Physically Modeled Piano

[shane1980]

You CAN have samples and also be using PM, btw. Just using samples doesn't mean that it's not modeling at all. It would just mean that the samples are used for part of the tone, while modeling is used for the other part. A common approach, and the same one that TruePianos uses.

Whether it actually uses samples or not, I don't know. I haven't really tried to check like some people have.

Brent

Well, to those who interested.
We say there is no sampling inside for there is no actual samples for notes.
The huge data file is not soundfont but contains many very short harmony components data like IRs. For technical speaking, it comes more closer to convolution or synth than sampling. So we could not use sampling or hybird although these words may help us a lot in marketing.

[shane1980]

Also I personally agree that 199 is expensive. But we do offer our customers the best we can
Customers could upgrade to Supreme Pianos 2.0 for FREE.
Customers could get some free add-ons, A new E-piano add-ons will appear soon it is free for old customers. Also incoming Harp add-ons is under consideration.
Supreme Pianos will have monthly update and add more features

[Musical Gym]

Sounds really good, Shane.
I know you'll be adding a lot of new features and other bonuses as free updates after initial purchase.
Keep up the great work. It appears you've generated much interest in a short time.
Jim

[aMUSEd]

You CAN have samples and also be using PM, btw. Just using samples doesn't mean that it's not modeling at all. It would just mean that the samples are used for part of the tone, while modeling is used for the other part. A common approach, and the same one that TruePianos uses.

Whether it actually uses samples or not, I don't know. I haven't really tried to check like some people have.

Brent

Well, to those who interested.
We say there is no sampling inside for there is no actual samples for notes.
The huge data file is not soundfont but contains many very short harmony components data like IRs. For technical speaking, it comes more closer to convolution or synth than sampling. So we could not use sampling or hybird although these words may help us a lot in marketing.

OK that makes sense - some of the physically modelled instruments in Tassman also make use of this principle - using a short IR as the exciter. So the data is not being used as a sound source but rather as a part of the physical process of creating the initial phase of the sound.

[koolkeys]

Yes, that's a perfectly fair comparison, and not uncommon. IR's are used all over the place, for a variety of reasons.

Brent

[premiumcrap]

i don't understand that some folks here can say that pianoteq(superplastic-synthetic sound) or Truepianos (ligth-synthetic-phaseproblem-sound)
should be better than this new piano.
i just betatested "bluewaterpiano" and i came to the result that it is
far more natural sounding then the competition.
okay : the price is high for a synthedit plug, but i never had problems
with unstability .or abrupt note-stops.
i used it in a tune with pianosound almost only and it was far more
convincing then pianoteq or truepianos (more like a real piano)soundwise.
more like a sampled piano and this is in my opinion still better then
the contemporary PM pianos.

[koolkeys]

i don't understand that some folks here can say that pianoteq(superplastic-synthetic sound) or Truepianos (ligth-synthetic-phaseproblem-sound)
should be better than this new piano.
i just betatested "bluewaterpiano" and i came to the result that it is
far more natural sounding then the competition.
okay : the price is high for a synthedit plug, but i never had problems
with unstability .or abrupt note-stops.
i used it in a tune with pianosound almost only and it was far more
convincing then pianoteq or truepianos (more like a real piano)soundwise.
more like a sampled piano and this is in my opinion still better then
the contemporary PM pianos.

It's all a matter of opinion. This piano doesn't sound bad, IMO. It's actually pretty good. But trying to say what sounds more like a "real piano" is like saying that one person sings more like a random guy from Idaho than another guy does. It's subjective, and based on what pianos a person has played, and IF they have came from a "real piano" background.

Trance-heads will like a certain sound while contemporary composers will like another while classical artists will like another.

I enjoy many different pianos. I own Pianoteq, TruePianos, and a couple dozen different libraries from different sources. I would have a hard time defining "real", and I bet anyone else who tried would also have a hard time doing so.

You can try to define realistic behavior, which is a little easier(I tried in my long post). But still, different pianos have different action and different components.

It also comes down to how YOU are trying to fit a piano into the mix. Different pianos fit better with certain styles than others.

Also, what are you playing on? What tweaks have you done to the other instruments? Are you using good monitors and a fully weighted keyboard, or are you using computer speakers with a synth-action keyboard? Some pianos are designed and tested using synth-action keyboards, and some are fine-tuned for full weighted keys. In the case of Pianoteq especially, and also with TP, it just doesn't compare. They are SO much better using weighted keys. If you aren't playing them on weighted keys and with decent monitoring, then you aren't getting the whole picture. I also haven't heard the phasing problem you speak of for TP.

I'll be honest. I want this piano to succeed. I hope it does. I personally love TP and Pianoteq for their own reasons, and wouldn't stop using them regardless of how good this piano is. But hey, that doesn't mean I wouldn't use this one. I think it has some things that could use improved(as documented earlier, so I won't go into those things again), but I will agree that it's at least headed in the right direction.

Brent

[marce]

You CAN have samples and also be using PM, btw. Just using samples doesn't mean that it's not modeling at all. It would just mean that the samples are used for part of the tone, while modeling is used for the other part. A common approach, and the same one that TruePianos uses.

Whether it actually uses samples or not, I don't know. I haven't really tried to check like some people have.

Brent

Well, to those who interested.
We say there is no sampling inside for there is no actual samples for notes.
The huge data file is not soundfont but contains many very short harmony components data like IRs. For technical speaking, it comes more closer to convolution or synth than sampling. So we could not use sampling or hybird although these words may help us a lot in marketing.

Thanks the information. Good to know!

[Jake Jackson]

"i just betatested "bluewaterpiano" and i came to the result that it is
far more natural sounding then the competition."

