Pianoteq 4 - oh wow!

[Jake Jackson]

A nice video of Olivier Frappier playing the new Bluethner model:



It was originally posted to the PianoTeq forum. Here's the link to the post:

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic ... 686#p23686

[o0Ampy0o]

OK - I think we need some new perspectives here:
1. TBH, what I heard in the trial is good, but is not something to die for, in what concerns the piano sound strictly speaking, but I am curious to see what can we do by tweaking. That's why I am interested in the standard version.
2. Therefore, the player doesn't interst to me at all, so, no, I don't think it's a good value (a player is NEVER a good value to me).
3. Regarding the "historical" instruments, besides the harpsichord and the cimbalom, all the others are also of null value to me. I frankly don't care how the pianofortes sounded (except if we are talking of a recording of Beethoven by Paul Badura-Skoda).
So, I think I am entitled to have an opinion, and, IMO, it is pricey - end of story. This is IMO, considering lots of variables....

You mentioned a need for "new perspectives here" may I suggest that you look at this from a different perspective? You listed off features that you are not interested in. That leaves X number of features. To label the product "pricey" which means overpriced/expensive is not a fair statement because it is based on your not counting a huge chunk of what is offered in the product. The product is not overpriced simply because you don't care about part of it. Instead, it is appropriate to say the price is more than you are willing to pay for the features you are interested in.

[Krakatau]

OK - I think we need some new perspectives here:
1. TBH, what I heard in the trial is good, but is not something to die for, in what concerns the piano sound strictly speaking, but I am curious to see what can we do by tweaking. That's why I am interested in the standard version.
2. Therefore, the player doesn't interst to me at all, so, no, I don't think it's a good value (a player is NEVER a good value to me).
3. Regarding the "historical" instruments, besides the harpsichord and the cimbalom, all the others are also of null value to me. I frankly don't care how the pianofortes sounded (except if we are talking of a recording of Beethoven by Paul Badura-Skoda).
So, I think I am entitled to have an opinion, and, IMO, it is pricey - end of story. This is IMO, considering lots of variables....

You mentioned a need for "new perspectives here" may I suggest that you look at this from a different perspective? You listed off features that you are not interested in. That leaves X number of features. To label the product "pricey" which means overpriced/expensive is not a fair statement because it is based on your not counting a huge chunk of what is offered in the product. The product is not overpriced simply because you don't care about part of it. Instead, it is appropriate to say the price is more than you are willing to pay for the features you are interested in.

indeed...

you might be pleasantly surprised by the sound design dimension of pianoteq,

sometimes not totally relevant though : on that ground i'm much more impressed by the sound design aspect of AAS lounge lizard than the E-pianos addon of pianoteq because the palette of parameters are primarily focused on acoustic piano design, but some improbable combinations might give you amazing results, and almost every updates (free updates for the most) shall give you new parameters that aren't only involved in the new addons

[bedjka]

Cheaper and much better, Acoustica Pianissimo



A different preset

[EvilDragon]

Cheaper does not make it automatically better. Both Chopin examples didn't sound particularly enticing to me, especially the second one lacks delicacy and diverse "colors" of pianissimo dynamics (evidence of sample-based core of the plugin), which is much more detailed in Pianoteq.

Pianissimo still has ways to go, Pianoteq is a more full featured package offering a lot more, and IMHO a better and more tweakable sound.

[bedjka]

It is not better BECAUSE it is cheaper, it is cheaper(3 times) AND better. It is much more musical and warm than pianoteq which i find flat and without character but People will judge by themselves.

[EvilDragon]

That's all subjective, but to me both examples you posted sound pretty lifeless and lacking detail in dynamics which is something Pianoteq excels at (also "musical" is very subjective, but Pianoteq is much better in that regard from my experience too - Pianissimo just sounds limiting to me). Nothing from those examples is saying to me that Pianissimo is better. Quite the contrary - compared to the new Blüthner Pianoteq add-on, Pianissimo is flat and boring sounding here.

But really nothing weird when you know that at core of Pianissimo are samples, so there are inherent limitations in timbral range there.

[bedjka]

I followed your link, listened, really wishing to be a little bit convinced but i really could not but we don t have to worry because people will just listen and pick what s best to their ears (and wallet).
http://www.acoustica.com/pianissimo/index.htm