notes react to each other. The harmonics are very complex.

At this time, there is NO sampled piano that I've played(which is most of them at one time or another, and I always check for this), that gets as close to this as Pianoteq. They do go in the right direction, but Pianoteq still goes further than others.

Brent

opus_diaboli - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:49 am

koolkeys,

You are right. But no average music consumer is interested in subtleties like that. The overall sound is much more important. A sampled piano sounds like a real piano because it's a real piano that has been sampled. Wink

Maybe I should check out Pianoteq 4 ...

FrankT - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:52 am

It's all subjective - and it is good to have variety.

phlendo - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:56 am

Tastes do differ, and I'm not a big fan of the modeled pianos. They sound ok in a mix with other instruments, but fail when forced to standalone.

The market is flooded with stuff at the moment. My go to's have been Piano in Blue, Vintaudio's 1908 Clinton, and a vst simply called "The Piano" sometimes referred to as a Lennon piano.

Shope around- you're bound to find something that speaks to you.

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:06 am

opus_diaboli wrote:

Maybe I should check out Pianoteq 4 ...

I agree, that no consumer necessarily cares. I've actually written articles about this on the blog at ProRec, in case you are curious(this post is part of a series of posts): http://www.prorec.com/2012/03/your-audience-isnt-listening/

HOWEVER, this is still important in a conversation about what sounds more "real".

As a piano player of over 22 years(not as long as some, but enough to have some insight at least), you could consider me a virtual piano "collector". I've either owned or tried MOST of the pianos on the market today, and truth be told, most of them will pass just fine on a project, and the audience will be none the wiser.

But you say the overall sound is more important, to which I say that the resonance of a piano is a HUGE part of what makes the sound the way it is. This is because a true piano relies on everything from the type of felt used on the hammers to the type of wood used on the body, to the position of the lid, the placement of various sound holes underneath the lid to how all the pieces are held together, and much more. And these all react dynamically. It's an acoustic phenomenon. And it's the reason why Pianoteq has so many fans, because it does model these things. It models how the wood reacts with the strings, and how lid position changes not only how loud or damp the sound is, but also changes how the rest of the body resonance reacts due to less sound escaping as fast.

So these things are all important. Even things like listening position can be changed by moving microphones around or in the piano, or whatever. Heck, don't like how a single note is reacting? You can change just that note to make it more boomy, more tinny, have more growl, or whatever.

This would all not matter if it didn't sound good though, and I submit that Pianoteq sounds every bit as good as any library out there. The difference likely comes down to taste and preferred sound, no doubt.

I will say, for anyone who has not tried Pianoteq with a proper fully weighted controller: you haven't experienced Pianoteq the way it was designed. It makes a big difference to try it on a fully weighted controller.

In the end, most of this won't matter to the listener, no doubt about it. But I do think it's an important conversation to have because it helps people understand what's going on. The same way that we discuss sample rates or compression curves or linear phase EQ vs non-linear, etc. Most people will never notice. So these conversations obviously benefit us more than anyone else.

Brent

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:09 am

phlendo wrote:

Tastes to differ, and I'm not a big fan of the modeled pianos. They sound ok in a mix with other instruments, but fail when forced to standalone.

Many people will disagree with you on this. Which shows just how varied the tastes do get.

The answer to "Does Pianoteq sound like a real piano" is YES. But the question being answered most of the time is "Does Pianoteq sound like YOU want a piano to sound", which will bring any number of different answers.

It's all about taste, and to each his own. There isn't necessarily a wrong answer here.

With that being said, IMO, no sampled piano on the planet PLAYS like Pianoteq, or goes as deep as it does on the minor details of the sound. Whether it sounds good to you or not is a different story.

