Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

iaoranaemaeva wrote:

All synthesizers (hardware or software) have different color and tonal character! The question is:

- either you use synthesis to create completely new sounds, and nobody will say they are bad: people will like or dislike them, period.

- or you claim to emulate existing instruments, and you run the risk of being torn to pieces by a lot of people 

In other words: fais gaffe où tu mets les pieds 

In English, we use the phrase:  damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

"Our developers, who art in Toulouse, hallowed be thy physical-models.
Thy version 4 come, thy new instruments be done, in the computer as it is in the wood!"

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Well shoot, I was already to check out this new Pianoteq-killer but, alas, the demo files are not to be found on Myosis.  I might try a little bit of the Phrase Delay plug on Pianoteq.  Arrogance is like a Gulf oil disaster:  not a good way to win customers or friends.  (..doesn't impress the gulls either....)

"Downing a fifth results in diminished capacity."

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

dge wrote:

So the question should be : does your ear appreciate this sound or not? Sometimes my ear are much more pleased with a simple pianotoy than a sophisticated Harpsichord.

I very much appreciate Pianoteq's sound, editing options, feel and playability.

I very much don't think what you did sounds like a grand piano at all. It's a clonky sound, not woody at all. So, better luck next time, Pianoteq still holds the throne.


What's most interesting is that you pulled your mp3 examples from your site as soon as we made the toy-piano reference, heh.

Last edited by EvilDragon (03-06-2010 08:27)
Hard work and guts!

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Cellomangler wrote:

Well shoot, I was already to check out this new Pianoteq-killer but, alas, the demo files are not to be found on Myosis.  I might try a little bit of the Phrase Delay plug on Pianoteq.  Arrogance is like a Gulf oil disaster:  not a good way to win customers or friends.  (..doesn't impress the gulls either....)

Took some searching, but I found it:

http://www.box.net/shared/ufcbb2d9kq

PS - this file has an expiry date on my account.

Last edited by Glenn NK (04-06-2010 01:27)
__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Glenn NK wrote:

Took some searching, but I found it:
http://www.box.net/shared/ufcbb2d9kq

You must have dug that out of your cache and re-posted it...
Kinda sounds like an FM trombone layered with an FM piano.  If created from scratch, it definitely took some programing chops.  Not ready for prime time, though.

"Downing a fifth results in diminished capacity."

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

CM:

Actually I have quite a few mp3 and wave files of various demos, etc.

Interesting that it's no longer available on the website.  Maybe he was getting too many negative reactions.  Considering how much work it is to get any sound at all, I was quite impressed.

I don't think it's a piano sound though.

A couple of years ago I DL'd Pianissimo, and frankly Pianissimo was not as good as the "myosis" product as I recall.  Pianissimo was barely a poor toy piano sound.  The mysios sound seems a fair bit like an organ to me.

If it was advertised as something other than a piano, reaction wouldn't likely be nearly as negative - it has possibilities IMO - in fact it's a sound I could use along with piano in an ensemble.

Glenn

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

What caused negative comments in my opinions is the fact that the author implicitly suggested his product is better than Pianoteq. Has he said it was a product in development, he would have received better comments.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

I think I am at a point where it has been so long since I sat at a "fer real" Grand Piano that I don't remember what one REALLY sounds and feels like - sad, but true so I might as well admit it.

What I am wondering about this morning is why I would WANT the mechanical noises added back into a synthetic piano - when it has been a goal of builders (of physical pianos) to eliminate or reduce them as much as possible.
These are the limitations of wood, felt, etc and I don't see a need to simulate those shortcomings.   They add nothing to the music, although they may add something to a recording in attempts to convince a listener that the instrument used was "physical".
The player isn't fooled, i.e. I do KNOW that the sounds are produced electronically.   
OK, I know, I know, they can be switched off, but why even bother to include them now that they can be eliminated, whereas in the past builders could only reduce them in their attempts at eliminating them ?

In other words;
Too far, too far already, WAY too far.

