Pianoteq 7

[Cepheus]

Anyone know if pianoteq 7 is more cpu consuming than 6?

About the same unless you use the new morphing and layering options. But even then, it is very efficient for what it does.

[Wannae]

It's worth the price guys?

[jens]

I finally came to the realization that "accuracy" of a sound often has more to do with an emotional nostalgia than anything else here.
And that often has to do with inconsistencies in the original manufacturing, personal amplification and real world ambience at the time.
So to know how accurate the sound is, we would really need the developer themselves to post a video between the actual instrument they were modeling and their software realization of it.

No, accuracy is not a matter of "emotional nostalgia" - accuracy is much rather a matter of accuracy instead.

To know how accurate it is one needs to know what the original instrument they are emulating sounds like. Which I do.

You assume that they had access to a real Electra which they modelled, but going by the examples I heard I actually highly doubt it, as I think that even if their software was somewhat lacking (which I have not the slightest clue about), they should be able to get much closer.

[jens]

Most recordings that you hear of a Electra-piano are from the '70s, and a lot of the warm woolly fat sound is actually coming from the recording medium and technology of the day. You could make the Pianoteq model splatter, too, with some generous tape saturation.

Accounting for superficial differences between the performances, and the real and virtual recording environments and technology, these two sound essentially like the same instrument to me:

https://youtu.be/cMarNNEoMes

https://www.modartt.com/data/audio/pian ... cifica.mp3

What I hear is that the Hohner sounds a bit like Wurli. There's that reed sound there, and you can hear a bit of bark in the examples posted. I disagree with jens saying it does not sound funky. It sounds quite funky in each of the example videos (or rather, it would if someone actually played some funk on it). The Moddartt example sounds way more mellow and tine like, based on the example posted, which...not at all like any of the Hohner YouTube clips posted IMO. I agree with whoever posted that they sound like two different instruments. That's what I'm getting too.

Note: never played a Hohner Electra in my life. But the YouTube samples all sound like one instrument, and the Modartt example all sound like another. Just my two cents.

It was also me who said that they sound like two completely different instruments.

You and me seem to mean completely different things when we say "funky" - what I refer to is some kind of phase cancellation or other similar resonances. I mentioned "quack" - that refers to position 2 and 4 on a Strat, which are the typical funk positions (which introduce some phase cancellation) and I seem to hear something similar on a Rhodes (albeit most probably for completely diffrent technical reasons) - it tends to have some certain "hollowness" especially on the lower octaves. To me the Electra on the other hand does not sound funky at all - it's full and warm - especially on the lower octaves. Hit it hard and it will still sound warm and round without much bite.

But you are right that the examples of the Electra all share the same basic character - you can use the built-in amp and speakers you can go directly into a DI, you can go into a guitar-amp, you can go through a number of stomp-boxes first - it'll always keep that character, which is a product of the way the sound is generated, which is identical for all Hohner Electras - and I hear NONE OF IT in the Modartt sound bits that claim to mimic a Hohner Electra.

I see a lot of mentioning of certain specific real instruments here in this thread, I do however see not a lot of interest in whether the emulation is even just halfway accurate. To me it seems what people want is rather names of famous gear than the actual sound of that gear.

Which probably unfortunately means that developers really have not much of a reason (at least business-wise) to put in much effort at all anymore in "emulating" stuff. And the less people have access to the real instruments or hardware, the more pronounced this effect will probably become.

I think I have to start a thread about this, as I have been stumbling over basically the same thing a couple of times the past few weeks.

[DJErmac]

If they simply made patches ”inspired from” instead of trying to mimic them (I hope I’m making myself clear here), there would be nothing to complain about btw. I mean : when you name it Wurlitzer, people expect an exact Wurlitzer, etc. Name it Wurlo and people shut their mouths, guess the instrument, and get the same sounding result.

Just an opinion on the fly, I perfectly understand their reasons...

[Super Piano Hater 64]

I think I have to start a thread about this, as I have been stumbling over basically the same thing a couple of times the past few weeks.

That sounds to me like a waste of effort on a lost cause. But I don't think it's all bad.

I have two main thoughts about this phenomenon. The first is that emulation developers like to copy as much as possible about the products they're emulating, as long as they can get away with it. If they have the tech to make their emulations accurate, they do that. If there's no threat of a trademark lawsuit, they'll copy the look and/or the name. These are essentially disjoint aspects of the product development process. They just have nothing to do with each other.

The second is that the electric pianos are not Modartt's flagship product. Take a quick look at their release history and you'll see that they pour a lot of research and development into modeling acoustic pianos. They update those all the time. Piano players talk about them all the time. Acoustic pianos are the company's main claim to fame.

Meanwhile, I have never seen anyone discuss their electric pianos outside the last few pages of this thread. I've seen people ask for accurate emulations, and a bunch of other names would come up. Modartt doesn't even get a mention.

