KVR Audio

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:54 am

Ok, I downloaded the demo.

First of all, I don't know why, but it wouldn't make sound the first time I inserted it, while other plugins were fine. Next time loading it was fine.

There are DEFINITELY notes cutting off. If you haven't heard them, then you likely haven't held notes long enough in the lower registers, where it's more evident. And no, I wasn't stressing my CPU. I held single notes, with only this plugin loaded.

First, no volume slider or control. Why?

The velocity layers seem to be a lot of filtering instead of actually having layers. Playing really quiet notes still has the same type of attack as playing harder notes. No softening of the attack as with a real piano. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Next, sympathetic resonance really doesn't do much here. And it comes nowhere close to matching REAL SR from plugins like Pianoteq. In Pianoteq, you can hold notes down until they fade away, then continue holding them while they are silent. Then hit other notes on the keyboard and you will actually hear the strings from the original notes as they resonate and create new harmonics. THAT is sympathetic resonance. I'm not sure what this is doing, but it seems to be nothing much at all. Maybe I'm missing something.

Other than that, there are no controls to actually change the sound. Velocity scaling and dynamics, but that's about it.

Also, no way to hit notes on the interface to audition them. Not a huge deal, but still something that is missing that all the competition has.

Also, the CPU is only low after the note's attack is over. Just hitting a note causes the CPU to jump around 15% before dying down. This doesn't seem to be accumulative, so hitting five notes won't multiply that by five times. But it's a huge jump in CPU that isn't normal.

I don't like to be overly critical of something I haven't given plenty of time to yet, but so far, there is no way this matches Pianoteq or TP. I hope they can get it turned around and improve on it. But as of now, I'll have to spend some more time when I get home with my monitors and full keyboard available to me. It doesn't sound BAD, or horrible or anything. It just doesn't match the other options that are out there yet, IMO.

Brent

marce · Post by **marce** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:02 am

The "Warm" preset is not bad. The dynamic range is weak, at first look. Looking the files installed, i found three big ones with the extension ".wyc". Looking them with the hexeditor of the file manager, appear they are some kind of soundfonts or compiled wav files. There are two that appear are the pianos and one called "SynthResonredc" that appear that have the wave data of the Sympathethic resonance.
Im afraid that they would be more succesfully publishing their efforts as a sample library than using this VSTi format.

Bubbamusic · Post by **Bubbamusic** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:43 am

marce wrote:The "Warm" preset is not bad. The dynamic range is weak, at first look. Looking the files installed, i found three big ones with the extension ".wyc". Looking them with the hexeditor of the file manager, appear they are some kind of soundfonts or compiled wav files. There are two that appear are the pianos and one called "SynthResonredc" that appear that have the wave data of the Sympathethic resonance.
Im afraid that they would be more succesfully publishing their efforts as a sample library than using this VSTi format.

I believe that you are on to something. I did a little checking and this is a Synthmaker synth, not Synthedit and I was told that it IS using samples. Everyone that has knocked the dynamics and action have been correct, although I still don't have notes, lower or any other dropping out. What impressed me was the clarity of the sound albeit lacked cajones in the lower registers as I posted in the op. The clarity is striking next to Pianoteq which is mud next to this piano. The fact that it is samples is the explanation for the better sound. This probably belongs in the same barrel as the analog look-a-like vst's that that dude from the far east puts up every few months. I thought that the sound was exceptional for physical modeling and apparently it was.

Bubbamusic · Post by **Bubbamusic** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:48 am

Guetiger wrote:Sonar wasn't able to quit after using this VST, there is no uninstaller, had to delete the folder manually after reboot.
The GUI is very cheap looking, you can't click the notes of the keyboard.
In standalone mode there is no asio option?!?
The sound is no match for Truepianos or Pianoteq (imho) and has some serious problems like some mentioned before...

I will try it again if it is a bit more mature!

BTW: There was an uninstal in Windows control panel where most are.

Jake Jackson · Post by **Jake Jackson** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:51 am

(If the sound in PianoTeq seems muddy to you, try lowering the upper three-four partials by about 3-4 decibels each. May give softer and middle velocity notes a sound that more closely resembles that of piano sample libraries.)

