Thanks delt and ReBased -
I tried muting (i.e. lowering volume to min level) the treble of PT5 in one PT instance, and in another PT instance muting the bass through mid in PT4.5 using a preset I had developed for 4.5 that softens the treble harshness and it may work. The sympathetic resonance works even if the strings are muted so this is why it may work. I have to make sure though that the ranges work well together. Worth a try!
Thanks delt and ReBased -
I tried muting (i.e. lowering volume to min level) the treble of PT5 in one PT instance, and in another PT instance muting the bass through mid in PT4.5 using a preset I had developed for 4.5 that softens the treble harshness and it may work. The sympathetic resonance works even if the strings are muted so this is why it may work. I have to make sure though that the ranges work well together. Worth a try!
Interesting approach. Definitely worth trying if you want a unique sound. When I had my 'accident', they were both using the same custom patch, but the two engines actually produced a really interesting, complex sound together.
1. Bass and mid-range are clearer and have more presence in v5, kudos to PT
2. Treble is nice and bright but too harsh and metallic: this is the case when notes are sounded singly but especially in combination with lower notes. The notes sound this way at point of attack but also resonate ("pulsate") harshly under sustain.
.
.
.
I think that it is difficult for players (i.e. people who do not have the inclination to endlessly tweak sounds but just want to play the instrument) to repair (2) while keeping (1). I have already unsuccessfully experimented with hammer hardness, overtones, and velocity to try to keep (1) and repair (2). I do not even know if it is possible to do that within this model and using the Pro version parameters.
In the Pro version, you can adjust those parameters and others on a note by note basis (using the Note Edit feature). So you could reduce the hammer hardness in the treble range and make other adjustments that may suit the needs that you outlined above. These edits should be possible on all piano models.
I have the Pro version but have not really worked with Note Edit but I will be doing so soon.
@Temperament
Thank you for your detailed reply: I am sure you are right about Asio4all v. the native drivers in the EMU 0404. I believe that these are currently working with my Windows 8 system and I hope that the card survives the next upgrade - if not I will be checking back for a recommendation. You are right about the card being insufficiently stable for a live performance. Fine, even more than fine, for home use though.
Now, to try the new Kremsegg collections . . .
Blüthner is a little better, and the Erard is a LOT closer to what I [at least think] am hearing on an acoustic grand in terms of sustain.
Is Erard considered less realistic in the same sense C3 is now considered less realistic regarding sustain? Or does the actual Erard really have stronger sustain than the Steinway?
Erard and Steinway are two completely different instruments.
Blüthner is a little better, and the Erard is a LOT closer to what I [at least think] am hearing on an acoustic grand in terms of sustain.
Is Erard considered less realistic in the same sense C3 is now considered less realistic regarding sustain? Or does the actual Erard really have stronger sustain than the Steinway?
I have an Erard, every piano is different but I've played about 10 Steinways, I think the sustain is longer on the Erard.
Erard and Steinway are two completely different instruments.
I don't find them that different, mine is a modern Erard considering is from about 1940-1950 but I also played an Erard in very bad shape without cross strings fron 1800 something, and it wasnt that different either. Action, the action is different on the Erard, I liked the Erard original action, mine has a Schwander action. It's on the heavy side, I even had to put lead weights on it.
After a few weeks of usage, KIVIR Erard & Pleyel has become my primary pianos. This preference might influenced by speaker position. I've placed them on the floor (underneath the piano, facing up) to try to emulate the sound direction of an acoustic -- so the brighter/twangier sounds of these historic pianos work better in this position.
BTW, when you choose piano model, is there a feature to have the photo of the piano appear on the right? I know the UI is skinned differently.
After few weeks of playing, I must say I really enjoy new PTQ 5!
I also wrote few lines about it on my blog:
http://synthreviews.blogspot.fi
I'm still in a state of amazement (it's increasing, in fact) as I continue to play with v5. The D4 is simply a dream come true. My own prisitine Steinway concert grand!!