That isn't the preset that was released as a trial version. The comments are about the trial preset only.

[premiumcrap]

@ jake jackson

yes it's not the trial-version.
the trialversion was in mono only.

the "real-beta-version" bluewaterpiano is far better.
for my ears, better than "pianissimo, truepianos and pianoteq"
but, agreed it's shurely a matter of taste too.
and it depends on the style of music too.
i'm always after a pianosound that comes close to a "real" piano.
many people/pianoplayers who listened to a track ,i did record with bluewaterpiano
were "fooled" when i played this track.
i said "unhonestly" that it was a real pianorecording.
i know i'm a sinner in this way.

cheers: www.myspace.com/tombalcony

[koolkeys]

@ jake jackson

yes it's not the trial-version.
the trialversion was in mono only.

the "real-beta-version" bluewaterpiano is far better.
for my ears, better than "pianissimo, truepianos and pianoteq"
but, agreed it's shurely a matter of taste too.
and it depends on the style of music too.
i'm always after a pianosound that comes close to a "real" piano.
many people/pianoplayers who listened to a track ,i did record with bluewaterpiano
were "fooled" when i played this track.
i said "unhonestly" that it was a real pianorecording.
i know i'm a sinner in this way.

cheers: www.myspace.com/tombalcony

I think you will find(actually, I KNOW you will find) that with almost any virtual piano, including this one, TP, Pianoteq, Pianissimo, or any library, that it will fool the large and vast majority of listeners, including piano players. The casual listener(which doesn't include those here on KVR or anywhere else in the music making world) will rarely be listening for realism. They listen to the song. You can get away with so much and never even raise questions about whether you are using a real piano or not.

And that's a key point to remember. No instrument out there sounds just like a "real" instrument. And even if you think one does, then you would have a VERY hard time defining "real". There is no specific sound that can be classified as real. So the goal is to just be believable to our main audience, whomever that may be. If you're out to fool people who ARE listening, then really, you'll probably succeed there as well with any of the available options listed above.

The inaccuracies of products at this level are really only noticed by us, as we're the only ones doing comparisons.

Just keeping some perspective here.

Brent

[drunken jesus]

my first impression

1. the tone is good, the attempts at "physical modeling" not so much it doesn't interact between notes nearly as well as its competition, and the big file size suggests its not actually physically modeled but rather a hybrid of some sort theirs no reason a physically modelled instrument should be so large so somethings being left out of the description, on purpose or not

2. the price is completely outrageous for the products state, their are hardly any adjustable parameters so unless you're completely in love with the products tone its not worth it at all, its done in synthedit which has many known issues and is free (and really cheap for the commercial version) so i couldn't see anybody paying $400 for a plugin made by developers who couldn't (or were to lazy to) code everything of a plugin their expecting to get $400 for, and the whole GUI design looks like something that should be mediocre and free

3. while the tone as i mentioned is good this plugin is easily surpassed by sample librarys in terms of realism and playability, because as is, their is nothing special or unique about this that would warrant a purchase over a cheaper (or freeware) sampler library with decent scripting, or if one were to go the PM route pianoteq and truepianos are both cheaper & sound better & offer more options

so overall i'd say this was just alright, it doesn't come close to comparing with truepianos or pianoteq & probably should be still in the development stages

[voltara]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

Well, to those who interested.
We say there is no sampling inside for there is no actual samples for notes.
The huge data file is not soundfont but contains many very short harmony components data like IRs. For technical speaking, it comes more closer to convolution or synth than sampling. So we could not use sampling or hybird although these words may help us a lot in marketing.

You continue to say this, even after it was pointed out that this piano was built using Chris Kerry's Sample System2 module? So yes, it's not soundfont specifically. But the wyc files ARE samples.

redc1.wyc - 60 pedal-up samples (30 note ranges * 2 velocity layers)
redc2.wyc - 60 pedal-down samples
SynthResonredc.wyc - 50 resonance samples (25 note ranges * 2 velocity layers)

The wavs in the wyc files were encrypted (http://www.chriskerry.f9.co.uk/CK_Pack_10_SYS2.html (http://www.chriskerry.f9.co.uk/CK_Pack_10_SYS2.html)) to obscure them. This deception makes me wonder whether there is ANY modeling happening at all. The low CPU usage certainly suggests that.

I sure hope nobody bought the software based on the promise that it was anything other than a sampled piano.

[aMUSEd]

Well, to those who interested.
We say there is no sampling inside for there is no actual samples for notes.
The huge data file is not soundfont but contains many very short harmony components data like IRs. For technical speaking, it comes more closer to convolution or synth than sampling. So we could not use sampling or hybird although these words may help us a lot in marketing.

You continue to say this, even after it was pointed out that this piano was built using Chris Kerry's Sample System2 module? So yes, it's not soundfont specifically. But the wyc files ARE samples.

redc1.wyc - 60 pedal-up samples (30 note ranges * 2 velocity layers)
redc2.wyc - 60 pedal-down samples
SynthResonredc.wyc - 50 resonance samples (25 note ranges * 2 velocity layers)

The wavs in the wyc files were encrypted (http://www.chriskerry.f9.co.uk/CK_Pack_10_SYS2.html) to obscure them. This deception makes me wonder whether there is ANY modeling happening at all. The low CPU usage certainly suggests that.

I sure hope nobody bought the software based on the promise that it was anything other than a sampled piano.

If it uses IR's it would use the sample playback modules. How else is it going to do it? The point is it uses the IR's as exciters in the physical model, not as sound sources. several Tassman physical models use the same technigue.

[ZergFood]

Doesn't this make it static sounding? I mean shouldn't the IRs actually be based on some mathematical formula for true physical modelling?