Adding a Transducer to a piano's Soundboard (Page 2 of 2)

Great work David! I applaud all the efforts you make to attain your goal and document it so well.

I'm in no way such a tinkerer, so I will just offer a few remarks. From the sound of your bass notes example, it seems a large resonance from your physical soundboard is excited by some keys and added to the tone, less so in the treble example, where the harp is more the problem. I guess also the Pianoteq soundboard simulation is superposed on top so you get two soundboards in a way.

Since it's not possible to turn off the Pianoteq soundboard (unless the version that runs on the real transducer-operated Steingraeber does so) I suppose some tweaking of the soundboard parameters may help to reduce that effect, and also the exaggerated harp. I don't know if you did some or just used a Steinway B preset as is.

The Yamaha demo posted by dv also show that the sound moves around a lot in the soundboard, as the exaggerated image shows, but seems most powerful in the center, so maybe you should rather avoid the center to alleviate the double soundboard (Steingraeber seems to avoid it as seen in the photos)

The transducer-operated Steingraeber is not that much better than what you are obtaining as far as I can tell, so maybe it still is a trial and test ad hoc procedure with each instrument.

Your acoustic piano sounds great by the way!

@dv - I am afraid that you are correct - speakers are pretty darned good, especially big heavy ones that are well-powered and can move great gobs of air.  But I'll continue on my little research and development project for at least a while, albeit not as scientifically as I could be doing.

@Gilles - I believe that you are correct on the 'double soundboard' problem - perhaps that's part of the cause of the 'blooming' that I'm hearing in my trials.  Kind of like a picture of a picture - it exaggerates all of the flaws of the exposure.

@scherbakov - read on...

-----------------

OK, folks - here's what I did next:  Since the hot melt glue appears to work to hold the transducers, and appears to be removable by soaking the interface in 91% Isopropyl Alcohol, I distributed my multiple emitters/transducers/exciters around the soundboard in the back, placing the lightweight ones on the treble side, and the heavier ones on the bass side.  I tried to stick close to the rule of 40%/60% (2/5-3/5) in linear position from the top to the bottom and from one side to the other side, as suggested by the Dayton Audio company in their positioning guidelines.  Here are videos of all five, including two videos of the Hidden Audio 401, since it had a buzzing sound at first:

DAEX32EP-4 - https://photos.app.goo.gl/BbyfrdA33hWZFQXZ7
DAEX32QMB-4 - https://photos.app.goo.gl/6EaeNACYXzrnuMuo9
DAEX30HESF-4 - https://photos.app.goo.gl/hmQGAFtz7ukHgqBN7
DAEX25SHF-4  - https://photos.app.goo.gl/g6tqredJx7zvzCuf9
Hidden Audio 401 Pt. 1 - https://photos.app.goo.gl/H8LCu9BL3VG6XbmV8
Hidden Audio 401 Pt. 2 - https://photos.app.goo.gl/HcgNJqKiDuUoqyrbA

(The Hidden Audio 401 is made to attach with a screw, similar to the Dayton Audio HDN-8, except the Hidden Audio 401 has a threaded coupling for a screw to be threaded into it.  The attachment point is too narrow of a stalk to glue, so I attached the transducer to a 3" disk of composite material through which there is a screw to bind it to the transducer, and then I glued that composite mounting plate to the soundboard.  On the first trial, I had it screwed down pretty tight, which produced a buzzing noise.  I then screwed it tighter, which made the buzzing noise worse.  When I then loosened it, the buzzing went away.  Weird.  The opposite of what I would have expected.)

Those above trials were done with only one channel out from the amplifier feeding the single transducer, with Pianoteq using the Steinway Model B in Player mode, and feeding Monophonic output (so that the one microphone gets the entire output of the piano).  After that, I connect the Left output of the amplifier to the Hidden Audio 401 on the bass side, and the Right output of the amplifier to the DAEX32QMB-4 on the treble side, changing the Model B's output to Player preset:

Combined two transducers: https://photos.app.goo.gl/R9gVLQNc1PeFKHpg6

So, at the end of today's experiment, where am I?

1)  I have hope, but am not pleased with what I've got at this point - as DV suggested, good speakers are great!

