I also uploaded a recording of Rachmaninoff's C# Minor Prelude using this .fxp file, this being the only piece I've recorded which reaches right down into the base. The slow swirl effect seems very much diminished but I think I would like to hear a bit more "Growl" from the copper wound strings. I originally recorded this piece before I upgraded to PTQ PRO on a C3 with unison width of 1.6.

Appologies for not inserting hyperlinks, if anyone could kindly advise me how to do this I'll put this right.

Upon listening to this recording (captured by a small Yamaha handheld digital recorder placed a few feet behind me and about 18 inches higher than my head while seated at the bench -- no mike stand, only a bookshelf held the recorder) with good headphones, one can hear my nose-hairs wheezing in the breeze!  Note to self:  Trim nose hairs before making a recording with the microphone so close to the performer.

Cheers,

Joe

P.S.  One other thing of note concerns the actual loudness of the Steinway when played live.  The piano was so loud (in the obvious loud passages) that my ears were ringing.  Perhaps the automatic level control was engaged on the Yamaha Digital Recorder, but the audio file you hear sounds much, much less loud than the actual live performance.

I really laughed to that one! It reminds me of the incomfort we sometimes have listening to closely recorded string quartets. String instruments are so close to the nose...

Your complaint about instrument loudness (in a rather small room I presume) brings back to mind one of the reason I sold my much too loud Kawai KS3F upright. In a small room, I kept my foot all the time on the soft pedal to compensate! I sold it to a large choir for rehearsal where it is perfectly happy.

Many thanks for those Joe. Very useful. Enjoyed the live performance the most. The only thing missing was the sound of applause at the end.

Hello Ian,

I am glad you enjoyed the Alborada performed on the real acoustic Steinway Model M.  Interestingly, from my own perspective, it was the performance I enjoyed the least of the three(!). 

Why?  Because the action of that particular Steinway (not all Steinways in general, and certainly not most Model D concert models) is comparatively sluggish.  If you listen closely to the repeated notes, you will notice that the repetition of that particular piano --- wasn't up to the task --- at least under my fingers in those series of ongoing repeated notes.  The piano's double escapement action simply couldn't keep up with my fingers.  In other words, my trusty 20-year old Roland A-80 master controller keyboard playing live with Pianoteq happened to "out-play" the Steinway.

In all fairness to the fine people at Steinway, this particular Model M was manufactured in the early 1980's at a time when teflon bushings were used in the action.  The action is subpar, and has not been regulated, nor the capstans cleaned or polished in decades.  The result is a sluggish piano that happens to have the Steinway name attached to its fallboard and cast into its iron frame.

Upon listening to this recording (captured by a small Yamaha handheld digital recorder placed a few feet behind me and about 18 inches higher than my head while seated at the bench -- no mike stand, only a bookshelf held the recorder) with good headphones, one can hear my nose-hairs wheezing in the breeze!  Note to self:  Trim nose hairs before making a recording with the microphone so close to the performer.

Cheers,

Joe

P.S.  One other thing of note concerns the actual loudness of the Steinway when played live.  The piano was so loud (in the obvious loud passages) that my ears were ringing.  Perhaps the automatic level control was engaged on the Yamaha Digital Recorder, but the audio file you hear sounds much, much less loud than the actual live performance.

Hello Ian,

In response to your request of what is possible with the Standard- versus Pro version, I direct you to two files of essentially the same performance of Ravel's Alborada del Gracioso, plus a live performance of Yours Truly on a smallish Steinway Model M (5'7") in one's home.

Many thanks for those Joe. Very useful. Enjoyed the live performance the most. The only thing missing was the sound of applause at the end.

Oh and thanks Glen NK for telling everyone about your experiences with copper-wound bass strings. Actually this whole thread is fascinating and educational, all pianists should be forced to read it

Glen NK wrote:

"Try this on an acoustic piano.  Starting at the lowest A, hit each note hard and listen.  The variation in tone can be very surprising - much more than the variation between A440 and adjacent strings.  Some of these bass tones are good, and some can be horrible."

Trust me Glen, over the years I've bashed the bass notes of so many uprights ranging from the cheap and ancient with unintentional honky-tonk tuning, to expensive new glossy ones as tall as me, all of them have massive differences in colour and tone especially in the bass register, so that bit isn't news to me. The impressive pianos are those that smooth the changeover from 1 to 2 and then 3 strings. Most pianos those changes are obvious to my ear.

I also think that being able to choose between 'fluid', and 'genuine' piano options would be good. What do others think?

I recently went for some recordings to Bayreuth, home of the Steingraeber pianos (wonderful instruments!!!), and their new 272 model has 6 low monochord and 8 bichord, than 4 trichord but copper wounded, before going to flat steel trichords. Dare I say it's better than a Steinway D? OK, just my opinion ;-)

I also had a look at the very first pianoforte they produced (1852), and I can confirm what Philippe says: no monochords at all (11 bichords). But then, there were also fewer octaves...

No standardization here, obviously!

The 8 Monochord and 5 Bichord lowest bass strings are all copper wound on the outside.  And even the lowest Trichords (Bb1, B1, C1, C#1, D1, Eb1, E1) are copper wound as well.  Then starting with F1 on up to the very top, the Trichords are all silver-looking Swedish steel.