Brent

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:32 am

And let's emphasize on the point how people can be hypocritical assholes, too:

headquest wrote:

I didn't realise there were so many Pianoteq haters out there! The track got spammed with hate comments. Also, more disturbingly, people who normally say they love my tracks were posting how much they dislike Pianoteq, and how it makes my music not good. The irony is that practically all my studio tracks on Soundcloud were done using Pianoteq, and they never hated them until I put the words "pianoteq 4 demo" in the title. Weird. Aren't people strange, elitist and hypocritical at times! Rolling Eyes

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:11 pm

EvilDragon wrote:

And let's emphasize on the point how people can be hypocritical assholes, too:

headquest wrote:

It's like when somebody eats a dish of food that somebody made for them, saying how delicious it is. Then they find out what was in it, and they want to barf it all out. It's a mental thing that there is an unfortunate amount of in the audio realm. If you never would have said anything, they never would have known, and their internal bias wouldn't come out.

Ya know, I think that it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold to not like Pianoteq. After all, different tastes are part of the way we are.

However, I've talked to a lot of people about Pianoteq, sample libraries, etc. And the vast majority of the time, here are the reasons I've found people don't like it:

1. They haven't tried it.
2. They don't play piano, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but Pianoteq is designed to be played, not programmed.
3. They have a pre-bias against modeling, or are judging on older Pianoteq models.
4. They aren't using a fully weighted controller- again, something Pianoteq is designed for.
5. They have their favorite library and refuse to actually admit something else may be just as good.

Now, some people will get offended by me saying this, so let me just say that this doesn't mean that everyone who hates Pianoteq falls into these categories. Some people just genuinely don't like it. However, I would place money on this being the case MOST of the time. Just look at the headquest post, and you'll see how petty and stupid people can be.

Pianoteq isn't perfect, and if you're looking for something to completely emulate an acoustic instrument, go buy an acoustic instrument. It doesn't exist, not for the piano, not for guitar, not for strings, nothing. And there are a LOT of great libraries out there. I use them every single day. So just take this as a general statement based on what I've seen, nothing more.

Brent

Agemo - Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:41 pm

If Pianoteq sounds 'like a real piano', which is it? Which instrument does it sound like, I mean?

ariston - Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:43 pm

Agemo wrote:

If Pianoteq sounds 'like a real piano', which is it? Which instrument does it sound like, I mean?

Easy... it sounds exactly like "that" piano.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:44 pm

D4 was based on a Hamburg Steinway D.

YC5 was based on Yamaha C5.

Other models are based on various other pianos, I'm not sure which ones precisely (well, except historical pianos which are very obvious).

Agemo - Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:55 pm

Thanks. Helpful to know.

Agemo - Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:06 pm

No one's mentioned the Vienna Imperial. How does that compare? I haven't tried it yet.

3ee - Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:11 pm

OK, didn't really follow the whole thread but I simply am amazed to see that there are some people that don't like Pianoteq Confused

A short story:

I was at a friend some days ago and got to play with different pianos including one that I was impressed by the audio demos and had great "respect" for without actually playing it...

Bottom line is: that all the other sampled pianos sounded "like played with an axe" compared to Pianoteq 3.5 .. and I'm referring here to the way it feels (velocity) ..as for it's sound, it sound beautiful and it's more subjective so I won't discuss...

Another big thing... Pianoteq2 is not Pianoteq 3.5 so make sure you're trying out the latest version .. which seems to be 4!
Turn off the limiter and reverb and play around in the microphone section.

Maybe people are referring to subjective differences in an objective way.. that's why there's such a misunderstanding or I don't know.

afreshcupofjoe - Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:29 pm

opus_diaboli wrote:

I agree with this 100%. Both approaches have their drawbacks. Modeled pianos are obviously going to capture more nuance in a performance and provide a more realistic feel. They are more satisfying to play, so pianists jump all over them. The problem is, they just don't sound right to me in the end. I don't think they sound "fake" but it just ends up sounding like a clinical, lifeless, dull recording.

Sample librarys on the other hand are not as nice for a performer to play, but in the end they will typically sound like a very nice piano recording on playback. I think that the amount of emphasis that people put on the advantages of physical modelling is mostly buying into marketing hype. While things like sympathetic resonance are important, a sampled piano is still going to sound like a much nicer, more detailed, natural recording even when it's lacking accurate reproduction of these physically modeled characteristics. Having perfect sympathetic resonance just isn't as important as people are making it out to be. Sorry, but I just don't think physical modelling is quite there yet. It doesn't sound fake anymore, but that doesn't mean it sounds good either.

