To paraphrase Keith Emerson of ELP, who was originally talking about electronic organs as opposed to pipe organs:

"Playing on sampled pianos .... is like f***ing through a rubber."

Darned straight! 

Exactly!  While the sound of Pianoteq isn't perfect (and oh, could that mean so many different things!!!), its playability is unquestionable.  Even version 2 was "more playable," to me, than any sample library, despite the fact that version 3 makes version 2 look like a rough beta (or even alpha, especially in terms of the core sound itself!). 

I, for one, rarely pay attention to "consensus opinion" or "reviews" when working with audio, because my experience with both listening and making music is extremely "subjective."  I am truly in "my own little corner" of the music world, and I'll surely stay that way.  My opinions are very distinct (about all music matters, really), and while I believe that a general, objective evaluation is somewhat possible for things like Ivory* or Pianoteq, I am more interested in singing Pianoteq's praises for my own reasons than in convincing other people to "listen" in the same way as myself, expecting them to hear what I hear.  (This has been true with "music appreciation," so I don't expect the rule to change. )

People who will agree shall agree;  those who don't (for honest reasons) need to look elsewhere, by all means!!!  (Or, of course, find creative solutions.)

(* -- By now, Ivory should be regarded as a dinosaur.  It still has some teeth, but they're quickly becoming fossilized. )

Backtracking for a second, beginning about 2005, I had purchased Synthogy Ivory, and was quite impressed with it, as compared to previous hardware piano sounds from Roland and Emu.  However -- and this is quite important -- the software was controlling ME (by having to make compromises), rather than I playing the software!

I must say I have had this feeling with PTQ of software controlling me or making me to play in certain way. Let me explain. In my opinion PTQ sounds great in some registers and in some kind of musical repertoire. But same time it has some problematic in others. When I play mostly more or less improvised music I can see that I tend to use some musical things more and tend avoid some others. So still I'm waiting for PTQ X.0 which can produce all kind of piano sounds I need.

Secondly, I can see that almost every time people argue about PTQ vs. sampled pianos they use Ivory or some other software piano in these arguments. IMO you have better sample competitor for PTQ if you take some new professional level hardware piano to this comparison. No matter how much did they spend memory, Ivory is badly sampled. (If your controller allows, you can try this simple test: make it send just some velocity value and play around to hear if the piano sounds even. Then change the value and play again etc. With this test you can hear that Ivory is quite uneven: some notes sound different than others near to them, some notes are louder than others etc.) With for example Roland's new supernatural pianos you DON'T notice velocity layers and sound is very even. They even include some string resonance parameters. In fact these newest pianos aren't completely sampled; they use some kind of hybrid technology which combines sampling and modeling. Anyway my point is that best sampled pianos aren't those softwares like Ivory; you can find them in new Rolands or Yamahas. At least these are much much much more playable and expressive instruments than Ivory for example. And this expressiveness seems to be main thesis in these arguments pro or against PTQ.

Personally I do not take strongly any side in this discussion; sampled pianos are better in some musical things and PTQ is better in the other. Period. Still like many people here, I'm waiting to see the day when modeling really beats sampling. (Or perhaps is it some hybrid technology?) Same time I know it isn't very easy task. If you wanna have a very realistic picture of your house, still the easiest way is to take photo with your camera. Maybe it's the Frankenstein philosophy which fascinates me most with modeling: Modartt team (and others too) try to rebuild the reality from the very fundamental level...

First off, many thanks to you, Glenn, for your kind comments and for stating my own case so effectively about the current status of Pianoteq.  I would like to add my own opinions and comments to add credibility to your writing.

Regarding pianos and Pianoteq,
I for one have daily access to a Steinway Model M and K Kawai grand pianos.  In fact, I also tune and regulate these two particular instruments at least four times per year, and I have been performing weekly or bi-weekly touchups on these very two pianos since 1994.   As a sideline career as a professional tuner (among other things) I have tuned at the rate of 4 to 6 different pianos per month on average -- ranging from several pianos per week to only a few pianos per month over the last ten years or so -- translating to approximately 600 different pianos over this time, with many additional instances of repeat customers.

The reason for stating these credentials is that I do know how pianos of various sizes and shapes are supposed to sound, and how they respond to one's touch as a classically trained pianist.  Having had this much exposure to two rather fine grands, has allowed me to expand my repertoire and musicality -- to a far greater level of competency than some 40 years ago, when I was contemplating a concert pianist's career.

Now, this is where Pianoteq comes in:
Admittedly, when I downloaded the trial version of Pianoteq in its infancy, I played with the demo version for only about five minutes -- and never touched it again for two or three years.  The original version of Pianoteq was "interesting", but didn't "play well" ... in my estimation.  The sound was "clever", but it didn't sound like a piano to my ears.