2)  I like the concept of not having speakers on either side of the piano - it's fun to hear the piano's sound from the piano, even though it doesn't sound like a piano yet.

3)  Blooming of the tone, with long sustain, especially on the treble notes, is the main problem currently.  Though I might make things better by substituting an even smaller transducer at the treble end, part of the problem now is that even when just the bass-side transducer is playing, there still is a long-sustain blooming sound in the treble.

4)  As Gilles suggested, part of the problem may be that I'm playing a soundboard sound through another soundboard, thus exaggerating the soundboard's role in the long sustain and blooming character.

5)  If I can separate the treble from the bass tones between the right and left channels, then I can drive the treble transducer only with treble, and the left transducer only with bass.  Right now, even in Stereophonic mode, each Left and Right microphone/channel gets combined bass and treble signal.

6)  I don't know how Yamaha succeeded with their TransAcoustic, but it sounds pretty good.  I know that Steingraeber succeeded using Pianoteq, but I don't know how - I'm curious as to how they avoided the blooming and excess sustain.  Does anyone know?  Philippe? Julien? Niclas?

So, time to go to bed and go off to work tomorrow.  I hope that one or more of you have some guidance as to what my next steps should be...

David

Yes, Philippe, the sound of the non-piano instruments becomes quite colored by the large reverberating wooden soundboard.  Church bells sound pretty good, I must say, but the guitar completely lacks it's usual crispness.  I agree that compositing ('layering' like in Pianoteq itself) a Rhodes electric piano with the piano's normal acoustic output is one of the added features, as Yamaha promotes with their TransAcoustic.  But I was more taken by the fact that their electronically driven soundboard was pretty good as a piano, and playing both the acoustic piano action with the CFX-derived signal made for one big piano sound!

Perhaps some of the long sustain comes from the mass of the added transducers, but I'm not sure.  I know that my piano has a 'ringing' harp, but a lot of the long sustain signal that I hear is just soundboard, I think.

Do you know what, if anything, Steingraeber did with the Pianoteq signal on its way to the transducers?  If you do not, do you have a contact at Steingraeber that you could refer me to? (Perhaps by private email...)

Thanks!

David

An easy way to do good EQ (at least to start) is to feed the exciters some known broadspectrum noise, e.g. white or pink noise.

Then, using a calibrated microphone (there are some for $30 on Amazon for smartphones) analyze the result. There are various spectrum analyzer apps that you can use on a smartphone. If you use a DAW in the computer, you can add an EQ as last stage and modify it until the white/pink noise becomes what is expected on the microphone. Then substitute the noise for Pianoteq et voila' you have a perfectly equalized system.

The devil is in many details: you might need to equalize something at a lower level than possible, or (even worse) higher than possible, with some of the oscillation having too large of an amplitude and touching something creating buzzing of other weird sounds. You may need more frequency resolution that your equalizer (or amplifier, or microphone) supports. And I am sure other devilish details...

Yet, it could e a good starting point. Heck, to begin experimenting, you may even use the normal smartphone microphone rather than the calibrated one (and perhaps calibrate the phone microphone yourself using the pink/white noise fed to decent/good speakers!)

@Philippe - good ideas for the EQ and damper duration reduction.  I already have the Reverb "Off".

@Gilles - Not only placing felt onto the strings, but I think that it's time to start placing cloth along the harp itself and see if I can damp the ring - this piano has an excessively long harp ring.  As far as its weight, I remember somewhere reading that this behemoth weights about 870 pounds - almost one half ton.  It's difficult just to move it around the wood floor on the sliders that I put under the wheels.  As for the timbers, I don't know if I should blame the weight on the wood or on the iron harp.  (Kinda reminds me of the song "Tied Down with Battleship Chains" by The Georgia Satellites.)

@dv - I will try to utilize the white noise analysis and see what I can narrow down.  Good thoughts!