Heck, if I want a recording to sound "REAL" I can add background noises of muffled coughs and sneezes from the audience.
What audience ?, you may ask.
The virtual audience of course (-:

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

aandrmusic wrote:

Heck, if I want a recording to sound "REAL" I can add background noises of muffled coughs and sneezes from the audience.
What audience ?, you may ask.
The virtual audience of course (-:

I actually did this in a piece that I did with Garritan Personal Orchestra some time to make for a more realistic concert hall and it really DID improve the suggestion of listening to a 'live' recording

Hans

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

aandrmusic wrote:

What I am wondering about this morning is why I would WANT the mechanical noises added back into a synthetic piano - when it has been a goal of builders (of physical pianos) to eliminate or reduce them as much as possible.
These are the limitations of wood, felt, etc and I don't see a need to simulate those shortcomings.   They add nothing to the music, although they may add something to a recording in attempts to convince a listener that the instrument used was "physical".
The player isn't fooled, i.e. I do KNOW that the sounds are produced electronically.   
OK, I know, I know,they can be switched off, but why even bother to include them now that they can be eliminated, whereas in the past builders could only reduce them in their attempts at eliminating them ?

In other words;
Too far, too far already, WAY too far.

Heck, if I want a recording to sound "REAL" I can add background noises of muffled coughs and sneezes from the audience.
What audience ?, you may ask.
The virtual audience of course (-:

I completely agree - this has been discussed with the developers in past threads, and if I recall correctly, both Phillipe and I said that if piano builders could have eliminated these non-musical noises, they would have.

What's so musical about the thunk of a pedal or a key hitting the key bed?  Do the rubbing noises of a piano action really give anyone pleasure?

Glenn

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

true, but doesn't simulating anything also implies simulating all the imperfections?
Because everything we hear adds up to the total sound that we know and expect, even if that includes a sound that builders hate and would like to get rid off......

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

From another angle, if a top tier piano builder used a different material tomorrow that eliminated (not just muffled better) these sounds would we "buy into it" ?
I get enough extraneous sounds from my (also less than perfect) electronic keyboard, they are DIFFERENT to the mechanical sounds from physical pianos, but they are there.
I wouldn't want them "emulated" in the next generation of electronic keyboards.

So, if I have another point it is that the effort that goes into these sounds could probably be better spent.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

CyberGene wrote:

What caused negative comments in my opinions is the fact that the author implicitly suggested his product is better than Pianoteq. Has he said it was a product in development, he would have received better comments.


Of course , pianoteq sound real and mine as a pianotoy.  It's an evidence. I'm just working on a piano model on my nord modular G2.
Will post a sound demo just to give an idea  However, my G2 patch seems to be in a better direction than my vst pianotoy ( a substractive synth can't be very realistic as physical modeling, of course, my g2 patch use digital waveguide and is more realistic  but far from pianoteq. 

I found just funny the reaction of some people. It's like talking to religious fanatics. And for those who judge my personality , thinking I'm searching for friends or customers : I don't care ! I'm not selling my ass, or searching for virtual friends , sorry. I'm having fun trying to make a virtual piano and there is no commercial reasons about my presence here. Who would buy here a cheap piano? Doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you like my plugs or not, if you have a false opinion about me. I REALLY DON'T CARE. I just care about objective comments.

TO iaoranaemaeva about synthedit:

Yes I love impossible challenge!
This app is very annoying and limited...I'm totally agree.

Last edited by dge (04-06-2010 18:06)

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

aandrmusic wrote:

From another angle, if a top tier piano builder used a different material tomorrow that eliminated (not just muffled better) these sounds would we "buy into it" ?
I get enough extraneous sounds from my (also less than perfect) electronic keyboard, they are DIFFERENT to the mechanical sounds from physical pianos, but they are there.
I wouldn't want them "emulated" in the next generation of electronic keyboards.

So, if I have another point it is that the effort that goes into these sounds could probably be better spent.