Backtracking for a second, beginning about 2005, I had purchased Synthogy Ivory, and was quite impressed with it, as compared to previous hardware piano sounds from Roland and Emu.  However -- and this is quite important -- the software was controlling ME (by having to make compromises), rather than I playing the software!

To be honest, I believe it was my classical training and technique that allowed me to make rather musical sounding performances with Ivory and its subsequent upgrades.  In addition to Ivory, I had acquired BDMO (the Bluethner Digital Model One) piano, having heard its audio demos -- but that piano software did not match MY technique; it was frustrating to be spending money and not getting the desired return of fulfillment on my investments.

After Nick Phoenix of EWQL had heard some of my performances on Ivory (Nick was soliciting live performers who would do justice to their then upcoming EWQL Piano Library), I made some demos for him that were considered as worthy to be included in the EWQL website demos for the Bosendorfer, Steinway and Bechstein libraries.

In my own opinion -- and this is not to denigrate the sampled library vendors -- all of the sampled pianos gave me the impression that I could make a performance that was "nice sounding", but none of these expensive libraries allowed me to express myself, musically, in a live performance situation.

To paraphrase Keith Emerson of ELP, who was originally talking about electronic organs as opposed to pipe organs:

"Playing on sampled pianos .... is like f***ing through a rubber."

When I re-discovered Pianoteq Version #3 -- for the first time -- I found that the instrument "played" much better under my fingers than any sampled library had done so before.  Of course, this is hard to describe to someone who has not experienced Pianoteq for one's self.

While I am not fooled into believing that Pianoteq sounds indistinguishable from a real concert-quality grand, it does give me hours of musical pleasure performing mainly the classic piano repertoire.  I enjoy voicing and "tuning" the piano note by note in the Pro version.  I do not use the octave stretching parameters at all; rather, I prefer to tune the octaves by ear (having been born with absolute pitch helps with this task) to achieve a beautiful sounding instrument.

* * * * * *

Now, back to the original reason for beginning this lengthy post:

I wish to address what I believe is behind the Pianoteq users who are in love with the instrument, and the skeptics who are rightfully wary of such skewed positive praise of Pianoteq:

There have always been concerns about the trustworthiness of online ratings of all products and services featured in website forums on the internet.  One would certainly hope that the truest and most accurate evaluations of Pianoteq will come from aggregating the opinions of a large and diverse group of people. Yet a closer look might reveal that the wisdom of crowds may neither be wise nor necessarily made by a crowd.

All online ranking systems, including Pianoteq, suffer from a number of inherent biases.  The first is deceptively obvious:  people who rate the product have already made the purchase.  Therefore, most of these well-meaning souls (Yours Truly included) are disposed to like the product.  The high ratings draw people who would never have considered a modeled piano in favor of a sampled library.

.... And if they hate the product, their spite could lead to an overcorrection, with a spate of very low ratings.  Such negativity exposes another, perhaps more insidious bias: namely, people tend not to review things they find merely satisfactory.  They evangelize (or appear to evangelize) what they love ... and trash things they hate.  These feelings lead to a lot of highly negative and highly positive reviews of the same product.

Self-selected online voting has the potential of creating an artificial judgment gap:  as in modern politics, where only the loudest voices at the furthest ends of the spectrum seem to get heard.

Enough of my rambling for now,

I hope this information was helpful or at least thought provoking to you.

Cheers,

Joe

Let me add that Joe Felice is essentially at the performing classical pianist level (and having heard his renderings of some difficult classical piano, I probably underestimate his ability).  It is my understanding that he once used samples extensively - his excellent version of Rhapsody in Blue was on one sample website as an example of what samples can do (in fact I DL'd and saved it a couple of years ago).

However, it is my understanding that he does not use samples any longer, but uses Pianoteq.  I'm quite sure that his sound system is up to the task, and I'm even more sure that his training and skill level will permit him to hear differences that many of us (particularly me) cannot detect.

So he knows as well as I that Pianoteq will require improvement and that it will improve.

In spite of the shortcomings of the sound, he uses Pianoteq - and while I venture out near the thin ice position here - I believe it is largely because it plays so well.  His recent comments on another thread about having played a number of well known concert grands from around the world (at NAMM), confirm that he knows what he's talking about when he presents opinions on touch and response (he rates the Kawaii Shigeru as having a superb action - also confirmed by a world class technician on his site).

Obviously unless we have the real thing at our fingertips, there must be compromises, and both samples and Pianoteq contain compromises.  It seems to me that those that actually play the piano prefer Pianoteq, and can "get around" the sound deficiencies, and I get the feeling that many that use samples aren't piano players, but need a good sounding instrument as opposed to a good playing one.