I think they had tech that could do one thing, and realized it could sort of do another thing, and they figured they might as well try selling that too.

I don't think would-be customers can convince them to stop. Generally, competitive pressure is the only way to persuade a corporation to improve its products, so perhaps the best move you could make is to found your own DSP company and release a product that more accurately captures the character of an Electra.

EDIT: Double-checked some things, found that my memory was wrong, and removed some of my dumber comments. It looks like Modartt licenses the Hohner name, and most of the competing Electra plugins are sample-based.

[BBFG#]

I'm enjoying the Electra now. Finding it plays like a real instrument. Which is my favorite thing about Pianoteq.
So thanks for getting me to really check it out.

[jochicago]

I wanted to point out that instrument packs are currently at 30% off in general, and as deep as ~40% off at JRR with the automatic code being applied
https://www.jrrshop.com/pianoteq

Nice time to stock up.

So it's been a while since the release of V7. What are people's favorite libraries so far?
I can't say because I just adopted the Petrofs and now I'm in the honeymoon phase.

[Benutzername]

I really love the Petrof 275. It has such a beautiful sound and and it seems like the touch response was tailor-made for my fingers. I just can't stop playing when I load it up.

The Hohner collection is also very nice. I don't care about Clavinets but I have a real Pianet T in very good shape that I love and I think that the Pianoteq version is pretty accurate soundwise. The raw sound is not exactly the same but a Pianet needs quite a bit of processing to sound good in a mix anyway, especially eq and compression. The examples and presets all do that and they also add a lot of modulation and reverb. So in the end it sounds very good and that is all that counts.

The main difference is in the feel when playing the instrument with a MIDI keyboard but this is not the fault of Pianoteq. The keys of the Pianets are very special because of the sticky key mechanism. The sound also changes slightly on every key hit as well as over time. It's a bit unpredictable but this gives all the Pianets also a lot of character. I'd like some more randomness but over all the Pianoteq version captures this character quite well. I will not sell my real hardware anytime soon but the virtual version is still better than any sampled version I've ever heard, including my own samples.

[ians]

I finally caved.
Apart from the fact that it is the most realistic & playable emulation, the sound design possibilities are fab, you can also make felted versions of everything. The morphing is amazing once you find the sweet spot, & then you can flatten the model & morph again endlessly. One other thing is that you can load any old wav in as an impulse response to the reverb as long as it's not to0 big. Mixing the acoustics with the pan drums is a fave atm

[Mitch I.]

I already have a few addon packs, so I tried out the ones I don't have. To my surprise, the Karsten collection was the one that I really liked and bought. Five instruments from 1600 to 1858, not just out of historical interest, but because they sound so good.

[PhoenixLinks]

I upgraded to Standard about a year ago: Steinway B, Bechstein, and YC5 Rock Grand (which I added to take better advantage of the morphing feature: morphing between two stunningly beautiful European instruments did not offer as much difference as using the YC5, which is somewhat brighter and allows for adding a "bit of bite," as it were
Not that I "need" more Pianoteq instruments, I'm considering taking on another during the sale; torn between Bluthner and Petrof. Lots of users love Steingraeber, too.
Then, there's the K2 . . decisions, decisions. Damn!

*I need to rack up a few posts in order to communicate with sellers on the Buy/Sell forum, hence, this rambling post

[PhoenixLinks]

When was this? which Pianoteq version

The previous version, 6? Hence my question. If in the future Pianoteq should really sound like a real piano and not so artificial anymore, that would be a big step.

The only thing that sounds like "a real piano" is a real piano--take the most beautiful Fazioli, put some expensive mics around it, and now it's an electric piano, coming through one's speakers.
I grew up playing my family's rosewood Steinway Living Room grand (close to a Model M). The most advanced sample piano, regardless of developer, will never touch it.

[Benutzername]

A plugin can never replace the hands on experience but it can add features that the original never had. The Pianets I mentioned above didn't have a sustain pedal and they had a very limited dynamic range. In the virtual world we can fix both issues if we want to. That's a huge benefit.

[jochicago]

I upgraded to Standard about a year ago: Steinway B, Bechstein, and YC5 Rock Grand (which I added to take better advantage of the morphing feature: morphing between two stunningly beautiful European instruments did not offer as much difference as using the YC5, which is somewhat brighter and allows for adding a "bit of bite," as it were

Very good point on morphing with the YC5. After having tried it, do you feel the morphs are giving you what you hoped they would?


Re: torn between Bluthner and Petrof. Lots of users love Steingraeber, too. Then, there's the K2

Yes, tough to pick. Steingraeber was my favorite v6 instrument, it was my pick for a jam or practice session. Now in V7 I'm into the Petrof Mistral as potentially my go-to, certainly like it better than a Steinway D but that's also my own personal sensibility as I've never been a Steinway D person. It may also have to do with the Mistral being the most recent library, as it feels like every new library advances the tech sound that bit more.