Steinway tried tried teflon bushings on the pins that hold the keys in place on the key bed.  They're back to felt (the teflon made more noise!!).

Kawai's Millenium action utilizes carbon fibre for many moving parts - better precision in manufacturing and more stable than wood.

In the sixties or seventies, one low end builder tried plywood for the soundboard - it was a dud.

And I'm sure there will be more attempts - but there is resistance to change (it's a human nature thing), that seems to be stronger in the classical music genre - and that's where the really good and very expensive pianos are used.

So I don't hold out much hope that these noises will be eliminated anytime soon.

Glenn

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Glenn NK wrote:

CM:

...  Considering how much work it is to get any sound at all, I was quite impressed.

Glenn

Yes, I agree.
How many piano software are now employing physical modelling in some shape or form: V-Piano, GEM, Pianoid, Pianissimo (hybrid sampled), Truepiano (?), any others? why not add Myosis to the list? I'm sure this list will continue to grow. My old computer can't deal with the demand of a good multi gigabyte sampled set such as Ivory. So I welcome the direction of physical modelling. Even if Pianoteq were to doubled the amount of coding into the software it will still be considerably smaller that those multi gigabyte sets.

Last edited by DonSmith (04-06-2010 20:49)

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

glenn wrote:

What's so musical about the thunk of a pedal...

Glenn

Hm.... in a grand piano it's possible to open up the hole piano just by press the pedal (sustain) fast. When you do that you can hear more than just a "thunk", you can just with this fast press on the pedal get all the strings to sound at ones! Actually, I kind of miss this in pianoteq... In pianoteq you can have the same feeling if you increase "sympathetic resonance" and than play some notes, then the piano will "open up" in a similar way, but on a real grand it's enough to press the pedal fast...

Last edited by berghs.kedjan (04-06-2010 22:34)

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

I really like the sound of 88 notes all singing together in total disharmony.  How sweet it is. 

Surprisingly the sound hasn't been included in any piano sonatas by the likes of Beethoven.

G

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Glenn NK wrote:

I really like the sound of 88 notes all singing together in total disharmony.  How sweet it is. 

Surprisingly the sound hasn't been included in any piano sonatas by the likes of Beethoven.

G

Oh, Glenn, you hit the magic posts number!  Mario should be along to give you a prize!!!

"Our developers, who art in Toulouse, hallowed be thy physical-models.
Thy version 4 come, thy new instruments be done, in the computer as it is in the wood!"

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

I have mainly used TruePianos to make mp3s for my pages. PianoTeq has benn too expensive for me. But I purchased PianoTeq Player at 99 euros yestarday and enjoy it. From now on I try to make mp3s using PianoTeq Player.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtc2/wtc2000.html

Last edited by imyfujita (05-06-2010 06:48)

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

Glenn NK wrote:

What's so musical about the thunk of a pedal or a key hitting the key bed?  Do the rubbing noises of a piano action really give anyone pleasure?

Glenn

Glenn *Gould* recorded Bach's 2-part inventions on a grand piano that had a broken mechanism such that one of the strings would be struck twice for a given note - I think it may have been a b-flat - instead of the usually sufficient once. In the liner notes to the album he claimed to enjoy the effect. So I would never assume one way or the other about what sounds someone will want coming out of their instrument!

Last edited by mabry (16-07-2010 14:50)

Re: Has Pianoteq reached its limits?

mabry wrote:

Glenn *Gould* recorded Bach's 2-part inventions on a grand piano that had a broken mechanism such that one of the strings would be struck twice for a given note - I think it may have been a b-flat - instead of the usually sufficient once. In the liner notes to the album he claimed to enjoy the effect. So I would never assume one way or the other about what sounds someone will want coming out of their instrument!

The other Glenn and I are both Canucks (well - he WAS), however, he wasn't completely stable from a mental point of view.  People like to use the word "eccentric", but I think that' being very kind.

G

__________________________
Procrastination Week has been postponed.  Again.