No. 1 for me was by far the best (i won't claim I would have said that was the acoustic though).
No. 3 for me had far too much reverb which I always tame. Having said that, I was playing my acoustic today - pedalled high notes - and I noted of course that is what a real piano does. Somehow though given the option I prefer without.

So by elimination I guess no. 2 was best for me. Isn't this the whole issue though: we are all hearing something different, especially me as I am nearer 60 than 50!!!

Glenn, What is the RC2? I couldn't load the fxp file?

Don:

It was the second version of the K1 during beta testing.

It won't load in 3.6, but I posted a new mp3 done in 3.6

Modartt took the "bad" one down.

Glenn

I appreciate this, and of course I may even learn from the comments.

Glenn

1)  The Pathetique fxp is available in Files.

2)  I never use the limiter - even to my poor ears, it seems to have a major effect (which I don't like).

3)  The sound I like is the "direct" sound a pianist hears, not the "recording" sound normally heard by others.  I seem to get this sound with the two microphones (above and below the piano).  Because of this, the reverb won't sound "normal" to many listeners.  I find, if I play a grand in a very live and large room (empty church), the reverb is annoying.

4)  One statement last night was in error; I first raised the general Impedance to 1.0, then lowered the Impedance in the upper register to eliminate the ringing.

5)  There are quite a few MIDI versions of the Pathetique available online - the one I used is by http://www.last.fm/music/Yuko+Ohigashi

She's not likely at the same level of Andras Schiff, but looking at the Event List of the MIDI file, it appears to have been recorded live, and not sequenced.

6)  Number 2 and number 3 were recorded with the K1; I didn't use the C3 or the M3 at all.

Glenn

EDIT:  The fxp posted was used for number 3 snippet.

EDIT 2:  I could have used the latest K1 as the starting point, which  would have likely resulted in the same sound, but I so much liked the RC2 that it's hard to change.   But to quote Red Green, "I can change if I have to".

Glenn, which PTQ piano was number three, the C3?

I've noticed this same thing when listening different recordings of real grand pianos playing the same piece. It's almost like something has been added or lost during the recording session.

If I try it in Garageband with a better reverb I think it could sound superb!

To me the second does sound too thin and metallic and in the third the reverb doesn't sound convincing so I think I'd have gone for number one. The third piano tone is excellent though and played with a good convolution reverb I think you'd be hard pressed to tell it wasn't a real piano.

Glenn could you post your fxp? In the standard version we can't make the impedance changes you made - ta!

Well I came late, but for me it's clear that the first recording was the most natural if listened carefully, without exterior sound noises.

But I need to say that the comparison clear shows that pianoteq it's in constant evolution, improving and improving after each version. 
In earlier pianoteq versions would be much easier to say what is the real grand piano.

What I have to say to pianoteq ???  Well ...     Just:

"Keep on ruining "      :-)

After all...  We can't deny evolution...

Otherwise I could not tell if 1 or 3 was acoustic.  But if you put a piece with a lot of lower notes in there I think I would be able to tell because of release noise and string ring on the acoustic base notes.

Anyway, each update gets closer to perfection.  The K1 grand is a great instrument in its own right.  Pianoteq treble is great.  The bass is getting closer.  Get a Hamburg Steinway in your studio and nail that bass sound down, release modeling and all!

It is easy for me to believe that many might pick #3, because of the very nice reverb.

Greg.

The first snippet is played by Andras Schiff (Hungarian born concert pianist, living in Britain).    http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/p...67,00.html

According to what I can ascertain, he mostly plays Bosendorfers.  To me the sound doesn't seem to be a Steinway, but I may well be wrong - if anyone thinks it sounds like a Steinway, I'll listen.

The second snippet is Pianoteq K1, with the mics placed above and below the piano.  Mic one:  0.660, 0.860, 0.300  Mic two:  0.840, 0.880, 1.440.

All other parameters are stock, except I increased the reverb a bit.

The third snippet is interesting because when I compared the Schiff recording and the second recording, I though that they were strikingly similar - except that the high notes seemed to ring too much in PT.

So for the third snippet, I reduced the Impedance as follows:
At C1, 0.00, At C4, 0.74, from C5 and higher, 0.48.

I never really played around to get optimum values, so these Imp values could probably be improved.

I also softened the hammers for the third snippet (0.20, 0.54, and 1.00).  This is very soft.

Interestingly the friend I often refer to on this forum (he rebuilds pianos and presently has seven grand in his place from a 4'-11" Yamaha to a C7 Yamaha), chose the third snippet as the real piano.  He's played just about everything there is including concert Steinways, Baldwins, Kawais, and Bosendorfers.

This wasn't a test to see how smart or knowledgeable anyone was, but to show how really good Pianoteq can be.

What are everybody's thoughts and opinions?

I think we are in good hands.

Glenn

EDIT - Graham, I'd guess that the very soft hammers had something to do with the muffled sound.