Thanks, Paulo!  Glad to hear that you have had some success.  Also glad to see the photos of the numacoustic.  Furthermore, I, like you, miss the sound of the hammers.  I tried turning up both the hammer noise, as well as the hammer hardness, and neither restored the acute attack 'whack' (Phillippe, I know that has been one of my complaints through the Pianoteq versions, best accomplished in the Steinways and the Bechstein, and currently the least in the Grotrian and the Bluethner).  I turned the hammer noise back down to 1.2 after cranking it all the way up, but I left the hammer hardness up about 30% for each piano, mezzo, and forte.  And, Paulo, the way I have the transducers on the back, it just sounds weird - like I'm always sitting on the wrong side of the piano (even with the top plate open) - perhaps that will improve when I eventually move the transducers to the front, once I know which to use and where I want them.

Philippe, I turned down the sympathetic resonance, which did little.  I then turned down the damper duration: about 0.8 is about right -- good tip.

Ben, I tried adjusting the Strike Point - it just sounded bad, both to the right and to the left.  Perhaps I wasn't delicate enough, but I didn't hear improvement in either direction.

I next started diving into the equalization, which is something that I have not really done much with in the past, so I don't have an innate feel for using these controls.

First, I recorded a baseline image of silence using an iPhone application called FrequenSee:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LKHxtqcHknv86UtW9

Second, I played some White Noise via YouTube (found at the top of "white noise test" search on YouTube):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GPpZsLG21ky2y5xF6

Then I looked at the white noise using FrequenSee:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wRtYgD8V24NRy3k59

Although I did not validate the source with some good speakers, for now I'll assume that it is flat, and thus with the current transducers on the soundboard, I have either too little bass or too much treble.

Next, I played an "A - 440" on the piano acoustically:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cPPaq3aRid2gYWvj6

Then I played the same "A - 440" on Pianoteq using the basic Model B preset with the Reverb turned off (the best sounding preset thus far):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/A6Z26uMDF8rP8XBf8

Looking at this, and thinking about the white noise picture, I then modified the preset by increasing the prime overtone +4 (sounded better), and then used the equalizer to both boost the bass and decrease the treble, looking to lower the signal from 2500 and on up:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/PoXuJoRCmmnAv6Q99

This sounded better, but perhaps it is too aggressive --  it gave me a signal picture that was closer to the acoustic:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Exf3ukMZi64aiVit9

Looking at the compared images (Acoustic A versus Pianoteq Mod A), I don't need that much bass boost, and I am too early in lowering the treble - I should taper it more so that the bigger cuts don't come until near 4000.  Also, I could come back down on the primary overtone, maybe to +2 or just +1. 

But that's enough for tonight - time to sleep and get up for work tomorrow morning.

Other things that I know of (mostly thanks to Ben) but have not tried yet, and things that are in-the-works:

1) Smaller Transducers - I ordered a couple of 13mm and 19mm coin-type transducers to try on the treble end for a Right Channel in place of the 25mm one that I'm using now.

2)  Microphone position - I have done no work at moving the microphones around the soundboard yet.  Perhaps using Pure Cardioids very close to the treble and the bass sides of the soundboard.

3)  Harp Damping - I am reluctant to damp my strings on the physical piano, as I want to preserve the acoustic option when the Stop Bar is disengaged, and I haven't figured out how to damp the iron harp itself - this may require more piano disassembly and lots of towels.  Or maybe it can't easily be done, after all the harp is built to sing!

4)  Haven't played with Impedance, Cutoff, or Q-Factor yet.

5)  Haven't altered Direct Sound Duration yet.

6)  Haven't adjusted Resonance EQ or Durations yet.

7)  Ben, I tried your preset that you made 'blind'.  I made a recording of where I am at the end of my changes listed above (many of which I need to back partially away from) versus your preset that you made for me (totally blind, and from the opposite ends of the earth!).  It sounds like a prepared piano, for sure, David Klavins-esque, but it has some good ideas that I need to work with:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/AXu2YGJvwyWcQLtJ7

Good night, all, and thanks for helping immensely in my years-old hybrid piano project.

       :-)

David

@molecular_orbital - Yes, I have wondered about how the magnets of transducers sit 'free in space' while their coils move, attached to the driven surface, which can be quite rigid.  I don't know significant this issue is, with the tail essentially wagging the dog.  The larger Hidden Audio 401 and the Dayton Audio HDN-8 are even more unusual here, as they are inside rigid sealed enclosures, so any relative motion of magnet and coil must take place unseen within their substance.