I recorded this little improvisation to illustrate how extraordinarily expressive an instrument this is. The Rachmaninov-esque textures are brought to life by its magnificent tone. Right across the full range of the instrument (pitch and dynamics), there is beauty and living warmth. The bloom on the tone right through the entire decay of every note is wonderful. As the sustained sound evolves, it seems to live and breathe and I'm in love with it! It must be a truly beautiful instrument that has been modelled here! I've performed on concert grand Steinways but I don't think I've played one as delicious as this. Thank you all at Pianoteq for this...
It's great! Would you tell me which Preset you've used for that recording?
Thank you!
Very nice Phil - very nice indeed.
Lanny
I waited until now to post my review, have been using the demo since it was released and upgraded not long ago.
I waited because this is the first time where I dont have a strong opinion as soon as I launch it, I guess being the leap not from pianoteq 4 to 5 but 4.5 to 5 it was a less of a change than 3 to 4 for example, however, right now I'm able to see how different they are.
My first impression was that finally I loved the bass, that clear, powerful bass that I asked when Pianoteq 4 was released. Sometimes metallic sometimes not, depending on the piano -not a bad thing, many acoustics and steinways have a metallic bass- but overall i was sound was more clear , far less muddy than 4.5. The first piano I fell in love with was the bluethner, the tone was, and still is, the best for me. Also liked the D4 a lot, and surprisingly didnt like the K2 at all, found it a bit thin and generic, maybe too perfect of a piano to have a personality but is slowly changing. I know its good because I saw Phil Best improvising on it and it was mesmerizing. I recommend everyone to watch his video, you are the best indeed. The dynamics and tone you get on that improv are amazing.
Loved a lot of Kremseggs, the Streicher and Bechstein have such a beautiful tone, they are unique.
I find myself talking a lot about tone this time, rather than if pianoteq sounds like a piano or not. I think with pianoteq 5, for the first time, I see so many people coming back to pianoteq, people who didnt like it before is saying that love it now, I did a comparison with the best samples for me, Ivory and TrueKeys and Pianoteq has more body, resonances and the features of a modelled piano, but on top of that, now the tone can compete with them, I think Pianoteq 5 tone surpass Ivory for the first time.
There are amazing presets coming already that improve the original sound, like Rachel presets, so it may improve a lot even more.
I'm so happy that a modelled piano has reached this stage, and as always, eager to see what pianoteq brings in the future versions. I still would like a more perfect sound on the middle range.
Ah, and sustain pedal was drastically improved. More realistic than ever.
I want to thank everyone involed on Pianoteq for the joy and happines that brings to many people.
I just found some new videos about pianoteq5:
General about pianoteq5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUfKC31LIsI
Comparisons :
1- PIANOTEQ 5 VS GALAXY VINTAGE D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTSyF38XJ8
2- PIANOTEQ VS GALAXY VS ALICIA'S KEYS :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Q05P5tHso
3- PIANOTEQ VS KURTZWEIL MARK PRO 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyNjB3zHqPM
4- Rhodes comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=842-icBML88
Thanks for posting these. The middle three comparisons seem to be a very sophisticated way of comparing these instruments. Well recorded, nice camera work, nice use of transparency, good selection of a piece that lets us hear a wide range of the keyboard.
The one comparing Pianoteq and Alicia's Keys seems a little odd, since it's a comparison of a D4 and Ms. Key's Yamaha--the differences are to be expected. Still, it's a nice exercise in hearing two very different pianos playing the same piece.
I don't know enough about a Rhodes to comment much on the last video, but it seemed to be using Pianoteq's Amped preset with very different presets in the sample libraries, even though one of them is called "Amped."
As a pianist and synthesist, I've wanted to love Pianoteq since the first version, but while I loved the expressive "playability" of the pianos and incredible flexibility, could never get used to an artificial quality, nasal and metalic, not there in my acoustic and sampled pianos.
Pianoteq 5 is certainly an improved and extremely expressive instrument, but still, to my ears, doesn't compare in sound to my Synthogy Ivory American Concert D. I use a disklavier as a controller so I have a real acoustic action. I also use a high-quality sound card and Sony Professional and Grado headphones.
