...After some search I found out that the "Viscount Sonus 60" uses a "Real Audio Rendering" solution to create reverb.
As I understand it, it seems more sophisticated than Convolution Reverb.
As I mentioned above, the Pianoteq connected to the Viscount's audio system sounds spatially better than the same sound recorded in two channels and played through two computer speakers (standard stereo).
This is most likely due to the technology you mentioned and the thirteen speakers arranged in different parts of the case.
My new recording using three open PIANOTEQ programs - each separately for the three keyboards.I placed the lute on the lower keyboard. On the upper keyboard - the 4-foot voice.
]]>I don't have a single method for creating the acoustic space for my recordings. In fact, it's a big problem for me, and I'm not always satisfied with the results ...
Thank you for your answer.
As i really like the sound of the acoustic spaces in your videos I had a hope for an easy solution
I now understand that you take a lot of care to create them.
After some search I found out that the "Viscount Sonus 60" uses a "Real Audio Rendering" solution to create reverb.
As I understand it, it seems more sophisticated than Convolution Reverb.
Thanks for your thoughts.
]]>Out of curiosity would you mind to tell which Reverbs you use?
I don't have a single method for creating the acoustic space for my recordings. In fact, it's a big problem for me, and I'm not always satisfied with the results.
In the recording above (Froberger: "Lamentation" FbWV 633), I use the built-in reverb from a Viscount Sonus 60 organ. In the Pianoteq, I turned off the reverb but left the delay on.
In other recordings, I use different combinations. I often add a bit of reverb from a video editing program on my computer to the already recorded reverb, because the sound carries differently when I play the instrument in the room than when I listen to the recording through speakers.
Generally, the sound directly from the instrument (built-in amplification in the Viscount) is better for me than from professional (Yamaha) monitors on my computer.
This is a big problem for me, and I worry that my recordings don't always sound good to the listeners.
Sometimes I record audio with the reverb completely turned off and then add it during video editing on my computer (using DaVinci or Vegas). However, playing the instrument "dry" (without reverb) is more difficult and less enjoyable.
DaVinci Resolve has a very extensive section for creating room acoustics. Unfortunately, the results are rarely satisfactory.
]]>In addition, I would like to draw attention to the equally important issue of room acoustics. It is an important element in sound creation and is also crucial for sound recording.
Out of curiosity would you mind to tell which Reverbs you use?
]]>For your information, the lute sound can already be produced using the "Buff Stop Pedal" :-)
Thanks for the info. I tried it. It works, but you need to set the MUTE parameter appropriately.
A lament for the painful death of His Imperial Majesty Ferdinand III, played slowly and discreetly. Year 1657
]]>Modartt harpsichords definitely lack a lute sound. I'd like to see that tone in new versions of the Pianoteq program or plugin, so I don't have to use sampled instruments.
For your information, the lute sound can already be produced using the "Buff Stop Pedal" :-)
]]>The difference between Pianoteq harpsichords and acoustic instruments lies primarily in the keyboard mechanics, which significantly impacts the playing experience.
In addition, I would like to draw attention to the equally important issue of room acoustics. It is an important element in sound creation and is also crucial for sound recording.
For comparison, I've included a series of my recordings made on various Modartt harpsichords:
https://youtu.be/Yo9GiYi33SI?si=WateDA0ehlBdGij4
https://youtu.be/MnJxZCPbCVI?si=m9KI2zm2dA30g9VI
https://youtu.be/aBjLBFx_Ugc?si=Xewzzbw0k3NjTuhu
I wonder how much that factor alone is what the OP is bothered by. I have tried to "turn off" the damper system in the preset. I believe that it's best to set Last Damper to 0 and all but turn off sympathetic resonance (I've found around 0.15 works best). The problem is that the default engine has the sympathetic resonance that you'd expect from a piano's full trichord scaling, which doesn't remotely apply to the harpsichord, and thus the sound without dampers becomes far too wet and reverb-like. Such resonance should probably be kept on at some level, but definitely not at the default one. So turning off the dampers and decreasing the sympathetic resonance, seems to really let the harpsichord act more like it should.
I'm now very curious how OP and others feel about the PTQ harpsichords when the dampers are removed from the equation. For what it's worth, my still very work-in-progress preset is in the FXP corner now. It feels closer to the samples provided, but not quite there yet. I'll continue working on it as I have the chance.
