I updated my first post.
Used the same midi now for Synthogy Ivory and Pianoteq,
as well as using Pianoteq's special FXP (while using the default velocity maps)My opinion has not changed though.
My Pianoteq sample still sounds very convoluted for some reason.To all the people advising me to pay $150 for a new soundcard:
If you believe $150 will dramatically change the sound, I challenge
you to download my midi, render it with your Pianoteq and high-end soundcard and post your result.
Please also upload your FXP so others may benefit.
Looks to me, and I am no expert, that your PC is more than adequate for capturing a good sound. Like I said, I am no expert, but I tried various software on the net, and I found Pianoteq to sound pretty darn good. Of course pretty darn good isn't perfect, but neither are many acoustic pianos, unless you have the dough to spend. But, for a simple minded guy like me, Pianoteq seems to sound O.K. You have a much better setup than I have, you must require much more from your ears than I do, and I may change my mind after I use Pianoteq for a while. But, I will mention that, I have run my Digital RD 150 through cakewalk software, and simply added compression, Fx, and other similar sounds to my MIDI and altered the sound, to make the RD 150 actually sound much better. So, your right about the effects. The digital reverb, samples, etc... can alter and actually make your piano sound much better, without the expensive software. A person could simply experiment with software mixers and such, and aquire quite a good sound.
]]>I think HR No.2 is a much more difficult midi to render to wave than Claire de Lune because it has such a range of dynamics and speed of notes. Some of the chromatic scales are extremely fast which may challenge some systems to play in real time. (Starting at about 2:10 and again at 3:10, the repetition rate of notes is very fast).
My five year old dual core Athlone can handle it with Pianoteq.
Glenn
]]>But: I've uploaded a five minute fxp for your Clair de Lune midi file. I didn't try to duplicate the sound of the Galaxy piano. I instead just adjusted the C3 Close piano to your midi file to get a sound that you may like more. Making PianoTeq sound like a specific, recorded piano is possible, but I just wanted to quickly demonstrate the adjustments you can make for a midi file recorded on another instrument. I don't yet like the softer sounds in this fxp:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...Clair2.fxp
NOTE: there is also a misposted file there named C3 Close mic for Clair. Please ignore this file. I accidentally lost the mic settings before posting it.
Very slight changes in the mic position will have a large effect on the midrange sound.
Here's an mp3 of it:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...evised.mp3
What was done:
1. Adjusted the velocity curve.
2. Removed the uppermost node in the Pedal velocity curve.
3. Raised the Dynamics.
4. Took off the reverb.
5. Moved the mics to above the lid. Not sure I'm satisfied with the midrange sound, but small changes in the settings here will let you create a sound you like. As Glenn says, the mics give the most control over the sound, once you have the velocity curve set right.
Better? It may not be the exact sound that you want, but I hope it at least demonstrates that PianoTeq can be adjusted to create a very life-like piano, even when the midi file was created on an unknown keyboard while listening to another piano.
]]>I would very interested in trying out your FXP.
When I mess around in PT it sounds ghastly hah
Oh, goodness, you're going to make me work for this...
Okay, will you be happy with a very clear sound for the "Clair de Lune" MIDI file, or do you have some other MIDI or composition to use as a reference point?
I'll see what I can do for you, but it may take a few days. ;^)
]]>rdlom wrote:That would make sense. What I have noticed is that disabling the limiter and reducing the master volume instead will produce much clearer sound.
Don't forget to reduce/remove the reverb, lower the impedance, adjust the strike points, etc. -- you can achieve a _ridiculously_ clear sound this way, though you'll obviously lose a little of the "body"...
Speaking of body, I prefer the YC5 add-on to the C or M models. It has a bit more "punch" and clarity in the middle and upper registers.
And who knows what "miracle pianos" may be in development? I consider that YC5 to be a step in the desired direction you seek, so here's hoping for more of the same!!!
(And don't forget to sample the other instruments -- I love the vibes and the new Clavinet.)
I would very interested in trying out your FXP.
When I mess around in PT it sounds ghastly hah
That would make sense. What I have noticed is that disabling the limiter and reducing the master volume instead will produce much clearer sound.
Don't forget to reduce/remove the reverb, lower the impedance, adjust the strike points, etc. -- you can achieve a _ridiculously_ clear sound this way, though you'll obviously lose a little of the "body"...
Speaking of body, I prefer the YC5 add-on to the C or M models. It has a bit more "punch" and clarity in the middle and upper registers.
And who knows what "miracle pianos" may be in development? I consider that YC5 to be a step in the desired direction you seek, so here's hoping for more of the same!!!
(And don't forget to sample the other instruments -- I love the vibes and the new Clavinet.)
]]>One responder made a comment I agree with, and I replied as follows:
The "limiter" is to my mind, one of the often overlooked and abused settings in Pianoteq. Most of the default settings in Pianoteq use four or five microphones (headphones being the exception). On my older dual core with these settings, the output level must be turned down to prevent clipping, OR, the limiter must be turned on.
The problem with the limiter is that it is essentially a compressor (preventing clipping of peaks). Compression results in some distortion (sometimes this does sound better).
To put less strain on my system, I use two microphones, . . . to achieve the sound I want.
There is an "audio load indicator" in Pianoteq - switching to two mics from four mics, the load drops by about 1/2 - which seems to indicate that the mics use a lot of processor power compared to that used for production of sound.
Does anyone have any comments - pro or con - to my observations?
Glenn
]]>http://members.shaw.ca/smythe/archive.htm
http://www.trachtman.org/rollscans/RollListing.php
http://www.kunstderfuge.com/piano-rolls.htm
http://www.johnroachemusic.com/rolls.html
Some will require payment, but the first two do not as far as I know. I've downloaded literally hundreds from the first site.
Glenn
]]>Where can I find this particular midi file Glenn?
Did you want the full midi of Hungarian Rhapsody No.2?
I'll upload it.
Glenn
]]>You can download the fxp here http://www.mediafire.com/?gnnqzzlzwjw
I simple turned off PTQs reverb, lowered the sympathetic resonance and Soundboard Impedance to shorten the note length a bit. I think that was about all I did. Then I used Garageband's reverb because it's has many more parameters for tailoring the sound, it just allowed me to get a bit closer to the sound of your Ivory recording.
]]>It does sound much better, but the reverb at the end of each note is a tad bit too strong sometimes.
Can you please upload the FXP.
Why did you decide to use Garageband's reverb instead of Pianoteq's own?
]]>[...] and for some reason I cannot reproduce the demontration samples quality.
thank you rdlom for the new recording. The fxp that I uploaded is exactly the one used for recording Hugh Sung's demo on our site, so if you still find a difference in the final rendering, it shouldn't be due to Pianoteq but to musical interpretation.
Concerning velocity:
the default velocity for a given midi file is not necessarily the best: it depends on the keyboard that was used for recording the midi file,
Pianoteq does not behave like a sample library. In a sample library with a limited number of layers, many velocities share the same sample. For example, if velocities 70 to 100 use the same sample, then part of the velocity 100 crispiness is present in the lower velocity 70. In Pianoteq the variation is much smoother, and mezzo forte is really mezzo forte. If you find the sound too mellow, it is very easy to change, either increase the hammer hardness or the velocity curve.
As a final thought about default setting, you cannot have one setting that is good for all keyboards, midi files and styles of music. Even in the real world, the piano tuner will adapt the piano to the pianist and the room, the pianist will adapt his playing to the music, the piano and the room, the sound engineer will use different recording tools and techniques depending on the context, etc. Pianoteq offers you many possibilities, they should be used if you want an optimal result.
]]>