Obviously opinions vary, but I really don't understand how people can't hear that physically modeled pianos really don't sound anywhere near as good as a nice sample set. It's like night and day to me. But then again, people really easily buy into marketing hype and what's popular. Earlier in this thread there was a very experienced person who was insisting that a Yamaha stage stage piano with a 40mb sample set and 3 velocity layers beats all of the plugins out there in terms of authenticity. People will believe what they want because they are attached to their own thoughts and opinions on the subject, whether or not it actually sounds good.

EvilDragon - Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:31 pm

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

but I really don't understand how people can't hear that physically modeled pianos really don't sound anywhere near as good as a nice sample set.

Same goes the other way. I can't understand how people can't hear how samples sound so dull, lifeless and static in comparison to that beautiful blooming sound that Pianoteq throws at you. Play a single note and you might get fooled by samples. Play a run with repedalling and swiveling dynamics, and the differences become more apparent as to what's more true to an actual piano.

I'm most definitely not buying in the marketing hype. I love the response AND SOUND that Pianoteq gives to me and my playing, those things were sorely missing on the sample libraries I've tried to use.

Burillo - Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:25 pm

i would add that i disagree that in the end, feel won't matter. You adapt your playing to different instruments. *This* can be heard. Chances are, a MIDI file recorded on one piano will not sound as good on another, you'd constantly notice the intricacies that "miss the mark" and wouldn't, if you'd record it on that piano and not the other one.

Besides, every guitarist knows that while it is possible to play on a Zombie, a Les Paul Studio (or any other great guitar) is so much nicer and more inspiring to play - Moore-esque solos just jump out of the instrument without your help. If you hate the feel of your piano, how you are going to make a good recording?

afreshcupofjoe - Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:25 pm

Burillo wrote:

I never said those things don't matter, quite the opposite. I pretty much agree with all of your points. Like I said, there are trade-offs with either approach. It's just that I think as far as the final results go, sample sets are still the clear winner.

If you want the best solo piano recording possible you just have to use a real piano. Neither technology is a complete substitute for the real instrument yet. They both have their faults. Though, I think either technology is "good enough" to produce satisfactory results for most people recording in home studios, or even as backing tracks on professional studio albums.

lingyai - Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:03 pm

Kees49 wrote:

I just tried the demo of Pianoteq 4. It sounds very artificial.
The best piano I can recommend is TruePianos, the Emerald module.
It has that woody Steinway sound I like. Love

+1

Also worth at least demoing: Pianissimo, a dark horse, amazing for its price (though check out the Amazon review highlighting problems which can occur when using it non-solo (i.e. in multi-instrument projects)

tony tony chopper - Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:53 pm

Quote:

2. They don't play piano, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but Pianoteq is designed to be played, not programmed.

Ok but eventually, isn't a plugin designed to produce audio that's going to be listened to by a lot more people than the performer?
I know nothing about playing piano, but the 2 things I don't like about Pianoteq is
-that effect of a reverb/the piano being "in another room", even when the reverb is off, the thing that seems to make notes drown into each other. Altough this seems to be better in v4, last time I had checked it was v3. (I also remember the hammering noise being a too obvious add-on sample in other versions)
-the lack of brightness, no matter the preset it sounds like not enough partials are resynthesized. But I suppose that's linked to the set of pianos it's designed to reproduce.
That said I probably wouldn't hear the difference with a real piano, maybe it's just this type of dark piano it's made to reproduce, that I don't like, real or fake.

pdxindy - Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:59 pm

musicworld wrote:

If you play one single note the sampled version is of course better cause it is an actual tape recording... but once you are playing the equation changes.