The photos of the Steingraeber piano show the transducers just applied to the soundboard's surface, but the Yamaha is unique in that the transducers (different from what I have found available for purchase) are rigidly mounted to the piano's frame, leaving only lightweight actuators presumably attached to the coil that are then connected to the soundboard.  This greatly reduces the 'residual waving' Newtonian problem that you describe, as well as keeping the mass of the transducer from 'weighing-down' the soundboard itself, both leading to quicker changes in both the start and stop of an applied signal.

As for oscillators and fast fourier transform analysis, I am afraid that such analysis is currently outside my gadget collection and beyond my skillset.

If you are trying to reproduce the same timbre of your piano, that is definitely too aggressive. You have to compare the RATIO of the fundamental to the harmonics and if you do that you can see that with pianoteq you have "killed" all the harmonics way lower than on the acoustic.

However I think this approach will become very complicated once you go from one note to many notes (either sequentially or even worst concurrently).

The white noise will be easier. Proceed as follows:

1) feed the white noise source in an digital equalizer, left flat (I am not sure if you can do that with pianoteq's own equalizer, perhaps you can now in version 8 since it accepts an input which before didn't but it might be only for sympathetic resonances, not for EQ -- if so, you need to use another program)
2) play that with a pair of speakers which provide satisfying pianoteq sound
3) measure with your app as baseline
4) switch soundboard for speakers
5) measure with your app modifying the EQ to make it match the baseline

Placing the microphone in the same location as your head will yield best results.

Also, since the piano harp will provide some "ringing", and probably too much I'd select the driest possible option, i.e. turning off all the reverb.

Even though Steingraeber and others seem not to worry about it (maybe they compensate), I tend to agree with the "Newtonian" remark of molecular_orbital. I listened again to your loose-screwed example (Hidden Audio 401 Pt-2) and it sounded pretty good all around to me...

Even though you did it to remove the buzzing, I think it might also have decoupled the exciter slightly from the soundboard.

Maybe the exciter's mass is negligible, but on the other hand, a normal loudspeaker's magnet is fixed and does not move with the cone.

@dklein

1) I mean leaving all the notes damped in pianoteq. I suspect the vibrations from the soundboard will excite the actual undampened strings of your acoustic and having undampened notes in pianoteq could be the thing that contributes to the excessive ringing you are hearing

2-3) I'm afraid I don't know what software EQ to recommend to you, but hopefully others will. I think the software EQ will be better than the hardware one since the latter may not have enough bands to achieve what you need. The earphone output can either be left "untouched" or you can simply virtually shut off the EQ. If you use a DAW, it should all be easy (or so the DAW experts say.... I actually don't use a DAW myself...)

There is a selection here: https://www.techworm.net/2022/09/best-a...ws-11.html

Can't try them though, I'm on Mac...

These must be set with playing with the settings by ear though, and I think a more "room correction" style approach using a microphone and generated tones to optimize a sweet spot (your piano bench I guess...) would give better results.

Here is one free but rather low-level software that can be used: http://www.alanjordan.org/DRCDesigner/D...rHelp.html

Here is a blog entry that show a typical use for optimizing an audio system in a room: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/09/m....html#more

Hope this helps!

OK Gilles and others, I downloaded three of the Windows application equalizers in Gilles' 'best ten' list.  Curiously, I can't seem to get them to modify the Pianoteq sound, similar as to how the Windows volume control doesn't work on Pianoteq.  It's as if Pianoteq has a separate audio routing through the computer that does not respond to windows volume controls.  Any idea as to why this occurs?

Thanks, kihar.  I will look for ASIO specific equalizers.

OK, I will have to check this out later. From other stuff I read about ASIO pathways for audio, it's made to have minimal latency, and sticking things into it tend to make the latency much worse. Some people that I read online use programs such as VB virtual audio cables, etc., so that you can end up using equalizers, etc. I will try the program that you have suggested when I get home tonight.

