Best Plugin For Solo Piano Works ???

[koolkeys]

In the end, most of this won't matter to the listener, no doubt about it.
Brent

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.

Pretty much nails it!

Brent

[koolkeys]

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?

Yes, you are right. Pianoteq is designed for people who play, and as mentioned before, it's recommended to have a weighted controller because it's designed for that.

Part of what makes an instrument great is how it reacts to the player. Pianoteq does this more than any library could. Not everyone will like the sound, of course. But the feel of the instrument is every bit as important as the sound for the one playing it, and it DOES make a difference in the end.

Again, Pianoteq is not going to give the best results for somebody who just programs their parts in. Nothing wrong with that approach, but it's just not designed that way.

Brent

[Imyself]

(...)
Ya know, I think that it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold to not like Pianoteq. After all, different tastes are part of the way we are.
(...)
Pianoteq isn't perfect, and if you're looking for something to completely emulate an acoustic instrument, go buy an acoustic instrument. It doesn't exist, not for the piano, not for guitar, not for strings, nothing. And there are a LOT of great libraries out there. I use them every single day. So just take this as a general statement based on what I've seen, nothing more.
Brent

+1 for your good sense

[Imyself]

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.

+1 for your good sense

[afreshcupofjoe]

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

I love it when people try to quantify the timbral difference between instruments using percentages. Sorry, but describing what I enjoy about music isn't something that usually lends itself well to being written in a spreadsheet.

Though, I have to thank you because that sentence neatly sums up what I disagree with about most of the "opinions" that keep getting repeated on this thread.

Please define "good".

Again, how do you suppose we do that? I think a Gibson Les Paul is a fantastic sounding electric guitar. I could describe the tonal character all day long and how it differs from, say, a Fender Strat, but if I took all of those tonal qualities and wrote them down on a piece of paper would that then be a satisfactory definition for what makes a Les Paul "good"? It's unlikely, since someone could easily make another guitar that exudes all of the same tonal properties listed on paper and it could end up sounding quite different than a real Les Paul. In fact, it might sound pretty bad. Then we are back to square one again.

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything. I really hope you people don't listen to music that way, but I'm starting to think you do. Is it important to model things like sympathetic resonance in order to achieve the most accurate model of piano possible? Yes. Does that mean that a piano plugin that includes sympathetic resonance automatically sounds better than one that doesn't. Absolutely not. Sorry, but I just don't think Pianoteq sounds nearly as good as sampled pianos, despite their drawbacks. That's not something I can quantify on a spreadsheet. It's just the way it is.

[EvilDragon]

It's just the way it is.

For you, perhaps yes, that is true. But definitely not for everyone! Can you agree with that at least? Can you agree with my statement that FOR ME sample libraries sound (and definitely PLAY) inferior to Pianoteq's model? Because that's "just the way it is", for me.

[lingyai]

[classic]

Hi

With the intent on recording a solo piano album what VST plugin would be best recommended ? I've sampled through EWQL Pianos, Galaxy 2, Steinway Vintage D and Ivory 2.

I know it's down to personal preference but advice would be helpful.


Thanks.

There is really no best.
I am playing piano since 34 years and for any track you will find on piano better then another.

I have plenty piano plugins. All from NI, East West Piano Gold, Pianissimo and others and I use them all each for different music and all on one CD to.

So the more you have the better it is.

classic.

[EvilDragon]

-the lack of brightness, no matter the preset it sounds like not enough partials are resynthesized.

Pianos don't have much spectral energy above 16 kHz that is really viable and integral to the piano sound. The guys at Modartt did extensive analysis of the piano sound, and this is the result they came up with.


It's amazing, you say the lack of brightness, the people at PianoWorld say TOO MUCH brightness. Satisfying everyone is an impossible task, goddamit. That's why Pianoteq has timbral EQ which adjusts the timbre all notes within the model (as opposed to filtering afterwards).

[izonin]

The listener will not care if one sounds 2-3% more 'perfect' but they will care about how well you play.

I love it when people try to quantify the timbral difference between instruments using percentages. Sorry, but describing what I enjoy about music isn't something that usually lends itself well to being written in a spreadsheet.

Though, I have to thank you because that sentence neatly sums up what I disagree with about most of the "opinions" that keep getting repeated on this thread.

Please define "good".

Again, how do you suppose we do that? I think a Gibson Les Paul is a fantastic sounding electric guitar. I could describe the tonal character all day long and how it differs from, say, a Fender Strat, but if I took all of those tonal qualities and wrote them down on a piece of paper would that then be a satisfactory definition for what makes a Les Paul "good"? It's unlikely, since someone could easily make another guitar that exudes all of the same tonal properties listed on paper and it could end up sounding quite different than a real Les Paul. In fact, it might sound pretty bad. Then we are back to square one again.

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything. I really hope you people don't listen to music that way, but I'm starting to think you do. Is it important to model things like sympathetic resonance in order to achieve the most accurate model of piano possible? Yes. Does that mean that a piano plugin that includes sympathetic resonance automatically sounds better than one that doesn't. Absolutely not. Sorry, but I just don't think Pianoteq sounds nearly as good as sampled pianos, despite their drawbacks. That's not something I can quantify on a spreadsheet. It's just the way it is.

+1

Piano libraries lack dynamics and sound somewhat flat. But Pianoteq doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument to me. Wouldn't recommend it for a solo album.

[afreshcupofjoe]

It's just the way it is.

For you, perhaps yes, that is true. But definitely not for everyone! Can you agree with that at least? Can you agree with my statement that FOR ME sample libraries sound (and definitely PLAY) inferior to Pianoteq's model? Because that's "just the way it is", for me.

