Thanks. Helpful to know.

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

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

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.

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.
Last edited by afreshcupofjoe on Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

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.

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?

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.

+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)

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

Please define "good".

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.

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

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

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.

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.
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.

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