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:52 am

Bubbamusic wrote:
marce wrote:The "Warm" preset is not bad. The dynamic range is weak, at first look. Looking the files installed, i found three big ones with the extension ".wyc". Looking them with the hexeditor of the file manager, appear they are some kind of soundfonts or compiled wav files. There are two that appear are the pianos and one called "SynthResonredc" that appear that have the wave data of the Sympathethic resonance.
Im afraid that they would be more succesfully publishing their efforts as a sample library than using this VSTi format.
I believe that you are on to something. I did a little checking and this is a Synthmaker synth, not Synthedit and I was told that it IS using samples. Everyone that has knocked the dynamics and action have been correct, although I still don't have notes, lower or any other dropping out. What impressed me was the clarity of the sound albeit lacked cajones in the lower registers as I posted in the op. The clarity is striking next to Pianoteq which is mud next to this piano. The fact that it is samples is the explanation for the better sound. This probably belongs in the same barrel as the analog look-a-like vst's that that dude from the far east puts up every few months. I thought that the sound was exceptional for physical modeling and apparently it was.

That "clarity" isn't necessarily a good thing. The "mud" you hear in Pianoteq may be down to the preset you are using, as it's definitely not muddy unless you want it to be.

I am curious if you can make an audio file of the lower notes playing out without cutting out. Just play single notes until they die down, and record it. I want to hear an example of them not cutting out. Because they seem to on everyone else's system.

I just fail to be impressed with this piano from a pianist's standpoint. Some of the characteristics you mention aren't necessarily realistic. If that's the sound you want, then great. There is nothing wrong with that. But IMO they are too much like the cheap piano soundfonts found around the web in some aspects. The sound needs more life, more "wood" from the piano. REAL sympathetic resonance(which this does not have). REAL velocity layering(which this does not have). And this lacks the playability of things like Pianoteq. You don't "feel" the piano, while you do with the other options.

It's just got so far to go, IMO. Again, I hate being so negative, and I'll give it more time. But this definitely has a long ways to go, IMO.

Brent

Bubbamusic · Post by **Bubbamusic** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:42 am

I guess that I don't know how to make my point. The only thing that this piano had in its favor was its clarity because I had believed the claim that it was a truly physically modelled instrument. No, it's not a great piano, but the aforementioned clarity was striking to me when compared with Pianoteq, which IS a physically modeled instrument. Where did anyone get the impression that I thought everyone should by this instrument? I stated that I was impressed with the sonic results that they had gotten with the technology. I also stated the I was interested if their use of the technology would translate to other instruments - where my real interests lay. As it turns out, the company at the very least misled regarding its use of physical modeling. That makes it a sampled instrument and if that is the case, it belongs near the bottom of the list. Yes, if I have the time, I will record the entire lower two octaves in order to listen for notes dropping out. Maybe I got a good copy. No, I wouldn't buy this turd and I never said that I would. IMHO, no matter how many adjustments you make to Pianoteq, it will not sound as clear as the samples used for this instrument, albeit they were not the best made samples. The technology, apparently still has a way to go.

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:46 am

I think I partially misunderstood your intent, and I don't mean to twist any words around. It's more clear now, and my apologies for any misunderstanding of your words.

About Pianoteq and the clarity issue, keep in mind that most real pianos don't have super clarity either. They mesh really well and the piano sounds as an instrument, not as a collection of 88 different notes. This is why I said the clarity isn't necessarily a good thing. Pianoteq may be a bit more muddy due to the way each note reacts to the other notes being played. Also, you CAN change the muddiness in Pianoteq to your liking using the harmonics, EQ, and other options included.

Cheers!

Brent

Bubbamusic · Post by **Bubbamusic** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:53 am

I am fifty-six years old. I had my first piano lesson in 1959. I gave them for a few decades and played full time for almost four decades. The thing about clear, high frequencies is, you can always dial them down. If they are not there, they are not there. Everything else is easy. I was impressed with what looked like a quantum leap in technology - one that we are all expecting.

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:59 am

Bubbamusic wrote:I am fifty-six years old. I had my first piano lesson in 1959. I gave them for a few decades and played full time for almost four decades. The thing about clear, high frequencies is, you can always dial them down. If they are not there, they are not there. Everything else is easy. I was impressed with what looked like a quantum leap in technology - one that we are all expecting.

That would be the case with a sampled piano, just remove them, and if they aren't there, they aren't there. But Pianoteq, being a fully modelled piano, can create the harmonics as needed. It CAN create the frequencies where they aren't there, because it's not static. Which is why I'm saying that Pianoteq doesn't have to be muddy.

It IS a bit more muddy(not really the word I would choose, but for lack of a better term) than with TP, but each has their own character and are a blast to play on a fully weighted keyboard and great monitors. I have a blast every time I play them.

I don't expect that everyone will like Pianoteq. It highly depends on what you are used to playing. There are so many piano models out there, so many brands, and even the same brand and model will sound slightly different typically. So what is "real" and what is "best" or sounds "right" is often just down to taste and preference.