I appreciate the care and thought that the posters here offer, and continue to be open. I will experiment more with Pianoteq 5 pianos, but for me, so far, the sound is still not there.
Thank you Skanter for sharing your opinion and welcome to the forum!
Just by curiosity, what do you think about the Kremsegg collection pianos?
Thank you Skanter for sharing your opinion and welcome to the forum!
Just by curiosity, what do you think about the Kremsegg collection pianos?
Absolutely fascinating! I've recently been listening to Prof. Robert Greensburg's lectures on Great Courses, and learning much about the development of piano technology and it's profound affect on the great composers and pianists we all know. It's wonderful to be able to actually play the pianos i'm learning about.
Pianoteq is a great resource, but I still usually go to Ivory for my regular nightime playing and practice. I will investigate v.5 some more, however, perhaps things will change.
BTW, the disklavier is a wonderful resource as well, as I can have it perform on my acoustic a huge array of wonderful pieces (MIDI files) available on the web (disklavier.com). I recommend this resource, especially the e-competitions from Yamaha, which I'm sure will sound great on PTQ.
"Nasal" is just not there anymore in Pianoteq 5, mister.
"Nasal" is just not there anymore in Pianoteq 5, mister.
I agree. But the sound is still somewhat "metalic" and artificial to my ears. YMMV
Philippe Guillaume wrote:Thank you Skanter for sharing your opinion and welcome to the forum!
Just by curiosity, what do you think about the Kremsegg collection pianos?
Absolutely fascinating! I've recently been listening to Prof. Robert Greensburg's lectures on Great Courses, and learning much about the development of piano technology and it's profound affect on the great composers and pianists we all know. It's wonderful to be able to actually play the pianos i'm learning about.
Pianoteq is a great resource, but I still usually go to Ivory for my regular nightime playing and practice. I will investigate v.5 some more, however, perhaps things will change.
BTW, the disklavier is a wonderful resource as well, as I can have it perform on my acoustic a huge array of wonderful pieces (MIDI files) available on the web (disklavier.com). I recommend this resource, especially the e-competitions from Yamaha, which I'm sure will sound great on PTQ.
Glad that you appreciate the Kremsegg collection .
FYI, we have recently re-recorded an important subset of the e-competitions files, you can listen to them on our page https://www.pianoteq.com/listen_ecompetition. There are a few gems there (for example in the Mozart section).
I believe pianoteq got a good refinement in terms of natural sound in version 5. The metalic sound of some model, specially the vintage ones, in my opinion are far more natural than before.
Considering that the computer processors are sadly quite stagnated in the last few years, pianoteq 5 it's a very welcome update.
Mostly saddly, the prices for the stagnated processors do not get lower. Greed industry...
I hope this do not affect very much the future refinements of sound too.
Some people have very good ears, and any "microscpic" hint of little artificiality will be iterpretaded as artificial and not right. Something like think this way: "If it's 99,9% it's not 100% and so not adequated."
EvilDragon wrote:"Nasal" is just not there anymore in Pianoteq 5, mister.
I agree. But the sound is still somewhat "metalic" and artificial to my ears. YMMV
Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
You will have to describe "artificial" to me, because of the dozens people I've played Pianoteq 5 to, nobody said anything about it sounding "artificial".
Skanter wrote:EvilDragon wrote:"Nasal" is just not there anymore in Pianoteq 5, mister.
I agree. But the sound is still somewhat "metalic" and artificial to my ears. YMMV
Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
You will have to describe "artificial" to me, because of the dozens people I've played Pianoteq 5 to, nobody said anything about it sounding "artificial".
No need to get defensive, as I said, YMMV.
