Pianoteq 3

[Bryan@MuseResearch]

Well, I finally received some information from the wonderful folks over at Modartt. It looks like we have been waiting on Muse all of this time, and that the compatibility is most likely limited to OS 1.8. So now I must also wait for the elusive OS 1.8 for Receptor 1 hardware in order to get Pianoteq 3 running.

I truly regret buying a Receptor. For the price they charge, they should be quite a bit more expedient in their efforts. The inconvenience far outweighs any advantage they can claim that Receptor has over plain old hardware at this point.


JR

Sorry to hear of your disappointment. Admittedly, it does take us quite some time to get new plugins out, but I think if you spoke to anyone who uses Receptor on a regular basis they will tell you that once it is released, it really DOES work. In fact I got a mail from the crew of Coldplay who said they've now played over 150 shows without so much as a hiccup, and they have had dedicated hardware fail during that time...

As for Pianoteq 3, they did have us hold off until they got the latest release done, but the fact of the matter is that it is done now, it works great, and it is available through the public beta site already (see the other posts about 1.8 public beta) and should go live on Plugorama tomorrow...

Groovology

[johnrule]

What is the status of getting Pianoteq 3 working on Receptor? Pianoteq 2 has worked great on my Receptor Pro Jr. but I'd love to get the newest Pianoteq working as well.

Jon

We have spoken with Pianoteq and should be releasing Pianoteq 3 on Receptor in the next few weeks assuming we don't encounter any big issues with it. So far so good, so check plugorama in a few weeks.

Cheers

Groovology

This quote is 6 months old and refers to Receptor 1 hardware running OS 1.7.

In my opinion, this is the liability that Muse should take seriously. You make promises like this and then months go by...then you claim that it will only run on OS 1.8, it will only run on Receptor 2, etc. etc. etc. I just don't believe anything you state anymore.

I have Pianoteq 3.0.5 working on my Receptor 1 (Rev C - OS 1.7). With the reverb on it uses about 50-60% cpu when I was playing rather furiously (1.8 ghz single core AMD Turion on my Receptor)...turning reverb off saves about 15% cpu. My Receptor 1 works fine with Pianoteq 3, it's the custom software installers that are the problem. This proves to me that an installer could be provided for older Receptors in regards to Pianoteq 3.

Why haven't you (Muse) provided the Pianoteq 3 installer for Receptor 1 customers as promised back in July of 2009?

JR

[Balda]

This quote is 6 months old and refers to Receptor 1 hardware running OS 1.7.

In my opinion, this is the liability that Muse should take seriously. You make promises like this and then months go by...then you claim that it will only run on OS 1.8, it will only run on Receptor 2, etc. etc. etc. I just don't believe anything you state anymore.

I have Pianoteq 3.0.5 working on my Receptor 1 (Rev C - OS 1.7). With the reverb on it uses about 50-60% cpu when I was playing rather furiously (1.8 ghz single core AMD Turion on my Receptor)...turning reverb off saves about 15% cpu. My Receptor 1 works fine with Pianoteq 3, it's the custom software installers that are the problem. This proves to me that an installer could be provided for older Receptors in regards to Pianoteq 3.

Why haven't you (Muse) provided the Pianoteq 3 installer for Receptor 1 customers as promised back in July of 2009?

JR

It is the same with Symphobia. "This plug-in can be installed on a Receptor running OS version 1.8 or higher." In reality it can be installed on a Receptor rev.C running OS version 1.7 but Muse need push people to buy Receptor 2...

[johnrule]

It is the same with Symphobia. "This plug-in can be installed on a Receptor running OS version 1.8 or higher." In reality it can be installed on a Receptor rev.C running OS version 1.7 but Muse need push people to buy Receptor 2...

The real headache with this plug-in (and others of course) is that it requires an iLok version...so you really can't do an "unsupported install" on your own. I just happened to try the 1.8 installer, which installed the specially compiled .dll. Through experimentation (that they probably never anticipated anyone would try) I discovered that it is not an OS 1.7 problem, nor is it a Receptor 1 problem.

There is no real reason why a Pianoteq 3 (or even 3.5) installer for Receptor 1 (OS 1.7) cannot be provided.

JR

[Balda]

It is the same with Symphobia. "This plug-in can be installed on a Receptor running OS version 1.8 or higher." In reality it can be installed on a Receptor rev.C running OS version 1.7 but Muse need push people to buy Receptor 2...

The real headache with this plug-in (and others of course) is that it requires an iLok version...so you really can't do an "unsupported install" on your own. I just happened to try the 1.8 installer, which installed the specially compiled .dll. Through experimentation (that they probably never anticipated anyone would try) I discovered that it is not an OS 1.7 problem, nor is it a Receptor 1 problem.

There is no real reason why a Pianoteq 3 (or even 3.5) installer for Receptor 1 (OS 1.7) cannot be provided.