Thanks again, Gilles.  The reason that I was looking for an equalizer outside of Pianoteq was so that I could first 'set' it with white noise to calibrate for the soundboard, and then that setting could be used for Pianoteq, for Youtube, for other VSTs, Ableton, etc.  Now I'm not even sure that one equalizer can do that, since I now believe that the equalizer would both have to cover ASIO and non-ASIO audio paths, separately.

Anyway, just got home, found DRC Designer, but now need to decide on an unpacker since I don't have anything on this computer to decompress .tar files.

Maybe tomorrow!....

I would try to use Pianoteq eq-system. First run pink noise via soundboard and record that with microphone. Then analyze recorded eq-curve and put the reversed eq-curve to Pianoteq's eq. It could be a starting point. Most likely this doesn't help for prolonged ringing of the harp, but it could help to even out overpowering treble. Anyway this doesn't increase latency of the system.

There is a link for a .exe Windows file on the DRC Designer site, the .tar format is for Linux. But yes, I would suggest staying with Pianoteq's EQ3, maybe also using the global Equalizer.

@MeDorian -

Yes, I have no recording training or experience.  From my naïve logic, it seems that if you are trying to reproduce the imaged sound of a piano with speakers placed four feet apart, that you want to record it with microphones placed four feet apart (at essentially the same location that the speakers will be in).  Perhaps overly simplistic an analogy, but it you want to see what a piano looks like to a person who will be standing across the room, take a picture with a camera positioned where that person's head would be, and then print the image - then you would see what they would see.

Furthermore, the vibrations produced by the treble strings on the right and the bass strings on the left (temporarily assuming a straight-strung instrument, like an older Pleyel) are 'mixed' throughout the piano by vibrations carried on the soundboard, so why 're-mix' left and right microphones into left and right channels?

BIG PROGRESS Today!

I will post tonight's Acoustic vs. Pianoteq comparison video first, and then explain how I got to this point next:

     https://photos.app.goo.gl/uK3yfcKDUDayDtuZ8

So this is a series of notes from treble to bass, played back and forth between my acoustic 1875 Steinway upright Model F (which is in need of some serious tuning) as compared to my Pianoteq Model B .FXP that I have been modifying (tonight I also bumped Condition to 0.31 to make it closer to the acoustic in out-of-tuneness).

Several things got improvements from two days ago until today:

1)  I set up an equalizer curve based on white noise balancing:  I used a white noise video from YouTube, and then used a non-ASIO equalizer program that Gilles had suggested ( FXSound ) to make the tracing look (and sound) relatively flat on FrequenSee:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/wUFc9YAScELhrgXAA   As flat as I could get the white noise curve with FXSound.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DJjYj4LoW5wrXddR7     The equalizer graph after I was done with FXSound.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8daak4DePJ7AZZeCA    The equalizer curve as essentially copied into Pianoteq.

2)  I made lots of changes with the Pianoteq microphones: 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8GTr56E13g7tPbi7

I was hoping to find places over the soundboard to get bass to prevail for the left mic, and treble to prevail for the right mic, but I am frustrated that treble is predominant on the right, but bass is as well.  So I spread the microphones, and kept changing their relative volumes to try to get the cleanest separation possible (as close to hard-panned as possible) since they're just going to get recombined on my piano's soundboard when 'played'.  Also, because I have a smaller lightweight transducer on the treble side, and a heavier transducer for the bass side, I was trying to drive them differently.  I made Output1 to be only from the left mic, and Output2 to be only from the right mic.  I turned off the Level and Delay Compensation (it just seemed easier to get better useful sound differences that way) and turned off the proximity effect for the microphones as the percussive sound of the hammers to the keys seemed to be reproduced better that way.  I also listened to each the bass and the treble, testing all of the microphones, and comparing them to my acoustic piano.  I settled on both microphones being Fig-8 variants, with the C-414 for the left-sided and more bass-driven mic, and the U87 for the right-sided more treble-driven mic.  I also dropped the mics really low to the soundboard, as the percussive hammer and key sound was better, though any lower produced more overwhelming mechanical sounds.