This is all subjective, but by "artificial" I mean unlike the natural sound of my idea of what an acoustic piano sounds like. Of course, it is not an acoustic piano but a modelled one that is coming through headphones, not a soundboard. It is an excellent "fake", but to my ears the sound of the sampled piano I use (Ivory American Concert D) is more natural to my ears. That said, there are so many variables in each listening experience, as hardware, speakers and headphones vary from one person to another, as well as the psychoacoustics of individual hearing.Some of the PTQ recordings sound quite good to my ears, but the playing experience on my system doesn't quite cut it for me.
This is all subjective, but by "artificial" I mean unlike the natural sound of my idea of what an acoustic piano sounds like. Of course, it is not an acoustic piano but a modelled one that is coming through headphones, not a soundboard. It is an excellent "fake", but to my ears the sound of the sampled piano I use (Ivory American Concert D) is more natural to my ears.
Sometimes a perfect simulation can be 'too perfect'. The imperfections are what makes a real instrument 'real', IMHO. I remember Rachel Jimenez saying something along the same lines, of Pianoteq sounding just a tiny bit too bright, too brassy, too metallic: too clean, too 'perfect' to be real. There are presets in the FXP corner in which she tried to model her own piano including its flaws; I would be very interested if those are more 'natural' to your ears:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.php?id=2047
This is all subjective, but by "artificial" I mean unlike the natural sound of my idea of what an acoustic piano sounds like. Of course, it is not an acoustic piano but a modelled one that is coming through headphones, not a soundboard. It is an excellent "fake", but to my ears the sound of the sampled piano I use (Ivory American Concert D) is more natural to my ears. That said, there are so many variables in each listening experience, as hardware, speakers and headphones vary from one person to another, as well as the psychoacoustics of individual hearing.Some of the PTQ recordings sound quite good to my ears, but the playing experience on my system doesn't quite cut it for me.
Did you adjust the velocity curve to your controller? Did you have a tweak with the parameters (assuming you are running at least Pianoteq Standard)?
There's lots of imperfections you can create for yourself using all those controls. Just try it.
Skanter wrote:This is all subjective, but by "artificial" I mean unlike the natural sound of my idea of what an acoustic piano sounds like. Of course, it is not an acoustic piano but a modelled one that is coming through headphones, not a soundboard. It is an excellent "fake", but to my ears the sound of the sampled piano I use (Ivory American Concert D) is more natural to my ears. That said, there are so many variables in each listening experience, as hardware, speakers and headphones vary from one person to another, as well as the psychoacoustics of individual hearing.Some of the PTQ recordings sound quite good to my ears, but the playing experience on my system doesn't quite cut it for me.
Did you adjust the velocity curve to your controller? Did you have a tweak with the parameters (assuming you are running at least Pianoteq Standard)?
There's lots of imperfections you can create for yourself using all those controls. Just try it.
Point taken. It is possible that it is necessary to tweak the pianos to get them to be more to my liking.
I'm constantly adjusting the sounds of my presets and others that I have downloaded. I don't know if I'll ever be totally pleased. But that's the beauty of it that this is possible at all. And do you know that the same is true with me and acoustical pianos. If I go to a dealers and try many different pianos they will all be different and not all will please me. And not being a trained tech. there is very little I can do about it. Also most of the pianos I do like the sound of are $30K and up. Thank you Modartt!
Bill
Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
Very interesting - I always thought the soundboards were made of wood! (but I knew the strings were metal
Greg.
EvilDragon wrote:Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
Very interesting - I always thought the soundboards were made of wood! (but I knew the strings were metal
Greg.
I know this depends on the quality of the recording and other factors, but has Ivory captured the range and sound of the Steinway?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TSBnWwk0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alGaVou6lfk
To me the Steinway has more of a metallic sound. Ivory sounds good, though it sound like some frequencies are missing. You wont notice this if you listen to it isolation.
This kind of considerations exist for all the great virtual pianos. I read recently a post on another forum where some pianists complained to not be able to find a good setting on synthogy ivory to play classical pieces...
When I hear the demos of pianoteq and synthogy, they sound different but honestly I can not say that one sounds better than the other.
The playing experience is something différent. Unfortunately there is no demo versions on the other vp and they don't run on linux.