]]>Hi,
Is there any way that future versions of Pianoteq can approach an authentic harpsichord sound? For example, compare https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0jStHeiH8M of a real Grimaldi vs the sound in Pianoteq. The same can be said for the Blanchet, Ruckers II and the Giusti from the Karsten Collection.
I readily admit that their playability is absolutely fantastic compared to samples but speaking as a harpsichordist (sadly without a real instrument to play at present) the sound is nowhere near good enough to record a solo album, for example.
Just taking a couple of random harpsichord videos from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uczsnta4Hcg and https://youtu.be/kzYt3A_Y2SE. It would be absolutely amazing if we could approach this level of authentic sound including the soundboard resonance (and characteristic tonal release sound for example at end of the phrase here https://youtu.be/kzYt3A_Y2SE&t=205). To my mind, a truly authentic sound is only possible via something like pianoteq and not samples given the amount the denoising that destroys the sound. What's also missing in samples is that delicious onset as the plectra hit the strings.
Put another way, can we have harpsichords that sound as authentic as your pianos (which are stunning) and are certainly capable of solo album recording. I'm very happy to be involved in any discussions about how to improve them and more than happy to dedicate time to testing.
Thanks!
tmyoung wrote:I agree that the "factory" presets are not very good, even on the specialized packs like Ruckers.
Wow, just wow! What an amount of work! Thanks for meticulously describing your secrets! I'm sure it'll help people who can understand and bear with everything you explained.
For us ordinary people, are you willing to share your FXP please?
Yikes! I totally forgot about this thread! Sure, I'd be happy to share the FXP tomorrow. ... Oops ... *facepalm*
]]>I agree that the "factory" presets are not very good, even on the specialized packs like Ruckers.
Wow, just wow! What an amount of work! Thanks for meticulously describing your secrets! I'm sure it'll help people who can understand and bear with everything you explained.
For us ordinary people, are you willing to share your FXP please?
]]>I start by placing the microphones underneath the soundboard (as is typical of most best practices for most harpsichord recording technicians). I place one in the center of the back and one roughly below the center of gravity (I like the C414 and M49 Figure 8 for this), both pointed upward. Then I place a room microphone comically far away from the instrument and turn off delay compensation (you want the phase problems to add character not to mathematically avoid them--though phase inversion of the room mic may be necessary, I just move it far enough away that it goes back into phase--almost), typically selecting a C414 or M49 omni. Then I turn the volume down to -9db or so, take off the Limiter. I also radically changed the reverb to a very long tail but dry balance, usually with a Quad IR or external algorithmic reverb (like a Bricasti or old Lexicon--plug-ins usually because we all work with what we've got). Feel free to mess with the mixing of the main microphone pair from a stereo standpoint, just go with what sounds good after experimenting.
Then I start removed the "piano" mentality from the preset. I go to well temperament or another non-equal temperament (why on earth do we use arbitrary 415 tuning in equal temperament, if you want equal, go with a Baroque equal tuning method that was available not a mathematical philosophy...tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk), and I detune generously while making sure that the unison width is not somehow enabled (seriously, on a harpsichord!? in fairness, some of the multi manual presets probably use unison width as a detune between individual string sets but I still find it odd). Then I heavily randomize the damper position under the action heading (as it's an additional setting to the plectrum behavior randomization available under "Voicing" in Standard and Pro) generously as well. I increase the key noise and enable its humanization option. I also heavily randomize any plectrum settings, particularly those related to timing and inertia. I will sometimes mess with the string length parameter in Note Edit to try to simulate inconsistency between string mass, density and manufacture across the keyboard compass.
After that, I'll up the "wear" slider to something between (roughly) 0.45 and 0.75, while also changing the seed parameter until I like it (which makes a huge difference). Afterwards, there's a hidden stretch points option (at least on Ruckers) that allows you to adjust special mechanics of temperament, stringing, and tuning when you Note Edit the "Direct Sound Duration" in addition to the other direct tuning, temperament, etc. settings available under Note Edit. Of possible use (though extremely complex and difficult to use) is the Spectrum Profile which allows note-by-note overtone editing parameters.
After changing enough of these profiles, you will end up with at least a Harpsichord-like sound that's more convincing than the out-of-the-box factory sound. I just did a Buxtehude manuals-friendly fugue, which sounded quite convincing to my ears on the Ruckers with the above changes to its L8+U8 factory preset. That said, I'm only more of an organist by trade than a proper harpsichordist; so, like others, I'd defer to a better harpsichord scholar's opinion on exactly what parameters to change to get a "perfect" harpsichord sound.
]]>