=======================

Overall, I am super-pleased with the progress, and occasionally even fooled myself, especially in the bass, on telling which was acoustic and which was Pianoteq as I went back and forth.  So, where am I now, and what is left to do?

1)  My new transducers are due in soon.  I want to try very small transducers on the treble side.  I wish that I knew how to apply filters to the Pianoteq mics so I could get the left mic to pick up predominantly the bass, and the right mic to predominantly pick up primarily the treble -- any ideas here?

2)  When I am happy with my choice of transducers and their location, I want to move them to the front side of the soundboard.  Currently, playing on the back of the soundboard, they make me feel like I'm sitting on the wrong side of the piano!

3)  Currently the Pianoteq preset is working quite well at low to medium velocities - the sound vastly changes at high velocities, sounding like there's much more bloom.  As far as I know, the EQ curves can't be applied differently for higher versus lower velocities.  If I could make changes with velocity levels, that would be great.

4)  I'm sure that there are many more Pianoteq Soundboard and Note Edit characteristics to change.

5)  I haven't yet even tried to damped the acoustic harp yet.

6)  Also, I'm relatively new at shooting videos like this with my iPhone.  I note that I had it sitting on its microphone at the right edge of the keyboard, so maybe even just putting it upside down would make the sound less colored (since now the microphone is 'trapped' against the body of the piano).  Also, at the end of the video I said "white balance" rather than "white noise" (sorry - can't get the photographer out of me!).

That's all for Thursday night!  Thanks, guys, for all your help with my project.

David

Fab work David and all!

Glad to see such good progress - so happy for you! (for simplicity, posting here now instead of emails)

Observations of current vid..

Those hammers now sound louder in the Pianoteq ver to me (at least on the 1st vid above - if you also hear that, wonder how turning down 'hammer noise' a little might work out - or perhaps something else over time.. maybe in the room they sound more bassy when on vid they may seem more sharp/mid/treble) - but all else.. getting there.

///

Your Q1:

It's possible the smaller transducers may give some comfort in high velocity on treble side - but as far as mic placement here's what I noticed:

You have 2 figure 8 mics (with some modelled hardware) - and possibly.. I'm thinking they may give some benefit to the overall acoustics - and some flavor of Steinway B recordings.. but I'd definitely try this (moonshot mics! - and only thing missing is 'pure' unflavored non-brand-based cardio mics to use instead..):

They're not straight up/down vertical but angled to capture spread of tones without emulated mirror-like reflection straight back at the mic heads..

2 Different mics (in-Pianoteq testing bass vs trebs. plus stereo spread by ear - could this be better? For sure - all another moonshot)..

No 'delays' between L/R so no variant of any kinds of HAAS or other offset spatialization effects, which might give transducers some unnecessary clutter/cancellations)..

Using Cardio instead of Figure 8 (may introduce some built-in stereo issues with transducers?? not sure - what you've got seems nice on video) also not using omni as they pick up around/behind the target.. but thinking cardiods would point at 'roughly where soundboard' bass to treble ranges are - and your real soundboard could generate the 'around' aspect, if that makes sense (but indeed finding some long-distance thinking about this project has not all been as I'd expected - transducers on a piano are an amazing thing, have to say)..

First select mic 1 and change it to..

CMC6MK4

Then select the 5 lines below, copy, and then right-click the mic in the pane (not the selector box), click paste in the popup.

Click the mic's selector box, click "unlink mic" - (and I'd also try both proximity effect on/off when all done).

X = +0.688
Y = +2.058
Z = 1.329
Angle = +135.0
Vertical Angle = +317.4

Next, same with mic 2...

DPA4011

X = +1.058
Y = +1.058
Z = 1.616
Angle = +131.0
Vertical Angle = +290.1

Absolutely could be wrong - but that may hopefully be good to start on mics. (There's no way to share mic presets, like FXP Corner yet.)

///

Your Q2:

If this were using the U4, I'd suggest putting mics on the other side of it - but putting mics under the grands doesn't keep as much of your position vs a vis the soundboard.. the grand piano vs. upright..

I'm imagining the U4 player preset might be interesting to use for a non-Steinway B piano sound.

///

Your Q3: - specific to this quote..