I highly recommend that if you are going to record a solo piano album, you sit down and really play Pianoteq and compare to a couple sample libraries. If you value expressive playability, Pianoteq has the advantage over samples IMO and you need to play them to feel that and decide...

pdxindy - Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:49 pm

koolkeys wrote:

In the end, most of this won't matter to the listener, no doubt about it.
Brent

But it matters to the player... If you feel more expressively inspired playing Pianoteq because you feel the instrument respond to your playing in ways that samples don't then that affects your playing which will affect the listener.

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

tony tony chopper - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:01 pm

Quote:

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

But don't you learn playing according to what you're playing? That is, maybe it's better for real piano players, but those who'd learn using a sampled bank, would get better at playing it than playing a real piano?

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:34 pm

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

Modeled pianos are obviously going to capture more nuance in a performance and provide a more realistic feel. They are more satisfying to play, so pianists jump all over them. The problem is, they just don't sound right to me in the end. I don't think they sound "fake" but it just ends up sounding like a clinical, lifeless, dull recording.

Sample librarys on the other hand are not as nice for a performer to play, but in the end they will typically sound like a very nice piano recording on playback. I think that the amount of emphasis that people put on the advantages of physical modelling is mostly buying into marketing hype. While things like sympathetic resonance are important, a sampled piano is still going to sound like a much nicer, more detailed, natural recording even when it's lacking accurate reproduction of these physically modeled characteristics. Having perfect sympathetic resonance just isn't as important as people are making it out to be.

It's every bit as important as we are making it out to be if you're in search of ACCURATE sounds. I'm not sure how you can say that Pianoteq is clinical and lifeless, while a sampled piano isn't, when a sampled piano by it's very nature is extremely static and unmoving. See my point?

No, libraries don't sound bad. I own MANY of them. Way more than I need(I'm a piano player though, and I like my collection!). To imply that putting faith in sympathetic resonance is giving in to hype is pretty bold, considering that most of us who are putting that emphasis out there have played for a long time, and enjoy BOTH modeled and sampled pianos.

Quote:

Sorry, but I just don't think physical modelling is quite there yet. It doesn't sound fake anymore, but that doesn't mean it sounds good either.

Please define "good".

Quote:

Obviously opinions vary, but I really don't understand how people can't hear that physically modeled pianos really don't sound anywhere near as good as a nice sample set.

Same for me in the opposite direction. And again, please define "good". Based on what? Again, I'm not saying or implying that libraries sound bad. They don't. But saying that Pianoteq doesn't sound anywhere near as good as a nice sample set, besides being ONLY an opinion, is assuming a lot.

Quote:

It's like night and day to me. But then again, people really easily buy into marketing hype and what's popular ... People will believe what they want because they are attached to their own thoughts and opinions on the subject, whether or not it actually sounds good.

Now this is just silly. What basis would you have for making these claims? Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with you on this MUST be using a hidden bias or buying into marketing hype?

I assure you, it has nothing to do with marketing hype. Whether or not you believe me really doesn't mean anything. I would hope that you're not just believing what you want regardless of whether what you like sounds good or not?

Brent

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:36 pm

Burillo wrote:

And this also goes back to the fact that Pianoteq was NOT designed to be programmed. It's designed to be played, and played on a properly weighted controller. It's not designed to be a "piano for everyone" really. But those who PLAY typically appreciate these intricate details more because they know just how much they can mean to a song, including it's sound.

Brent

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:44 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:

Quote:

2. They don't play piano, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but Pianoteq is designed to be played, not programmed.

Ok but eventually, isn't a plugin designed to produce audio that's going to be listened to by a lot more people than the performer?

Of course it is. But Pianoteq is designed to be played still to get the best sound out of it. If you don't play, but prefer to program your sounds, you probably won't get the best results from Pianoteq due to it's dynamic nature.

Quote:

I know nothing about playing piano, but the 2 things I don't like about Pianoteq is
-that effect of a reverb/the piano being "in another room", even when the reverb is off, the thing that seems to make notes drown into each other. Altough this seems to be better in v4, last time I had checked it was v3. (I also remember the hammering noise being a too obvious add-on sample in other versions)

You can change that all very easily if you don't like it. You don't have to use the reverb, and you can turn up or down all the resonances, and you can adjust the various harmonics. It can sound dry and in your face with no ambiance, if that is the sound you prefer.

