Pianoteq 7

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
KVRian
670 posts since 2 Sep, 2019

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:42 am

Pianoteq 6 already sounded very good.
But Pianoteq 7 sounds a little looser and more relaxed. I was able to tell which was which, particularly in the 2nd example.

But when you really notice it is when you are playing.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP

User avatar
KVRian
871 posts since 25 Jan, 2017

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:16 am

If the goal was comparing v6 and v7, I'm not sure why he took the NY Steinway in v7 and the HB Steinway in v6, instead of choosing HB on both in the first place. They're modeled after different units, sampled (for later modeling) in different places and conditions.

Anyway, judging and comparing the "physical modeling" of different Pianoteq instruments (or different Pianoteq versions) can be very misleading if done simply through presets. The slightest mic setting adjustment can make a huge difference even within the very same preset in terms of phase coherence and frequency response. Not even mentioning the embedded fx chains on each different preset.

If it's only a pure matter of testing, judging and comparing the different sound characteristics and modeling of different Pianoteq instruments (and NOT about choosing a good sound, close to the final result), my current way is:

- feed the same midi data to everything (obviously)
- "Prelude" preset on everything (supposedly the most neutral on the "tuning, voicing, design, action" sections)
- same velocity curve
- deactivate all fx
- reset the main equalizer, and the dedicated resonance level/decay tabs
- monophonic output mode (takes the microphone simulation, phase and stereo-width out the equation)
- print to audio for each instrument, under the above said conditions
- normalize each audio clip to -23 LUFS (or whatever common value you prefer)

That's the most impartial/neutral way of comparing different models that I could personally find.

Models that sounded utterly distant from each other, judging by full presets (even the same model can sound like 2 completely different instrument on different presets), are more equally matched and stop being so incredibly different, although they rightfully mantain the distinctive characters of the different modeled pianos.

User avatar
KVRAF
4388 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:57 am

Niowiad wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:16 am
If the goal was comparing v6 and v7, I'm not sure why he took the NY Steinway in v7 and the HB Steinway in v6, instead of choosing HB on both in the first place. They're modeled after different units, sampled (for later modeling) in different places and conditions.

Anyway, judging and comparing the "physical modeling" of different Pianoteq instruments (or different Pianoteq versions) can be very misleading if done simply through presets. The slightest mic setting adjustment can make a huge difference even within the very same preset in terms of phase coherence and frequency response. Not even mentioning the embedded fx chains on each different preset.

If it's only a pure matter of judging and comparing the different sound characteristics and modeling of different Pianoteq instruments (and NOT about choosing a good sound, close to the final result), my current way is:

- feed the same midi data to everything (obviously)
- "Prelude" preset on everything (supposedly the most neutral on the "tuning, voicing, design, action" sections)
- same velocity curve
- deactivate all fx
- reset the main equalizer, and the dedicated resonance level/decay tabs
- monophonic output mode (takes the microphone simulation, phase and stereo-width out the equation)
- print to audio for each instrument, under the above said conditions
- normalize each audio clip to -23 LUFS (or whatever common value you prefer)

That's the most impartial/neutral way of comparing different models that I could personally find.

Models that sounded utterly distant from each other, judging by full presets (even the same model can sound like 2 completely different instrument on different presets), are more equally matched and stop being so incredibly different, although they rightfully mantain the distinctive characters of the different modeled pianos.
Yeah - my point is about the same as in these cases, where certain kind of people waste their money for a $ 1000 wine, and they praise all the sophisticated flavour nuances, but at the same time the taste of these people may not to be developed enough to spot the difference between whisky and cognac in the blindtest. 😜

KVRer
1 posts since 27 Aug, 2006

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 am

Niowiad wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:16 am
If it's only a pure matter of testing, judging and comparing the different sound characteristics and modeling of different Pianoteq instruments (and NOT about choosing a good sound, close to the final result), my current way is:

- feed the same midi data to everything (obviously)
- "Prelude" preset on everything (supposedly the most neutral on the "tuning, voicing, design, action" sections)
- same velocity curve
- deactivate all fx
- reset the main equalizer, and the dedicated resonance level/decay tabs
- monophonic output mode (takes the microphone simulation, phase and stereo-width out the equation)
- print to audio for each instrument, under the above said conditions
- normalize each audio clip to -23 LUFS (or whatever common value you prefer)

That's the most impartial/neutral way of comparing different models that I could personally find.
Excellent method indeed.

A complementary information you may find useful: for each Pianoteq instrument that has received manufacturer authorization, the most neutral preset (the closest to the original instrument), is the one with the "official" name, for example: "(NY/HB) Steinway Model D", "Ant. Petrof 275", "Steingraeber E-272", "C. Bechstein DG D 282", "Bluethner Model One", etc. For the historical instruments, it is usually the one with the simplest name, for example "J. Dohnal", "I. Besendorfer", "J. Schantz", etc. For the other instruments, "Original" and "Basic" are commonly used for naming the most neutral preset. It is also often specified in the instrument description within the presets manager.