Agree with dv - since noticing your early velocity curve was quite truncated at high velocity - it's prob the 1st thing I'd consider to limit high forces at higher velocities. But it may indeed cut into the tones, and if you like them now, that may change with a changed velocity curve too much.. but maybe not - so worth some experimentation.

But, what you described in the quote is a good description of a problem which might be suited to applying dynamic EQ - (if you've decided on using a DAW).

Something like F6 (Waves) for example - or now the included Pro EQ in Studio One is also excellent (I'm sure free ones and paid of all kinds exist - but F6 and Pro EQ3 are two I really really like. 

Dynamics-wise, set the EQ any way you like overall, and then for any frequency range, dial a threshold at which point that range can attenuate.

Essentially giving a limit to that range, so it won't get too hot of have too much force compared to surrounding ranges.

Extras to that..

a
Maybe instead of EQ, a multiband compressor could take some force out of target frequency bands well enough. (Again plenty around, the default one in Studio One is quite good).

b
Claro (by Sonoxx) recently hit me with it's "width" variations, and other things.. so you can make only certain frequency ranges "wider" or "narrower"). I think it would be 'the tool' I'd break out to manage stereo width as you describe issues with that inre what you're hearing.

Stereo-width-wise, in Claro, click 'width' and adjust a bass band wider (since your soundboard's bass waves would probably wash across the whole thing with more bloom beyond the left).. or narrower (since you may be able to that way contain much of the bass to the left side of the soundboard).. but in the stereo blend.. that may be also altered and attenuated in the Pianoteq 'mics' pane - I guess every thing like this, by ear comes down to what you hear there.

Beyond that also in Claro, is the ability to right click any dot(s) for any frequency, select 'split' and to individually raise/lower either/both left/right channels independently.. which might be excellent to remove bass or other ranging frequencies from taking up space on the 'wrong side' of the soundboard/keyboard as you hear those in situ.

///

I'm prob commandeered, tasks/partner for the next.. numbers? of days - but whew - so good to see - and all this wonderful help - hats off to all.

Overall David..

What you've come up with sounds remarkable in the video - Happy for you!

I also felt that double-take when you 2nd guessed real? or Pianoteq? there, I had to replay the vid

[

hope to not have forgotten something or mixed up anything in mixing together different text notes from different times - also here are links to EQs and Studio One in case thinking of a DAW.. but for sure, Reaper, Cakewalk and on and on might be just as good of a fit.. (Including Studio One here because its internal new dynamic EQ is competitive with the Waves F6 and because I use it most - love the ease of workflow with the same kinds of results from any old DAW in the past.. it only misses out on actually 2 things I'd like it to do but in those cases I load up Cakewalk - but again.. plenty of good DAWs to see out there.

Maybe this will be overkill for most starting out into DAW land, but I also like Presonus Sphere for a whole lot of reasons, just like I love Pianoteq Studio Bundle. No having to find "Oh, I don't have that tool" - but anyway, there are links to Studio One 'Artist', 'Professional' and 'Sphere' and a comparison pdf if some things are desired - if this DAW seems good to you. I'd add, the Artist version does not have included multi-band compression - but it does have the included multiband Pro EQ

https://www.waves.com/plugins/f6-floati...echain-tip

https://shop.presonus.com/Studio-One-6-Artist

https://shop.presonus.com/Studio-One-6-Professional

https://shop.presonus.com/PreSonus-Sphere

https://pae-web.presonusmusic.com/uploa...rsions.pdf

https://www.sonnox.com/toolbox/claro

].

Yeah, that's my gripe with pianoteq GUI: it's beautiful but requires the manual, not easily discoverable. I wish they had opted for a "ugly" standard one, like (say) the one of a browser.

Anyway, what you search for the "global" velocity curve which you can enable by clicking that little G under the velocity curve windows.

I continue to applaud your determination, your achieved success and the even bigger accomplishments that feel like are just around the corner!!!

Thanks, Gilles and dv.  DV, I already forgot about the global velocity curve option, as I used to just freeze it ( before I started to use VelPro, which would have worked here as well).  Then the global volume curve option was released, but I haven't used it for anything serious yet!

More to do, more to do....