Quote:

-the lack of brightness, no matter the preset it sounds like not enough partials are resynthesized. But I suppose that's linked to the set of pianos it's designed to reproduce.

Well, that can be changed as well. Again, you can adjust all the harmonics, plus you can change most settings on a per note basis if you wish. You can change the hammer hardness, hammer strength, resonance, and tons of other settings per note, or across a certain range of notes, or globally. It's amazing how much you can edit.

Quote:

That said I probably wouldn't hear the difference with a real piano, maybe it's just this type of dark piano it's made to reproduce, that I don't like, real or fake.

It's probably the presets you were using. There are some dark ones, but there are also bright ones. And there is always the Yamaha-based addon model, if you need the core model to be much brighter. But it doesn't have to be dark if you don't want to.

Brent

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:46 pm

pdxindy wrote:

koolkeys wrote:

In the end, most of this won't matter to the listener, no doubt about it.
Brent

Pretty much nails it!

Brent

koolkeys - Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:49 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:

Quote:

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

Yes, you are right. Pianoteq is designed for people who play, and as mentioned before, it's recommended to have a weighted controller because it's designed for that.

Part of what makes an instrument great is how it reacts to the player. Pianoteq does this more than any library could. Not everyone will like the sound, of course. But the feel of the instrument is every bit as important as the sound for the one playing it, and it DOES make a difference in the end.

Again, Pianoteq is not going to give the best results for somebody who just programs their parts in. Nothing wrong with that approach, but it's just not designed that way.

Brent

Imyself - Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:39 pm

koolkeys wrote:

(...)
Ya know, I think that it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold to not like Pianoteq. After all, different tastes are part of the way we are.
(...)
Pianoteq isn't perfect, and if you're looking for something to completely emulate an acoustic instrument, go buy an acoustic instrument. It doesn't exist, not for the piano, not for guitar, not for strings, nothing. And there are a LOT of great libraries out there. I use them every single day. So just take this as a general statement based on what I've seen, nothing more.
Brent

+1 for your good sense Smile

Imyself - Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:40 pm

pdxindy wrote:

+1 for your good sense Smile

afreshcupofjoe - Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:02 am

pdxindy wrote:

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

I love it when people try to quantify the timbral difference between instruments using percentages. Sorry, but describing what I enjoy about music isn't something that usually lends itself well to being written in a spreadsheet.

Though, I have to thank you because that sentence neatly sums up what I disagree with about most of the "opinions" that keep getting repeated on this thread.

koolkeys wrote:

Please define "good".

Again, how do you suppose we do that? I think a Gibson Les Paul is a fantastic sounding electric guitar. I could describe the tonal character all day long and how it differs from, say, a Fender Strat, but if I took all of those tonal qualities and wrote them down on a piece of paper would that then be a satisfactory definition for what makes a Les Paul "good"? It's unlikely, since someone could easily make another guitar that exudes all of the same tonal properties listed on paper and it could end up sounding quite different than a real Les Paul. In fact, it might sound pretty bad. Then we are back to square one again.

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything. I really hope you people don't listen to music that way, but I'm starting to think you do. Is it important to model things like sympathetic resonance in order to achieve the most accurate model of piano possible? Yes. Does that mean that a piano plugin that includes sympathetic resonance automatically sounds better than one that doesn't. Absolutely not. Sorry, but I just don't think Pianoteq sounds nearly as good as sampled pianos, despite their drawbacks. That's not something I can quantify on a spreadsheet. It's just the way it is.

EvilDragon - Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:07 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

It's just the way it is.