When I hear the demos of pianoteq and synthogy, they sound different but honestly I can not say that one sounds better than the other.
The playing experience is something different.
I've been enjoying Pianoteq 5 (especially the D4 and the Bluthner). For the first time, I now appreciate what so many have said about "playability". I also use (used) the Ivory II Grand Pianos by Synthogy. The actual sound there is just fine, out of context. But trying to play in an even, expressive fashion (with my less-than-ideal technique and my less-than-ideal Keyboard), performance on the new Pianoteq far surpasses the Sampled Pianos altogether.
Looks like the passing of an age, and my Sampled Sets will fade into the background, now of interest only "for old times' sake" or for running direct head-to-head comparisons. Probably no point in looking for other, better Sampled Pianos either, because I think the limitations are in the technology per se, and not particularly in Ivory II.
I still prefer Ivory American Concert D to Pianoteq for my type of playing. Different sound, differnt experience. I'll keep tweaking both and see if my opinion changes.
EvilDragon wrote:Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
Very interesting - I always thought the soundboards were made of wood! (but I knew the strings were metal
Greg.
AFAIK, going to cast iron soundboards were a tremendous innovation, as they allowed far more dynamics to be played, i.e. forte. It had a huge affect on pianists and composers of the time.
skip wrote:EvilDragon wrote:Last time I checked piano strings are made of steel. Metal. The soundboard too.
Very interesting - I always thought the soundboards were made of wood! (but I knew the strings were metal
Greg.
I know this depends on the quality of the recording and other factors, but has Ivory captured the range and sound of the Steinway?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TSBnWwk0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alGaVou6lfkTo me the Steinway has more of a metallic sound. Ivory sounds good, though it sound like some frequencies are missing. You wont notice this if you listen to it isolation.
The differences in sound between Ivory sampled piano (a famous Steinway used by many artists, notably Glenn Gould) and the real one in the video has more to do with the difference in the two pianos, not the sampling technology. The acoustic one is just a brighter piano. This comparison is really not that useful. Had the piano in the video been sampled, they would sound far more similar.
FYI, here is Synthogy press release on the American Concert D. To me, it is the state-of-the-art in sampled pianos. Whether Pianoteq's modeled piano has surpassed this remains to be seen, IMO. :
"This vintage 1951 New York Steinway D (CD 121) was chosen by the Steinway & Sons concert department for Steinway artist promotion. Throughout the years, the instrument has been lauded by some of the world’s greatest concert artists. Indeed, the plate of the piano is signed by Glenn Gould, Rudolf Serkin, and many others, as a testament to high praise by the world’s great masters.
Put your hands on it, and it’s not hard to see why. The instrument has an exceptionally clear and transparent sound, yet with a singing tone and mature beauty and resonance that can only be found on a concert instrument in this class. The recording took place in the Françoys-Bernier Concert Hall at Le Domaine Forget in the Charlevoix region of Quebec, the same hall where Ivory's acclaimed German Steinway was recorded. Reunited were master concert technician Michel Pedneau, performer/producer Joe Ierardi, and recording engineer, Mark Donahue of Soundmirror to capture every detail of this amazing instrument.
With a 49GB library, Ivory II American Concert D is the largest single piano in the Ivory family. This American Steinway possesses a naturally long sustain, which is captured in its entirety to the final decay, some of the notes ringing longer than two minutes. Also included are up to 20 velocity levels, with more soft pedal samples, and more release samples to capture more detail than any Ivory instrument before"
If grand pianos now use cast iron for the soundboard, why are these folks talking about the Yamaha CFX having a spruce soundboard? (the CFX is Yamaha's current *flagship* grand piano, too) http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthre...Parts.html
I think you might *both* be mistaken on this. Were you referring to the frame?
Greg.
If grand pianos now use cast iron for the soundboard, why are these folks talking about the Yamaha CFX having a spruce soundboard? (the CFX is Yamaha's current *flagship* grand piano, too) http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthre...Parts.html
I think you might *both* be mistaken on this. Were you referring to the frame?
Greg.