Hope this helps in determining note-developing (due to slightly out-of tune unisons above the monochord range) and inharmonicity considerations due to copper vs. steel.

Here's a link to the picture:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zdgW8Z...mp;f=false

Please post a .fxp if you get something going.

I recently bought the standard version of Pteq, but your post Joe has really made me think about upgrading to the Pro version. I've been experimenting a good deal, but it would be great to hear more of the power of the pro version with the tweaks that you have applied. Would it be possible to upload any more files so that someone like myself can see the possibilities of the pro version? Alternatively could anyone guide us to authors who use the Pro version on the download page? 
Ian

There is also this software that I made available to more fully use the Pro version's spectrum profile note edit :

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic.php?id=1634

Another strange thing about the unison setting in the bass register is that when you turn it down so that the three virtual strings sound in PERFECT unison it doesn't sound right at all! Not like an acoustic grand with one string...

Perhaps not so strange as it seems at first.  Among other constraints, the classic equations for vibration of a string consider a string with:
1)  perfectly constant modulus of elasticity,
2)  perfectly uniform diameter throughout its length,

The bass strings of a piano are not perfect because:
a)  no material is perfectly uniform in mechanical properties (Joe Felice could attest to this),
b)  no string is manufactured perfectly; the diameter does vary,
Add to this:
c)  bass strings are wrapped in copper wire (with a different modulus than steel and it's not perfectly uniform),
d)  the copper windings are not perfectly uniform, resulting in variation of stiffness and mass throughout the length.

Because of these variations, copper wound strings do not emit nice clean even harmonics.   The largest bass strings are particularly subject to variations in tone, and occasionally emit some terrible sounds.  I hazard a guess that bass strings probably cause the piano tuner/technicians more grief than all the non-wrapped strings combined.

I had a Yamaha G2 that has several bass strings that simply sounded disgusting.  The Yamaha technician "fixed" them by removing them from the tuning pins, and giving a twist, then re-inserting them into the pins and re-tuning.  It helped a bit.  My friend the piano restorer/technician, favours replacing them.  I wish that Yamaha would have replaced the bad strings, because they never were that good.

So to me, it's no surprise that bass strings in a physical model need some "de-tuning" to sound right.

Try this on an acoustic piano.  Starting at the lowest A, hit each note hard and listen.  The variation in tone can be very surprising - much more than the variation between A440 and adjacent strings.  Some of these bass tones are good, and some can be horrible.

Glenn

The numbering or unison detuning (0 to 20) seems arbitrary. Is it? I'd prefer it in cents unless there is some reason that it's impractical. Just a general preference for numbers to be meaningful rather than arbitrary.

I recently bought the standard version of Pteq, but your post Joe has really made me think about upgrading to the Pro version. I've been experimenting a good deal, but it would be great to hear more of the power of the pro version with the tweaks that you have applied.

Would it be possible to upload any more files so that someone like myself can see the possibilities of the pro version? Alternatively could anyone guide us to authors who use the Pro version on the download page? 

Keeping on the thread, I've been experimenting using unison widths around 1.6-2.0. in order to introduce some richness into the middle register, but any more and I find that the top octave and a half sounds too out of tune.

Ian

Hello Ian,

In response to your request of what is possible with the Standard- versus Pro version, I direct you to two files of essentially the same performance of Ravel's Alborada del Gracioso, plus a live performance of Yours Truly on a smallish Steinway Model M (5'7") in one's home.  Please note that the real Steinway needed to be tuned and desperately regulated when I played it.

The live Steinway M performance is uploaded to the following URL, so one may have a reference point from a real Steinway:

http://www.box.net/shared/bhdmd44ll0 

The Pianoteq Standard- and PRO performances of the same work are located at these two URLs:

http://www.box.net/shared/f26bthoia1         
http://www.box.net/shared/czcd9xxi9n   

Happy listening.

Cheers,

Joe

P.S.  Regarding the Unison tuning, it is my personal opinion that a setting of 2.0 will enable you to physically hear a difference in the sound in the uppermost octaves.  I personally prefer not to exceed about 1.5 or 1.6 in those octaves, so as not to actually hear the difference.  However, one may be able to "feel" the difference.   Similarly, in the middle register, a little unison detuning (but not to the point of consciously perceiving much detuning) is better "felt" than actually heard.  As a piano tuner, when I do perform unison detuning, the amount is very slight, and the intent is NOT to be heard by my customers.  I believe the intent is to enhancing the singing quality of the piano.  JF

Hello John,

* * * * * * *

Of course, some of you will ask for an .fxp file of this operation.  I must tell you that I follow the above trend with all of my piano settings, and have no single value that I call "definitive". 

I would encourage all of you to experiment on your own.

* * * * * *

Cheers,

Joe

I recently bought the standard version of Pteq, but your post Joe has really made me think about upgrading to the Pro version. I've been experimenting a good deal, but it would be great to hear more of the power of the pro version with the tweaks that you have applied. Would it be possible to upload any more files so that someone like myself can see the possibilities of the pro version? Alternatively could anyone guide us to authors who use the Pro version on the download page? 

Keeping on the thread, I've been experimenting using unison widths around 1.6-2.0. in order to introduce some richness into the middle register, but any more and I find that the top octave and a half sounds too out of tune.

Ian