JR

Probably you are right. I never try Pianoteq3 on Receptor rev.C...

[johnrule]

There is no real reason why a Pianoteq 3 (or even 3.5) installer for Receptor 1 (OS 1.7) cannot be provided.

Where is the promised installer for Receptor 1 users Muse?

JR

[jeamsler]

John Rule: How did you get Pianoteq 3 working on a Receptor 1?

[johnrule]

John Rule: How did you get Pianoteq 3 working on a Receptor 1?

The current Pianoteq installer for OS 1.8 has the correct .dll that works on 1.7 and 1.8 (Receptor 1 and 2). Motivated by shear frustration (because of waiting for Muse to deliver - and then only supporting OS 1.8 on Receptor 2), and not caring what happens to my Receptor, I installed the 1.8 only version of Pianoteq 3 on my Receptor 1.

This of course failed, but it did install the .dll that I needed to do a simple unsupported install. You also need the Pianoteq30 folder in the "My Documents" folder that has the same files as your "Program Files" on a Windows install (actually, I think the only thing you really need is the executable and your add-ons folder). You also need to refresh your plug-ins and select the "unsupported" Pianoteq .dll (the failed 1.8 install leaves a duplicate that you cannot delete). And of course, you need your authorized iLok.

The important thing is that it works, and it works fine. There should be a proper installer rather than this convoluted work-around that I discovered quite by accident. I wouldn't recommend doing this unless you really want Pianoteq 3.0.5 working (and Muse never comes through - which is their pattern), and you have a backup image of your drive. This method worked on my Receptor 1 (AMD Turion single core 1.8 ghz - Rev. C - OS 1.7), and there may be an easier way.

Ultimately, if no installer materializes, I would hope that Muse or Modartt might provide just the .dll so that we can do an unsupported install on our own. It is good to know that we can do this without their help regardless.


JR

[richwhite9]

Not sure I'll ever understand the reasons for not publishing the code for the installers.

Even if home hackers wrote them and sent them to Muse to test and publish it would make greater use of the community.

[johnrule]

Well, now I have Pianoteq 3.5 running on my Receptor 1 (Rev C - OS 1.7). There are a few hiccups of course because of the age of the Wine/Linux OS currently running, but it does run stable when you avoid a few simple things. This finally proves what I have been stating...there is no good reason why an installer hasn't been provided for either Pianoteq 3 or 3.5 for Receptor 1 owners. And, I don't understand why Receptor 2 owners have to do without Pianoteq 3.5 at this point...

JR

[Throbert]

All those upgrades just to run updated plugins

[PhilMuller]

I must be missing something here. Why would you buy PianoTec3 for, I believe, $595 when you can buy Ivory or IvoryII for much less money?

[johnrule]

I must be missing something here.

You are missing a few things...

Pianoteq Standard is $279 (the Pro version is $560) , and you can expand it with other models for $40 and above. You also get a Mac version and a native Linux version for free (the only company that does this I believe). The Pro version is brand new, and it is still uncertain what target market they are going for...the editing is above and beyond anything I can see (i.e. separate tuning for every key?).

The point of Pianoteq is that it takes up very little hard drive space and memory, which is the opposite of sample based pianos. This also allows Pianoteq to load very fast, and not take up valuable memory in a 32 or 64 bit environment. The string sympathetic resonance is superior to anything else, and acoustic characteristics like soundboard, hammer, key noise, pedal, etc. are very tweak-able, enabling you to get exactly the sound you are looking for (if you don't like the included presets).

The last installer for Pianoteq on the Receptor 1 is 2.3 (August of 2008?), and that is when I bought my Receptor 1. Version 3 was a major upgrade in sound quality (March of 2009?), and version 3.5 is even more so. Like many other plugins that we all use, the developer adds enhancements that make the product better...sometimes so much better that you find it hard to use an older version.

JR

[PhilMuller]

I must be missing something here.

You are missing a few things...JR

I tried the original demo of Pianotec alongside of Ivory, it was not even close. To me and 90% of the pianists out there, it is still all about sound and playability. Saving RAM and disk space comes in a far second place.

Are you saying that Pianotec has come a long way with their new versions and are competing head to head with Ivory? If that is the case, then maybe I should give Pianotec another shot.

[jeamsler]

Pianos are interesting instruments because they cover such a wide range of frequency and dynamics compared to most other instruments. Players don't all rank a pianos characteristics in the same order of importance, and of course don't play a piano the same way. I own a rebuilt chickering vintage 1926 baby grand piano which I have played for 20+ years. Ivory can sound wonderful BUT I'd rather use Pianoteq because pianoteq has a much greater and fluid dynamic range at this point which rings truer to me. That was true even for Pianoteq 2. For me the sound in a moment is not as important as how that sound fits in over time with the changing dynamics of my playing. I don't know that a listener would notice this difference much but for me as a player it is huge.