For you, perhaps yes, that is true. But definitely not for everyone! Can you agree with that at least? Can you agree with my statement that FOR ME sample libraries sound (and definitely PLAY) inferior to Pianoteq's model? Because that's "just the way it is", for me.

lingyai - Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:51 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8fRyj0Y900&list=FLSiG0kNDo4ce55iADgIogVg&feature=mh_lolz

classic - Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:55 am

musicworld wrote:

There is really no best.
I am playing piano since 34 years and for any track you will find on piano better then another.

I have plenty piano plugins. All from NI, East West Piano Gold, Pianissimo and others and I use them all each for different music and all on one CD to.

So the more you have the better it is.

classic.

EvilDragon - Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:30 am

tony tony chopper wrote:

-the lack of brightness, no matter the preset it sounds like not enough partials are resynthesized.

Pianos don't have much spectral energy above 16 kHz that is really viable and integral to the piano sound. The guys at Modartt did extensive analysis of the piano sound, and this is the result they came up with.

It's amazing, you say the lack of brightness, the people at PianoWorld say TOO MUCH brightness. Satisfying everyone is an impossible task, goddamit. That's why Pianoteq has timbral EQ which adjusts the timbre all notes within the model (as opposed to filtering afterwards).

izonin - Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:45 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

pdxindy wrote:

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

koolkeys wrote:

Please define "good".

+1

Piano libraries lack dynamics and sound somewhat flat. But Pianoteq doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument to me. Wouldn't recommend it for a solo album.

afreshcupofjoe - Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:53 am

EvilDragon wrote:

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

It's just the way it is.

Of course I can agree with that. Isn't that a given? We all have our opinions. I happen to think yours is wrong, and I'm free to say why I think it's wrong, but in the end it's all opinions. I have no grand delusion about my opinion being the only valid one, but at the same time I'm not going to be passive aggressive and qualify everything with some statement about how everything is subjective. I say what I mean and what I think is right. It would be an awfully boring discussion if we all agreed with each other all of the time, wouldn't it?

Agemo - Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:35 am

I just listened to some of the Pianoteq audio demos on the developer's site. Some impressions:

The dynamic behaviour is more realistic than that of sample libraries. Two points:

1) Listen to the way the loudness of chords grows briefly after they are struck, before diminishing. There is a loud G minor chord at the end of one of the Schumann excerpts, if you check the site, where this is especially obvious. In the case of sample libraries, chords generally reach maximum loudness immediately after impact. Real pianos in real spaces do not behave like samples in this respect, and in fact the phenomenon of delayed loudness is cultivated by some classical pianists through the use of weight and pedalling. In the Pianoteq examples, perhaps pedalling is the key factor.

(Maybe the described shortcoming in samples is made worse by some methods of recording: instead of the recording of an expert player, the keys are poked with a kind of mechanised umbrella, and there is no attempt to optimise surrounding humidity and temperature.)

2) In the Pianoteq demos, you do not hear discrete changes in tone, common in the case of sample libraries, as the player traverses low velocity layers. Sample libraries can sound quite laughable in that respect.

As one might expect, the overall timbre itself of Pianoteq is somewhat less realistic than that of well recorded sample libraries. This is especially evident in the soprano range. But perhaps the problem is exaggerated by reverb settings, where a few milliseconds of pre-delay might improve matters. I can't tell without playing and tweaking it myself, and the audio demos are too short to allow definite judgement. I might have to demo it myself now people have made me curious...

Two more questions for Pianoteq enthusiasts, please: 1) Does the sympathetic resonance really work like a piano's? I mean, for instance, could you play on the Pianoteq that children's piece by Bartók with the held B major triad? Would it sound right? 2) Which is the best keyboard to play Pianoteq with?

EvilDragon - Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:42 am

1) Yes, it really works like on a piano. Silent key is possible, and sympathetic resonance sounds different depending on which keys you hold and which ones you play. Harmonic spectrum is correct.

2) No real answer. As long as you have a weighted controller you are used to play, Pianoteq will play along nicely, or perhaps you might want to adjust the velocity curve to fit your style of playing. If you have a very good controller with graded keys, that's even better!

