Why are sampled pianos so flat?

[Kalamata Kid]

Hello,

I appreciate everyone for putting so much time
to help me. AKJ you really went all out. This has to be a
personal like and dislike thing.

AKJ, Yes your examples were good. I especially like the second
www.power-xs.net/download/traeumerei-steinway.mp3
So I located the “Classical Masterpieces” that had the piano
version of “Traeumerei” which by the way also goes by
Dreaming op. 15/7. Not even sure who the pianist is. But
the very first note which is a single note is superior to the
examples you posted. The note evolves almost as if out of
tune. That is the beauty of it to me. The first note is cut a little
too short for my liking in your versions. The notes there after
are also more beautiful in the CD recording but that I can
understand the reason for it.

Check out this mp3 of Traeumerei
http://www.claudiocolombo.net/Altremusi ... enen07.mp3
Not crazy about this recording but could not find one better online

Per Metamorphosis “loose so much nuance going to sampled stuff”.
This may be it! But I just checked artvista VMG and there was a
lot of nuance there IMO. What is your opinion?

I believe that that we can agree that recording a live performance
using a real piano will always sound better than recording a
performance using a sampled piano. But what i am talking
about is single piano note that should evolve as it decays.
Modulate is the word? Nuansce. It is obvious I do not have
much experience but I do have a good ear for what I want from
a sampled piano.

The new list
1. Drop “The Grand” or use for pop music only
1. Wait for the NI Akoustik Piano demo
2. Consider Piano Sympathetic Resonance at http://music.mezo.com/
3. Experiment with adding EQ and reverb to sampled pianos
4. Wait for artvista VGP to be included in the Purgatory Creek shoot out.
5 Spend more time searching for sampled audio demos.

[flugel45]

from the demo files on their site I must say that I am not particularly impressed with the artvista grand. I think most people just like it's room sound (which imo actually does not sound like a recording of a concert type room but rather like in a private space so maybe people get the feeling: oh, it's sounds like when I am playing the piano). I suggest checking your own libraries with some good IRs from natural rooms/halls. maybe, that will do the trick. personally, comparing the files at purgatory creek I still find the bösendorfer 275 the most convincing (and versatile) grand out there.
akj

Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to stick with my originally stated opinion of the Art Vista piano. For you to suggest that you think most people just like its room sound is... well, beyond arrogant. I, for one, like the sound of the piano, thank you very much (not really - the real thanks goes to the developer Hans Adamson). Just got the disc today so haven't played with it much, but I'm confident I can get it to sit nicely in a mix without having to find that perfect "natural sounding" IR, because God forbid, the room should sound "off" (convolution indeed).

JD

[pitchdrifter]

from the demo files on their site I must say that I am not particularly impressed with the artvista grand. I think most people just like it's room sound (which imo actually does not sound like a recording of a concert type room but rather like in a private space so maybe people get the feeling: oh, it's sounds like when I am playing the piano). I suggest checking your own libraries with some good IRs from natural rooms/halls. maybe, that will do the trick. personally, comparing the files at purgatory creek I still find the bösendorfer 275 the most convincing (and versatile) grand out there.
akj

You don't, by any chance, mean the sustain, do you? Becuase there is no reverb of any sort on these samples. And purgatory creek.. if I want a robot to compare different pianos, I go there. I'm sure they'll find even faster pieces, to make even the crappiest of piano libraries sound acceptable there.

[AKJ]

Hi,

flugel45: I can't find it arrognat what I am saying. It is very obvious that the demos postred on their site make use of an advertised feature of this product: dry and wet (!) recording. the demos do not sound dry at all. And I was actually refering to Kalamata Kid. As you can see from his reaction to the Bösendorfer 275 with a room IR: he then found it more convincing. Many people react like this: they do not find dry recorded sample libs natural - for the natural reason that we hardly hear stuff in a recording room which has been designed for absorbing reverbation. but dry samples give you the opportunity to add whatever room character you like - especially these days with convolution vsts around. I have not heard and played the Arvista, I can only judge from the demos on their site and to me these are not very impressive. The only explanation I had was that it sounds very much like in a natural room - the piano sound character itself not being particularly good to me. but I think this is a question of taste. definately, it is a good vfm for a lib of this size.