Of course I can agree with that. Isn't that a given? We all have our opinions. I happen to think yours is wrong, and I'm free to say why I think it's wrong, but in the end it's all opinions. I have no grand delusion about my opinion being the only valid one, but at the same time I'm not going to be passive aggressive and qualify everything with some statement about how everything is subjective. I say what I mean and what I think is right. It would be an awfully boring discussion if we all agreed with each other all of the time, wouldn't it?

[Agemo]

I just listened to some of the Pianoteq audio demos on the developer's site. Some impressions:

The dynamic behaviour is more realistic than that of sample libraries. Two points:

1) Listen to the way the loudness of chords grows briefly after they are struck, before diminishing. There is a loud G minor chord at the end of one of the Schumann excerpts, if you check the site, where this is especially obvious. In the case of sample libraries, chords generally reach maximum loudness immediately after impact. Real pianos in real spaces do not behave like samples in this respect, and in fact the phenomenon of delayed loudness is cultivated by some classical pianists through the use of weight and pedalling. In the Pianoteq examples, perhaps pedalling is the key factor.

(Maybe the described shortcoming in samples is made worse by some methods of recording: instead of the recording of an expert player, the keys are poked with a kind of mechanised umbrella, and there is no attempt to optimise surrounding humidity and temperature.)

2) In the Pianoteq demos, you do not hear discrete changes in tone, common in the case of sample libraries, as the player traverses low velocity layers. Sample libraries can sound quite laughable in that respect.

As one might expect, the overall timbre itself of Pianoteq is somewhat less realistic than that of well recorded sample libraries. This is especially evident in the soprano range. But perhaps the problem is exaggerated by reverb settings, where a few milliseconds of pre-delay might improve matters. I can't tell without playing and tweaking it myself, and the audio demos are too short to allow definite judgement. I might have to demo it myself now people have made me curious...

Two more questions for Pianoteq enthusiasts, please: 1) Does the sympathetic resonance really work like a piano's? I mean, for instance, could you play on the Pianoteq that children's piece by Bartók with the held B major triad? Would it sound right? 2) Which is the best keyboard to play Pianoteq with?

[EvilDragon]

1) Yes, it really works like on a piano. Silent key is possible, and sympathetic resonance sounds different depending on which keys you hold and which ones you play. Harmonic spectrum is correct.

2) No real answer. As long as you have a weighted controller you are used to play, Pianoteq will play along nicely, or perhaps you might want to adjust the velocity curve to fit your style of playing. If you have a very good controller with graded keys, that's even better!

[Agemo]

Thank you, EvilDragon.

[koolkeys]

Please define "good".

Again, how do you suppose we do that? I think a Gibson Les Paul is a fantastic sounding electric guitar. I could describe the tonal character all day long and how it differs from, say, a Fender Strat, but if I took all of those tonal qualities and wrote them down on a piece of paper would that then be a satisfactory definition for what makes a Les Paul "good"? It's unlikely, since someone could easily make another guitar that exudes all of the same tonal properties listed on paper and it could end up sounding quite different than a real Les Paul. In fact, it might sound pretty bad. Then we are back to square one again.

Exactly. My point being only that your definition of good is not universal(I know you know this, but just making the point).

And that's really the problem I see here. People are trying to justify their opinions with a bunch of technical specs that don't really prove anything.

Sure it does. It may not prove which sounds "best" to everyone, but to imply that they don't matter to the sound, or to the player, would be foolish. They absolutely do matter. These are the things that give a piano their character, and these are things that accomplished concert pianists listen for when choosing their pianos. They may not matter as much to the listener, who is largely ignorant of the details, but they absolutely matter to the one playing the piano as a piano's sound is defined by how it inspires and reacts to the player. This is not a guess, not marketing hype. This is fact. Again, not a fact of what piano sounds "best", because as already shown, you really can't define it. But it does matter.

I really hope you people don't listen to music that way, but I'm starting to think you do.

No, I do not. But when we're having a conversation about how to make a piano REALISTIC, it does make a difference and is completely relevant. And when deciding on a piano or library to play, it is completely relevant. We're not talking about listening to music. We're talking about choosing and playing a virtual piano.

Is it important to model things like sympathetic resonance in order to achieve the most accurate model of piano possible? Yes. Does that mean that a piano plugin that includes sympathetic resonance automatically sounds better than one that doesn't. Absolutely not.

Of course not, which is why nobody has said such a thing. There are two different conversations here. What sounds BETTER, and what sounds more REALISTIC. I do happen to think, as do a lot of people who know what they are talking about and aren't just giving in to hype, that the resonance makes a difference. It's why even the library developers try to make it work better in their libraries. Automatically sound better? That's completely down to taste. Sound more realistic? I happen to think it does.

Sorry, but I just don't think Pianoteq sounds nearly as good as sampled pianos, despite their drawbacks. That's not something I can quantify on a spreadsheet. It's just the way it is.

But again, purely opinion.

I would be curious about a couple of things. First, do you play? I'm assuming you do. Second, do you have a fully weighted keyboard? I'm guessing you do? Next, I'm curious what YOU think is the best sounding library, and why? Finally, have you tried Pianoteq 4 yet?

I'm asking these things to more understand where you're coming from. It's intriguing to me trying to figure out why people think the way they do. Me? I've played piano for 22 years and until a few years ago, all my playing was primarily on grand and upright pianos in various churches and other venues. I love the piano. It's the most dynamic and versatile instrument in the world, and also one of the most complex, despite it's seeming simplicity. Pianos fascinate me, hence the conversation. So I'm curious about you. Not to compare or try to see who is better, so please don't get that impression. I'm genuinely curious.

Brent