Agemo - Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:17 am

Thank you, EvilDragon.

koolkeys - Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:18 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

koolkeys wrote:

Please define "good".

Exactly. My point being only that your definition of good is not universal(I know you know this, but just making the point).

Quote:

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything.

Sure it does. It may not prove which sounds "best" to everyone, but to imply that they don't matter to the sound, or to the player, would be foolish. They absolutely do matter. These are the things that give a piano their character, and these are things that accomplished concert pianists listen for when choosing their pianos. They may not matter as much to the listener, who is largely ignorant of the details, but they absolutely matter to the one playing the piano as a piano's sound is defined by how it inspires and reacts to the player. This is not a guess, not marketing hype. This is fact. Again, not a fact of what piano sounds "best", because as already shown, you really can't define it. But it does matter.

Quote:

I really hope you people don't listen to music that way, but I'm starting to think you do.

No, I do not. But when we're having a conversation about how to make a piano REALISTIC, it does make a difference and is completely relevant. And when deciding on a piano or library to play, it is completely relevant. We're not talking about listening to music. We're talking about choosing and playing a virtual piano.

Quote:

Is it important to model things like sympathetic resonance in order to achieve the most accurate model of piano possible? Yes. Does that mean that a piano plugin that includes sympathetic resonance automatically sounds better than one that doesn't. Absolutely not.

Of course not, which is why nobody has said such a thing. There are two different conversations here. What sounds BETTER, and what sounds more REALISTIC. I do happen to think, as do a lot of people who know what they are talking about and aren't just giving in to hype, that the resonance makes a difference. It's why even the library developers try to make it work better in their libraries. Automatically sound better? That's completely down to taste. Sound more realistic? I happen to think it does.

Quote:

Sorry, but I just don't think Pianoteq sounds nearly as good as sampled pianos, despite their drawbacks. That's not something I can quantify on a spreadsheet. It's just the way it is.

But again, purely opinion.

I would be curious about a couple of things. First, do you play? I'm assuming you do. Second, do you have a fully weighted keyboard? I'm guessing you do? Next, I'm curious what YOU think is the best sounding library, and why? Finally, have you tried Pianoteq 4 yet?

I'm asking these things to more understand where you're coming from. It's intriguing to me trying to figure out why people think the way they do. Me? I've played piano for 22 years and until a few years ago, all my playing was primarily on grand and upright pianos in various churches and other venues. I love the piano. It's the most dynamic and versatile instrument in the world, and also one of the most complex, despite it's seeming simplicity. Pianos fascinate me, hence the conversation. So I'm curious about you. Not to compare or try to see who is better, so please don't get that impression. I'm genuinely curious.

Brent

pdxindy - Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:31 am

afreshcupofjoe wrote:

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything.

The problem here is that you are talking to yourself and not paying much attention to what a person is saying. I said it FEELS better as a player how Pianoteq responds like an instrument... Then you respond to me that a bunch of technical specs doesn't prove anything??

Sure Pianoteq has a hint of artificial-ness at times... but so does playing back a series of recordings by keypress. There is an audible artificialness to samples that experienced piano players hear and have articulated. Those are also not technical specs but experienced ears describing what they hear based on many years of piano playing.

You are focusing on a particular form of fake-ness that you hear in Pianoteq. But samples have their own forms of fake-ness. That those fake-nesses are there in both is fact. How you weight them and value them is subjective.

Personally, I hear the flaws in both and they are both good enough for me to enjoy the sonic output as music. And at that point, the playability is what matters to me. Playing Pianoteq is more like playing an instrument in its responsiveness and feel. That responsiveness translates into a sonic difference in the playing that I both hear and value.

Tubeman - Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:35 am

pdxindy wrote:

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

I'd say there is a few types of listeners. The normal listener cares about how good the song is. A "hifist" cares about the sound/record quality. A musician/pianist might care about all of the above + how well it's played and how the piano sounds. So I don't think it's that black and white.

opus_diaboli - Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:43 am

koolkeys wrote:

And this also goes back to the fact that Pianoteq was NOT designed to be programmed. It's designed to be played, [...]