to xRavenx: no, I don't mean the sustain. there is definately room sound on these demos. they also advertise on their site that they have dry and wet recorded samples. so if this was dry they either they don't know how to record dry (less likely) or they used some amount of their wet samples (which I believe is more likely). The piano shootout is not a robot: it is done by a person and it is just the brillant idea to use the same midi file (with sufficient dynamic range) and the same fx settings with all pianos in order to be able to make a fair comparison - if you do not have the chance to make a live testing of all these libs. I do not konw a place where you can do it. (do you? btw: we live in the same city)

to Kalamata Kid: maybe now I found what you are actually missing: a damped leyer. Personally I do not like damped playing so I do not miss this feature a lot in my libs, but the recoding you linked to makes a lot use of damping (and I think this is what the composer wanted). In my examples the damping was just faked by the sampler (as most libs do not have a damped layer). this is not the real thing. you need a lib with samples recorded with damping. I think Ivory has it. The artvista does not seem to have it from whta they descvribe on their site. use of the damping pedal also could explain the effect you describe with the first note in your favourite recording: without damping the sound, once triggered, hardly can be shaped/modulated. but "touching" the sting slightly with the dampler can create such an effect. but I fear for this you need the real thing.

best, akj

addition: also reverb/convolution can create a modulation of the note. some reverb fx have a parameter for the amounbt of modulation of late reflection.

[AKJ]

to flugel45: could you do us a favopur and post an example with the artvista (maybe dry and wet) using the same midi file as I did:

www.power-xs.net/dowmload/traum.mid

thanks, akj

[pitchdrifter]

I don't find the midi file(s) they use sufficient. As for 'dry', if you mean recorded in an anechoic chamber, no they weren't. When have you last seen or heard a piano or grand used in an anechoic chamber? I find the entire super-dry approach *particularly* for brass and piano entirely idiotic. Why? They don't sound natural totally dry, no matter what or how much reverb you slap onto the samples afterwards. One might call them 'more flexible', I call them 'they sound like crap'. Look at how the perfectionist aproach ruined the character the old lady had initially in the very first mockups, before they removed the 'noise'.
But of course there are people who wouldn't want anything but totally dry material to work with, and I'm aware they'll be picking different libs than I go for. Only then I wouldn't recommend the whole 'natural sound' debate, because when you record totally dry, you left the 'natural sound' domain from the ground up.

Markus

[AKJ]

I believe that with good IRs it can come very, very close to a natrual room feeling. What is more: I very much like a dry sound - also for brass and piano. If you have the room sound on your samples there is no way to remove it. of course, having both is the best.

again refering to the example refered to by Kalamata Kit: if you listen to the blabla before the actual palying starts it is clearly stated that they use the wet sample set of the lib only! and if you take/took this demo for dry - well, I don't know then...

akj

[AKJ]

I believe that that we can agree that recording a live performance
using a real piano will always sound better than recording a
performance using a sampled piano.

I doubt that I agree: a real performance recorded will sound better if:

a) a top notch instrument is used
b) a top player is performing
c) the room is well suited for recoding
d) there are no disturbing noises
e) the rocording is well done (which needs a lot of experience)

only then is will sound superior.

samples lib give you:

a) access to the sound of selected top notch instruments (not all Steinway Ds or whatever instrument you chose sound the same, that is why good players take a lot of time to select their instrument)
b) if it's a good lib: it has been recorded (and programmed) well
c) if it includes dry samples: you have the chance to shape the sound very flexibly
d) if you are a not so good player (like me): you can edit the midi data

but this is just me...

[gugliel]

Read through this, and listened to a midi version and a live version: to me, what was most dramatic was how much better programmed the living version was! The first note was ok on the midi, but then the next with a melody note plus chord sounded like a big clunk -- poor midi rendition, regardless of the samples! Seems to me you could do a lot without any eq or much reverb to improve the midi rendition.