Yes, cast iron -frame- (was called "harp"), not soundboard itself, which is wood.
Of interest is Yamaha's new piano technology, the transacoustic piano, which is an acoustic piano that uses the soundboard as a transducer to play digital sounds. The soundboard becomes the loudspeaker. It would be interesting to hear PTQ played through this instrument.
http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/piano...ght_piano/
This technolgy will be available on grands as well. Of course, one begs the question - why use a digital piano, sampled or modeled, if you already have an acoustic?
The differences in sound between Ivory sampled piano (a famous Steinway used by many artists, notably Glenn Gould) and the real one in the video has more to do with the difference in the two pianos, not the sampling technology. The acoustic one is just a brighter piano. This comparison is really not that useful. Had the piano in the video been sampled, they would sound far more similar.
I agree that there will be different shifts in the sound if you played, or recorded two different pianos. No doubt that Ivory recorded from a quality piano. This isn't really a negative criticism of Ivory, I like the tone of it. It's more about the bright metallic sound I hear in acoustic pianos. I hear people complain about the brightness and metallic overtones in Pianoteq, but that's what I hear whenever I've heard a real acoustic piano. I think its about right in Pianoteq version 5. Creating the dynamic range that goes from a percussion sound to that bell like shrill and everything in between is the issues.
Do the settings in Ivory allow you to gain the brightness, or would that brighter Steinway need to be recorded?
Does the same apply to modelling, can the D4 be made to have that sound, or would that piano have to be modelled?
Is anyone aware that Glenn Gould made his last recording of the Goldberg Variations on a used Yamaha grand that he found around the block from Carnegie Hall? Gould's Steinway was damaged in a shipping accident; although subsequently repaired, he didn't use it any more.
Cheers,
Joe
Kawai have some digital models, with soundboard activated by transducers, since some few years.
One forum member have one of these Kawai models, and told me that pianoteq sound excellent through it.
I would like to see a grand piano, concert size or close, with a tranducer activated soundboard.
Of interest is Yamaha's new piano technology, the transacoustic piano, which is an acoustic piano that uses the soundboard as a transducer to play digital sounds. The soundboard becomes the loudspeaker. It would be interesting to hear PTQ played through this instrument.
http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/piano...ght_piano/
This technolgy will be available on grands as well. Of course, one begs the question - why use a digital piano, sampled or modeled, if you already have an acoustic?
"transducer activated soundboard" ...how does that work?
"transducer activated soundboard" ...how does that work?
From The Verge site:
"Speakers normally work by moving a metal coil attached to a cone back and forth around a magnet. But in the U1TA, there is no cone — the coil is attached to the soundboard of the piano itself, so the whole freaking thing vibrates to reproduce sound."
Skanter wrote:The differences in sound between Ivory sampled piano (a famous Steinway used by many artists, notably Glenn Gould) and the real one in the video has more to do with the difference in the two pianos, not the sampling technology. The acoustic one is just a brighter piano. This comparison is really not that useful. Had the piano in the video been sampled, they would sound far more similar.
I agree that there will be different shifts in the sound if you played, or recorded two different pianos. No doubt that Ivory recorded from a quality piano. This isn't really a negative criticism of Ivory, I like the tone of it. It's more about the bright metallic sound I hear in acoustic pianos. I hear people complain about the brightness and metallic overtones in Pianoteq, but that's what I hear whenever I've heard a real acoustic piano. I think its about right in Pianoteq version 5. Creating the dynamic range that goes from a percussion sound to that bell like shrill and everything in between is the issues.
Do the settings in Ivory allow you to gain the brightness, or would that brighter Steinway need to be recorded?
Does the same apply to modelling, can the D4 be made to have that sound, or would that piano have to be modelled?
"Brightness", if you mean more and different overtones, can result from many factors, overtones caused by inherent sound of the piano, hardness of hammers, etc. Ivory certainly has an equalizer, but the samples are recordings of the piano sampled, and cannot add overtones that were not there in the first place. I'm not sure how PTQ models deal with overtones in general. Obviously all pianos have more overtones and "brightness"as strings are struck harder. All acoustic pianos are different, some are far "brighter" than others.