It is not necessarily the first preset in the list, as we usually tend to put in first one which is supposed to be the most pleasant, which is of course highly debatable.

Philippe (Modartt)

User avatar
KVRian
871 posts since 25 Jan, 2017

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:08 am

pianophile wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:44 am
Niowiad wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:16 am
If it's only a pure matter of testing, judging and comparing the different sound characteristics and modeling of different Pianoteq instruments (and NOT about choosing a good sound, close to the final result), my current way is:

- feed the same midi data to everything (obviously)
- "Prelude" preset on everything (supposedly the most neutral on the "tuning, voicing, design, action" sections)
- same velocity curve
- deactivate all fx
- reset the main equalizer, and the dedicated resonance level/decay tabs
- monophonic output mode (takes the microphone simulation, phase and stereo-width out the equation)
- print to audio for each instrument, under the above said conditions
- normalize each audio clip to -23 LUFS (or whatever common value you prefer)

That's the most impartial/neutral way of comparing different models that I could personally find.
Excellent method indeed.

A complementary information you may find useful: for each Pianoteq instrument that has received manufacturer authorization, the most neutral preset (the closest to the original instrument), is the one with the "official" name, for example: "(NY/HB) Steinway Model D", "Ant. Petrof 275", "Steingraeber E-272", "C. Bechstein DG D 282", "Bluethner Model One", etc. For the historical instruments, it is usually the one with the simplest name, for example "J. Dohnal", "I. Besendorfer", "J. Schantz", etc. For the other instruments, "Original" and "Basic" are commonly used for naming the most neutral preset. It is also often specified in the instrument description within the presets manager.

It is not necessarily the first preset in the list, as we usually tend to put in first one which is supposed to be the most pleasant, which is of course highly debatable.

Philippe (Modartt)
Very interesting and useful indeed. Thank you.

I just tried using the mentioned presets, and they seem to better expose the differences between models, compared to the "Prelude" presets.

Very good to know.

User avatar
KVRian
670 posts since 2 Sep, 2019

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:59 am

I always use the “Player” presets.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP

User avatar
KVRAF
4900 posts since 23 Aug, 2014 from Boston/Cambridge

Post Sun Nov 22, 2020 8:25 pm

Great vid walkthrough by Simeon:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HCU0vqzniA

User avatar
tq
KVRian
788 posts since 23 Apr, 2003

Post Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:06 am

Hi folks, didn't Uncle E from JRR shop mention somewhere that they may have a Pianoteq expansion sale during Black Friday week or on Black Friday? Just wondering where I read that... Nothing there yet, but checking once in a while just to make sure... TQ

User avatar
KVRAF
2133 posts since 12 May, 2004 from Oxford, UK

Post Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:54 am

tq wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:06 am
Hi folks, didn't Uncle E from JRR shop mention somewhere that they may have a Pianoteq expansion sale during Black Friday week or on Black Friday? Just wondering where I read that... Nothing there yet, but checking once in a while just to make sure... TQ
yes he did. I suggested it was going to be a last minute thing ..and he agreed.

So I'm thinking Friday or Monday.

User avatar
tq
KVRian
788 posts since 23 Apr, 2003

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:06 am

Modartt already has the deal online - 30 % off of expansions, which I think is excellent for them (they usually do not discount much). Now I am wondering which ones to get. I am especially intrigued by the non-piano packs for mutating pianos with them, using the morph feature in 7. Any recommendations on these? I already have the e-piano/Hohner expansions, so talking about:
Harp, Celeste, Xylos, Steel, Vibes.

Also, I am thinking about getting the upright for maximum variance.

Opinions?

User avatar
KVRAF
32367 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:20 pm

So what's the best sounding piano add-on in the new version?

User avatar
KVRAF
21411 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:26 pm

That's like the most subjective thing you could ask...

User avatar
KVRAF
32367 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:37 pm

I know - I have demo'd them all but I'm finding it hard to choose between the Bechstein, Steingraber and Bluethner. However I'm wondering if the Bluethner in particular has been updated to the new model so was also wondering which one works best in the new Pianoteq, which is a bit more objective?

KVRAF
4847 posts since 28 Dec, 2015 from Hanover, Germany

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:39 pm

aMUSEd wrote:
Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:37 pm
I know - I have demo'd them all but I'm finding it hard to choose between the Bechstein, Steingraber and Bluethner. However I'm wondering if the Bluethner in particular has been updated to the new model so was also wondering which one works best in the new Pianoteq, which is a bit more objective?
Steingraeber :tu:

User avatar
KVRAF
21411 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia

Post Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:04 pm

BTW all of the models have been updated.

Return to “Instruments”