[flugel45]

I don't find the midi file(s) they use sufficient. As for 'dry', if you mean recorded in an anechoic chamber, no they weren't. When have you last seen or heard a piano or grand used in an anechoic chamber? I find the entire super-dry approach *particularly* for brass and piano entirely idiotic. Why? They don't sound natural totally dry, no matter what or how much reverb you slap onto the samples afterwards. One might call them 'more flexible', I call them 'they sound like crap'. Look at how the perfectionist aproach ruined the character the old lady had initially in the very first mockups, before they removed the 'noise'.
But of course there are people who wouldn't want anything but totally dry material to work with, and I'm aware they'll be picking different libs than I go for. Only then I wouldn't recommend the whole 'natural sound' debate, because when you record totally dry, you left the 'natural sound' domain from the ground up.

Markus

This is exactly how I feel. And AKJ, you consistently miss the point, telling us how we're supposed to assess these pianos. Well, isn't that up to us? As it has been said before, these things are very subjective. Can't we simply agree that we have different tastes, instead of you trying to convince us that our judging criteria is wrong?

Like xRavenx, I personally don't need the dry sound, and bought the ArtVista based on the demo's ambience (which I happen to like - while also knowing that I could adjust it to a bigger or smaller room).

Bottom line is that we like it, and you don't. Enough said. Different strokes... you know? I wish you luck on your hunt for the perfect sampled piano (Not being sarcastic - I truly hope you find something that suits your needs and makes you happy).

Regards,
JD

[dharmawan]

im not a great player but i have played piano since 6 and recently also recorded a lot of grand piano and the art vista is the only one id consider using on a recording. steinberg grands are quite bad despite the hype, and the boesendorfer is too dark and lifeless.

to be honest i probably wouldnt use sampled pianos on a recording by themselves, only if there are more instruments in the arrangement and the budget/timetable doesnt allow for recording a real one

[AKJ]

flugel45: well, of course it is subjective what you like. if you like the sound of this piano: great. I didn't like it when I heard the demos. so I was wondering what people (especially the person who started this thread) would like just from judging the available demos: and the only explanation I had was the room sound which was present. for obvious reasons room sound adds "life" to samples. however, the question is: this a wet recording the only possibility to bring samples to life? my answer is no. dry samples + fx are more flexible. if you prefer it wet: get wet samples. I am just trying to approach the question raised. again: if you like this library: wonderful, it's a great value for money. but I still believe that you can bring any library to life with propper fx. the rest is a qustion is you are lkiking the recorded sound of the piano and how well it is programmed. personally, I do not seem to like the sound of the artvista too much (and I do not refer to the room part of the sound but to the basic sound which imo is too bright for my personal tase of a steinway, but then: I did not play it life, maybe it's different then). other people obviously do disagree.
But don't you think it is a bit unlogical what you are telling me: first you say I am arrogant and that I am missing the point stating that people just like this lib for the room-sound which is present in the demos. and then you say (agreeing with xRavenx) that it is exactly the room sound which you like. strange logic.

gugliel is co course right when he says that the performance is maybe the more important part than the fx. personally I would always prefer to listen to a good composition well performed in a poor audio quality than listening to bad music poorly performed in hifi.

akj

[cptgone]

Topic: Why are sampled pianos so flat?

...overcompression?

[flugel45]

flugel45:...
But don't you think it is a bit unlogical what you are telling me: first you say I am arrogant and that I am missing the point stating that people just like this lib for the room-sound which is present in the demos. and then you say (agreeing with xRavenx) that it is exactly the room sound which you like. strange logic....
akj

You obviously forgot that in the previous post I said I like the sound of the piano. So it is not "exactly the room sound that I like", it is the combination of the room and the piano. What I took offense to was your insinuation that I (and others) couldn't possibly like the piano sound, so it must be the room. Again, imposing your taste and logic on everyone else.

Please let's drop this and just say we have different tastes in pianos, okay?

JD

[AKJ]

Like xRavenx, I personally don't need the dry sound, and bought the ArtVista based on the demo's ambience

well this is what you wrote, but agreed, let's stop it

akj