How does a digital model have a soundboard???
Yamaha has either released or will soon release grand piano models with transacousic technology.
Kawai have some digital models, with soundboard activated by transducers, since some few years.
One forum member have one of these Kawai models, and told me that pianoteq sound excellent through it.I would like to see a grand piano, concert size or close, with a tranducer activated soundboard.
Skanter wrote:Of interest is Yamaha's new piano technology, the transacoustic piano, which is an acoustic piano that uses the soundboard as a transducer to play digital sounds. The soundboard becomes the loudspeaker. It would be interesting to hear PTQ played through this instrument.
http://usa.yamaha.com/news_events/piano...ght_piano/
This technolgy will be available on grands as well. Of course, one begs the question - why use a digital piano, sampled or modeled, if you already have an acoustic?
"Brightness", if you mean more and different overtones, can result from many factors, overtones caused by inherent sound of the piano, hardness of hammers, etc.
Also, there might be the age of the strings. As most 'real' pianos will in general not have brand-new strings most of the time, it would be interesting to know the influence of aging strings. The strings suffer from inelastic deformation (the same happens with guitar or violin strings), meaning they loose their tension. This is the main reason any instrument using strings has to be regularly re-tuned, AFAIK. But the inelastic deformation also more or less causes the strings to become slightly thinner and (as far as I know) slightly 'softer'. Less rigidity should mean softer partials and increased harmonicity, which could in my opinion be one reason (apart from its hammers' felts) an older piano might sound a bit 'thinner' and also less bright and harsh than a brand-new one; I guess Philippe will know more about whether this is a real effect.
How does a digital model have a soundboard???
Yamaha has either released or will soon release grand piano models with transacousic technology.
A soundboard is, simply speaking, just a plank of wood. Contrary to the opinion of some people, what generates the richness of the sound of a piano is e.g. not just the metal frame that holds the strings (also it certainly has a strong influence on the sound), but also the wooden casing beneath, which vibrates resonantly. There is nothing that prevents you from putting something like this into a digital piano, and Kawai has been doing so for several years now.
The CA-93, CS-9, CA-95 and CS-10 all feature a wooden soundboard in the back of the device. This is directly connected to something that is more or less a stripped-down bass speaker, thus functioning as its membrane. The result is (together with a whole array of smaller treble speakers) a very rich and voluminous sound of those instruments (including subtle vibration of the whole casing, just like a 'real' instrument), and if playing on one you can almost forget that this is 'just' a digital piano.
What Yamaha do in their transacoustic pianos is largely the same idea, but they use a real upright as basis that can also be played acoustically, thus taking their silent piano concept a step further. Personally, I find the idea of using a real piano to play digital sound intriguing, but a bit... nonsensical. I would personally be very happy with just a medium Bechstein grand and a well-working silent modification: then I would either play silently (meaning I don't have need for speakers anyway) or I play acoustically, end of story.
Edit: Kawai also seem to offer a 'soundboard speaker' modification of their silent ('Anytime X', ATX) models, nowadays even on their ATX grands it seems. These models seem to go by the moniker 'ATX-f'. I guess then a Kawai ATX-f is pretty much exactly the same as a Yamaha 'transacoustic' piano: an acoustic piano with an electronic sensor system for silent play and a soundboard speaker system for electronically-generated alternative sounds.
I hear people complain about the brightness and metallic overtones in Pianoteq, but that's what I hear whenever I've heard a real acoustic piano. I think its about right in Pianoteq version 5. Creating the dynamic range that goes from a percussion sound to that bell like shrill and everything in between is the issues.
Different pianos, different pianists, different recordings
http://youtu.be/-s68kHOnpiE?t=12m36s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5cx0nwgQlI
Skanter wrote:"Brightness", if you mean more and different overtones, can result from many factors, overtones caused by inherent sound of the piano, hardness of hammers, etc.