In closing, always keep in mind that these are my personal opinions and as such are subject to error and change.

Glenn

jcfelice88keys wrote:

...Lastly, although this was a very pleasant sounding recording, I was a bit bothered by the contradiction of the equalization of the bass and midrange notes (sounding slightly elevated)

What are you talking about? Pianoteq sounds so amazingly good I couldn't imagine anyone could ever "screw it up" soundwise. But your analysis sounds like a lot of "huh" comments by someone trying to find something to talk about when there is nothing [...]

Ted, you've misunderstood what was going on there.

jcfelice88keys was writing about a recording of a REAL piano, with the aim of helping someone who wanted to make Pianoteq sound similar.

Well, now, I haven't bought Pianoteq yet because, for what I want, it doesn't sound enough like a real piano.  I prefer the sound of a good sampled piano, even though - judging from Pianoteq users' comments - Pianoteq's response to touch is way better than the response of sampled pianos.

In other words, it seems to me that people who prioritise a good playing experience over the realism of the sound prefer Pianoteq, while those who prioritise realism of the sound will put up with the less good playing experience of a sampled piano in order to get the desired sound in a recording.

---

BTW, there's something strange about this forum ...

Some Pianoteq users seem determined to deny ANY inadequacy in the sound, sometimes quite aggressively.  As far as I'm concerned, listening objectively on good equipment exposes weaknesses in the sound - and it's certainly not just I who think that.  Admittedly, I find it hard to describe exactly what's wrong - in fact, I find it hard to describe (differences between) sounds at all.  But, even so, I can tell it's not right - just as I can tell if a chair's unfomfortable, whether or not I can pinpoint the reason for the discomfort.  (And no amount of being told by someone else that the chair's comfortable will make it so.)

I find it a little strange that some Pianoteq supporters don't seem to be able to hear the deficiencies in its sound AT ALL (perhaps in some cases, the equipment they're listening on doesn't reveal enough?). 

Actually, I expect that those most aware of the deficiencies in the sound will be the developers - without that awareness, I don't imagine they could have made the improvements that they have made so far.

I'm looking forward to the day when I listen to the Pianoteq demos and hear a sound that I find realistic enough: then I'll buy it and enjoy the playing experience in the way that other users already do.  IMHO, what's been done so far is a remarkable achievement.  But the sound isn't yet what I want.

...Lastly, although this was a very pleasant sounding recording, I was a bit bothered by the contradiction of the equalization of the bass and midrange notes (sounding slightly elevated)

What are you talking about? Pianoteq sounds so amazingly good I couldn't imagine anyone could ever "screw it up" soundwise. But your analysis sounds like a lot of "huh" comments by someone trying to find something to talk about when there is nothing. If the user wants to add EQ in the bass, midrange, or anywhere else and it makes the recording sound better, then so be it. Who cares if it's not "the way it is supposed to be". Who cares if it's the performer's perspective or the listener's? Maybe there's a guitar panned to the right that you want to have some room for so you switch the panning of the piano so the high notes are to the left. If it sounds good, do it. Pianoteq is the best sounding software acoustic piano ever made. No thinking is necessary :-)

Glenn, it's quite close to what I'm looking for. I find the low end a little lacking though so I'm playing around with it to see if I can make any improvement. Thanks.

Tell me what you think is lacking - this may be fixable.

Glenn

EdenResident wrote:

Thanks everyone for your contribution.

How does it sound?  Is it warm enough?

Glenn

Glenn, it's quite close to what I'm looking for. I find the low end a little lacking though so I'm playing around with it to see if I can make any improvement. Thanks.

Thank you Skip.

Sorry Glenn.

Don't apologize - listen to updated version.

Glenn

Sorry Glenn.

Thanks everyone for your contribution.

How does it sound?  Is it warm enough?

Glenn

Beto-Music,
Glenn hasn't provided the FXP (right?) - are you sure you don't mean the FXP that I uploaded?   I was quite drastic with my hammer hardness reduction.  With my controller, I don't have to play very hard before the sound becomes brighter though.

Greg.

No Greg, I didn't provide an fxp - I just provided a link to an mp3 of Fur Elise (on box.net).  So I'm not sure what Beto is referring to as "cotton".  Perhaps my mp3 sounds like cotton.

In any event I posted a link so that EdenResident could do a listening test to compare the two versions (his and mine).

BTW - how do they compare on other people's systems?

Several times, we've discussed how our sound systems can affect our perception of sound - yesterday this was made very clear to me:  I took my Appassionata snippet to my piano re-builder friend and he played it on his system.  On my system, I can detect only one occasion where Schiff breathing can be heard - on his system I clearly heard three!!  I was shocked.

Glenn

PS - if anyone want the fpx, I'll post it.