Yes, but sometimes you need a plugin which is also designed to be listened to. Smile

I know pianists who did real recordings with sampled pianos (Ivory II), most likely due to financial reasons. Tell me one pro pianist who uses Pianoteq for solo piano recordings.

opus_diaboli - Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:45 am

And BTW: programming piano parts almost never gives you satisfied results, no matter what kind of plugin you use. So this is a bit pointless.

opus_diaboli - Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:04 am

pdxindy wrote:

Sure Pianoteq has a hint of artificial-ness at times... but so does playing back a series of recordings by keypress. There is an audible artificialness to samples that experienced piano players hear and have articulated. Those are also not technical specs but experienced ears describing what they hear based on many years of piano playing.

Correct. But there's an important difference: the average listener is not able to hear the subtle difference between a real piano and a sampled one. But even untrained ears are obviously able to hear the artificial sound of Pianoteq. As I already wrote (even twice Wink

) some forum members of a pro pianist's forum recognized that. But it was an older version of PT. I recently checked out the latest version and I have to admit that it sounds better now, especially when you turn off compression and reverb. Playability is the best I've ever seen so far, it's fun to play with, but concerning sound it's still a bit inferior to sampled pianos. When you really need to "fool" the audience, e.g. for a solo album, you can't go with Pianoteq. I know that most pianists are using real pianos for recordings, but I'm also aware of situations where this was not possible.

EvilDragon - Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:47 am

opus_diaboli wrote:

But even untrained ears are obviously able to hear the artificial sound of Pianoteq.

That is not universally true, and this has been exemplified by recent "psychological study" example by headquest, whose most recent track from Soundcould got trashed just because he EXPLICITLY MENTIONED he was using Pianoteq 4 on it. Most of his older tracks (which were PRAISED by the same people for their piano sound,!) have been using Pianoteq 3 but he didn't mention he was using Pianoteq explicitly nor implicitly. People "got fooled". Nobody noticed it was Pianoteq. Everybody listened to the song, nobody hated on Pianoteq DELIBERATELY.

Boom, headshot!

lingyai - Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:12 am

EvilDragon wrote:

opus_diaboli wrote:

But even untrained ears are obviously able to hear the artificial sound of Pianoteq.

Unless he has used the same version of Pianoteq, both when and when not mentioning what he was using, it is not a valid comparsion, and so doesn't neccessarily say anything. The difference in responses could have been due to the different instruments.

EvilDragon - Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:15 am

Well if his sound was praised using an older version of the plugin, that alone says a lot. I'm 100% positive his tracks and sound would be praised even if he didn't mention Pianoteq 4 explicitly.

Moreover, this example is about how people can become hypocritical elitist assholes with the flick of a wrist.

pdxindy - Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:22 am

opus_diaboli wrote:

koolkeys wrote:

And this also goes back to the fact that Pianoteq was NOT designed to be programmed. It's designed to be played, [...]

Yes, but sometimes you need a plugin which is also designed to be listened to. Smile

I like listening to Pianoteq...

koolkeys - Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:36 am

opus_diaboli wrote:

koolkeys wrote:

And this also goes back to the fact that Pianoteq was NOT designed to be programmed. It's designed to be played, [...]

Yes, but sometimes you need a plugin which is also designed to be listened to. Smile

I know pianists who did real recordings with sampled pianos (Ivory II), most likely due to financial reasons. Tell me one pro pianist who uses Pianoteq for solo piano recordings.

Most "pro" pianists won't use samples or plugins at all. They will use a real piano.

Of course you need a plugin you can listen to, and Pianoteq is designed to be listened to as with any other plugin. But plugin makers don't make plugins for the listener, they make plugins to benefit the player so he can produce better results.

I only mention this because some people who criticize Pianoteq have not played it, or can't play. And they wonder why it doesn't sound as good when they play their MIDI files through it. And the reason is because it's meant to be a dynamic and reactive instrument where the player interacts and adjusts based on the feel.

Brent

There are 141 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2