So I'm not really right here, or wrong. Just different tastes, I suppose.

Brent

shane1980 · Post by **shane1980** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:10 am

I am the guy from sound magic who released the piano
I am very busy for there are already 3 guys from different countries announced that I steal their programs. I have already suggested them to decide which one of them is the "origin" and then sue me...It is obviously some developers are very afraid of Supreme Pianos, who brings serious competitions into this market.

I thanked Bubbamusic for his careful and detailed testing.
I thanked rasmusklump for his testing.
I thanked Brent for his suggestion on demos and detailed description on the program..
But I am ashamed that some people here only say "it is not realistic" or "It is bad and cheap" without any useful or professional suggestions.

To brent and rasmusklump,
There are DEFINITELY no note cutting off on our QUAD CORE System, and also beta testers' system. But I believed that Brent did not tell lies. I need more feedback on this issue from other sources.

There is volume slider with a different name, Velocity Ceiling, different meanings but has included the function of volume slider.

For Velocity layers, playing really quiet notes still has the same type of attack as playing harder notes?
This is true. For the Grand we use to model is EXACTLY like the plug-in, the attack is still strong in quiet notes. But Brent you are not WRONG, I met some Grand that the same as you said.What we should do here is to accurately model the aimed piano. So here we did the right thing, we accurately represent the piano we modeled even it sounds strange on some points.

For sympathetic resonance, we spent two years modeling a Grand's sympathetic resonances. I am sorry that other SRs are not very accurate sympathetic resonance. For they lack the behaviors when hit by different velocity. And also they lack the sympathetic resonance differences between pedals up and down. They are all using a kind of global sympathetic resonance but I am sorry that's far from true sympathetic resonances. Sympathetic resonance is so complex that we have to spend over 60% size and CPU power to create a convincing sympathetic resonance in Supreme Pianos. Please do not starting from the point that some previous program did something absolutely right

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:17 am

Hello. Thank you for chiming in. I'm at work and need to finish some stuff, so I will comment and give some suggestions once I get done/home.

I will say that I am sorry if my posts seemed harsh. I don't intend for them to be. My apologies for not giving good suggestions, and I will do my best to offer some here in a bit. So please accept my apologies for being a jerk if I have been. As I said above, I want to wait until I'm at home at my REAL keyboard and monitors before passing final judgement.

So I will do that. And I hope you know that it's nothing personal. Cool?

Brent

Bubbamusic · Post by **Bubbamusic** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:17 am

It is not so much taste as it is the application. Recording classical or jazz with a quartet or a very small acoustic ensemble, you could get away with a "full range" piano - harmonics, warts and all. Of course you know that with a full-on group of electric instruments, one might want a "leaner" piano sound as not to muddy up the works by stepping on another instrument's frequency range. I was always taught never to put any band on an equallizer above 0db, only take away unwanted frequencies. Perhaps some of the new bass libraries can prove this point. Instead of adding high freqs to the sound electronically to give it edge, they even add fret noise and other high pitched effects for edge. To me Pianoteq is a step in the process along the way to a beautiful modeled instrument. I would never use it in a recording. I don't think that the tech is usable yet.

koolkeys · Post by **koolkeys** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:21 am

By the way, I do disagree on the sympathetic resonance. I tried to describe in another post earlier one of the things I noticed, but will expand on it once I get home and play it for a bit.

One thing I think that may help is possibly not having an attitude of "we're better than others" on anything. Even if you really believe it, and regardless of whether it's true in any form, it comes across wrong for a new developer. I mean this sincerely.

I bet it would be difficult for me, you, or anyone else to describe exactly what makes a "real" piano sound, considering how many pianos there are out there.

Ok, for real now, off to get stuff done and I'll chime in a bit later.

Brent

shane1980 · Post by **shane1980** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:45 am

koolkeys wrote:By the way, I do disagree on the sympathetic resonance. I tried to describe in another post earlier one of the things I noticed, but will expand on it once I get home and play it for a bit.

One thing I think that may help is possibly not having an attitude of "we're better than others" on anything. Even if you really believe it, and regardless of whether it's true in any form, it comes across wrong for a new developer. I mean this sincerely.

I bet it would be difficult for me, you, or anyone else to describe exactly what makes a "real" piano sound, considering how many pianos there are out there.

Ok, for real now, off to get stuff done and I'll chime in a bit later.

Brent

Hi Brent,
I am sorry if my posts also seemed harsh. You gave me many good advices indeed and I sincerely accept them. I am looking forward to your result.

Physically Modeled Piano