...On the other hand, convolution (working with very specific IR's of 'ambience'-recordings made inside or very close to a real piano — the way Frank Zappa recorded parts for "Lumpy Gravy" and "Civilization Part III" — , and preferably using the very same instruments which Pianoteq is emulating) could perhaps add an additional dimension to Pianoteq's sound (a more developed sense of presence, body, perspective and depth maybe) which would be hard to achieve with algorithmic reverberation alone. _

1+ for either an algorithmic or convolution reverb based on IR's from recordings made inside the piano.

Using multi-dimensional impulses is pretty much awesome (Vienna MIR), albeit very CPU intensive. However, it gives the best sounding results, IMHO.

Convolution reverbs indeed sound much much better than algorithmic reverbs - of course, depending on the impulse used! It would be a logical step of evolution for Pianoteq, using convolution instead, or along with, algorithmic reverb. We shall see.

Allow me to disagree. Good algorithmic reverbs — the IRCAM Spat for example, or the native Lexicon, or the UAD 140/250, or TC's VSS3 or Softube's TSAR, to name just those that I'm familiar with — are in no way inferior to even the best convolution engines. In fact, they're way more versatile, much more adjustable (in order to find the optimal relationship with the source signal, which is extremely important and which is also where convolution-based reverb often fails frustratingly) and, when used properly, they sound every bit as glorious, if not more so. The combination Pianoteq-IRCAMSpat, for instance, is infinitely more powerful and richer in satisfying possibilities than the combination Pianoteq-Altiverb. And more French as well, of course.

For spatialization purposes, I'd much rather see a high-end algorithmic reverb engine built into Pianoteq than a convolution-based reverb engine.

On the other hand, convolution (working with very specific IR's of 'ambience'-recordings made inside or very close to a real piano — the way Frank Zappa recorded parts for "Lumpy Gravy" and "Civilization Part III" — , and preferably using the very same instruments which Pianoteq is emulating) could perhaps add an additional dimension to Pianoteq's sound (a more developed sense of presence, body, perspective and depth maybe) which would be hard to achieve with algorithmic reverberation alone.

_

Convolution reverbs indeed sound much much better than algorithmic reverbs - of course, depending on the impulse used!

It would be a logical step of evolution for Pianoteq, using convolution instead, or along with, algorithmic reverb. We shall see.

Convolution reverb sure would sound nice! But I'd like having the algorithmic reverb too, so that less powerful systems like netbooks would still be able to use it.

We're edging back to the old topic of how 'standalone' Pianoteq should be. For live performance a good decent reverb of any kind would probably be adequate, and as I've said before, a good stereo chorus, and I think both should be onboard. In a home/studio situation we can be more picky, and we probably should be. In that context I can't see Modartt commiting valuable resources to including a convolution with nearly as much control as say Voxengo's Pristine Space.

If there were a few more controls to the current onboard reverb, like frequency adjustable high damping, I think it would be completely adequate for live use, though for recording, I have to agree, you can't beat convolutiion.

It would be a logical step of evolution for Pianoteq, using convolution instead, or along with, algorithmic reverb. We shall see.

I think that Pro version of Pianoteq , must be equipped with impulse response (IR) efx. engine, instead of simple reverb,- with possibility to import IR files ( in WAV. format, with no possible limit of longiness ).

I don't have the Pro version, but is this correct? Do you see anything that looks like impulse response files? My expectation is that Modartt would take an algorthmic approach rather using convolution -- but I'm just guessing about this.

I hope Moddart stop me if I'm turing them crazy with such request.  :-)

You are crazy

Another free one to consider is EpicVerb: http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/200.../epicverb/  which was recommended to me when I asked exactly the same question. ;^)  I think it's excellent.

I tried Altiverb too, and thought it was just slightly better than EpicVerb, mainly because Altiverb could produce little "echoes" in the reverb, which I don't think EpicVerb can do.

A tip for EpicVerb: if you find that the reverb sometimes produces a slightly fake flanging/chorussing sound, reduce Modulation. (this advice probably applies to other reverbs too - for example I hear it in the AudioDamage "SuperHall" demo)

Greg.

Hey Greg!

Those are amazing demos! Even with tons of reverb it sounds super clean and smooth to me. I'm looking forward to trying this one

Thanks,
Michael

I tried Altiverb too, and thought it was just slightly better than EpicVerb, mainly because Altiverb could produce little "echoes" in the reverb, which I don't think EpicVerb can do.

A tip for EpicVerb: if you find that the reverb sometimes produces a slightly fake flanging/chorussing sound, reduce Modulation. (this advice probably applies to other reverbs too - for example I hear it in the AudioDamage "SuperHall" demo)

Greg.

What a bout a "duo piano space" ?   In the virtual space we get two pianos, and you could put one in variable positions to the other, even one over another, and the mics in variable positions.

Along to that feauture, a option on pianoteq to mix two midi, one to each piano.
This would turn possible to one player play in one piano, and latter play in another, in this virtual space, mixing both.
Would require a play-along, or record-along, as the second piano palying need to be made by listening the first piano, to play together.

Isn't this already possible by running two instances of Pianoteq? I've never tried it, but it seems doable.

Take a look at Altiverb.
It's a bit of overkill - lots of locations (cathedrals, studios, concert halls, etc.) AND lots of freedom to adjust parameters (mic placement, type of mic, etc.)

www.audioease.com/Pages/Altiverb/AltiverbMain.html

Not too expensive IMO for what you get.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've heard great things about Altiverb. It's WAY more than what I need since I'd be using it for piano primarily, but for someone who needs that flexibility, it's probably money well spent.

I also would like to make a suggestion to pianoteq virtual space (mic, piano position etc).
What a bout a "duo piano space" ?   In the virtual space we get two pianos, and you could put one in variable positions to the other, even one over another, and the mics in variable positions.

Along to that feauture, a option on pianoteq to mix two midi, one to each piano.
This would turn possible to one player play in one piano, and latter play in another, in this virtual space, mixing both.
Would require a play-along, or record-along, as the second piano palying need to be made by listening the first piano, to play together.

I hope Moddart stop me if I'm turing them crazy with such request.  :-)

Think about... What other piano software could offer a piano duet option like that ?