Also, there might be the age of the strings. As most 'real' pianos will in general not have brand-new strings most of the time, it would be interesting to know the influence of aging strings. The strings suffer from inelastic deformation (the same happens with guitar or violin strings), meaning they loose their tension. This is the main reason any instrument using strings has to be regularly re-tuned, AFAIK. But the inelastic deformation also more or less causes the strings to become slightly thinner and (as far as I know) slightly 'softer'. Less rigidity should mean softer partials and increased harmonicity, which could in my opinion be one reason (apart from its hammers' felts) an older piano might sound a bit 'thinner' and also less bright and harsh than a brand-new one; I guess Philippe will know more about whether this is a real effect.
Skanter wrote:How does a digital model have a soundboard???
Yamaha has either released or will soon release grand piano models with transacousic technology.
A soundboard is, simply speaking, just a plank of wood. Contrary to the opinion of some people, what generates the richness of the sound of a piano is e.g. not just the metal frame that holds the strings (also it certainly has a strong influence on the sound), but also the wooden casing beneath, which vibrates resonantly. There is nothing that prevents you from putting something like this into a digital piano, and Kawai has been doing so for several years now.
The CA-93, CS-9, CA-95 and CS-10 all feature a wooden soundboard in the back of the device. This is directly connected to something that is more or less a stripped-down bass speaker, thus functioning as its membrane. The result is (together with a whole array of smaller treble speakers) a very rich and voluminous sound of those instruments (including subtle vibration of the whole casing, just like a 'real' instrument), and if playing on one you can almost forget that this is 'just' a digital piano.
What Yamaha do in their transacoustic pianos is largely the same idea, but they use a real upright as basis that can also be played acoustically, thus taking their silent piano concept a step further. Personally, I find the idea of using a real piano to play digital sound intriguing, but a bit... nonsensical. I would personally be very happy with just a medium Bechstein grand and a well-working silent modification: then I would either play silently (meaning I don't have need for speakers anyway) or I play acoustically, end of story.
Edit: Kawai also seem to offer a 'soundboard speaker' modification of their silent ('Anytime X', ATX) models, nowadays even on their ATX grands it seems. These models seem to go by the moniker 'ATX-f'. I guess then a Kawai ATX-f is pretty much exactly the same as a Yamaha 'transacoustic' piano: an acoustic piano with an electronic sensor system for silent play and a soundboard speaker system for electronically-generated alternative sounds.
Thanks for clearing this up. I wasn't aware of the Kawai digital pianos con soundboard!
I agree that the transacoustic idea is confounding - why a digital piano on an acoustic? A Yamaha rep I know claimed that the digital grand improves the sound of the upright's acoustic sound when played together. This makes sense only if perfectly tuned with each other. Perhaps layering acoustic and digital sounds could be interesting, but certainly not worth the high price of these instruments.
I'm quite happy with a disklavier with MIDI and silent function - the best of all worlds - especially since it was given to me a as gift. Living in NYC apartments my whole life, as well as keeping late hours, I've always been searching for a silent piano with a sound and feel that I could live with. After decades, I am happy with DKV acoustic piano MIDId to Ivory sampled grand. Still experimenting with PTQ, not quite there yet for me.
I'm a beginner and it sounds fantastic to me through my headphones. There is no doubt in my mind that it sounds way, way better than the piano's loaded into my Kawai MP10. I now use PT for all practice. Others may like samples better - and that is fine -- to each his own. For me, using Ivory would have meant a significant investment in software, ilok, and computer upgrades at a time when the difference would certainly be marginal to me at my level. My Chopin preludes are slowly coming to life!
ilok
Can't find on wikipedia, acronymfinder, or urbandictionary.....
Ottawa57 wrote:ilok
Can't find on wikipedia, acronymfinder, or urbandictionary.....
You forgot to try Google:
http://www.amazon.com/Software-Authoriz...B004JRVQX0
Synthogy (Ivory Pianos) requires this device, a real PIA to buy and authorize. Hopefully you know what PIA is.
:-)