Would be cool to have another demo to make the wait more bareable.

I second that.

Permettez moi:
d'après ce que j'ai lu ici et là, la plupart d'entre vous semblent être des professionnels de la musique, des techniciens du sons,etc... Enfin des gens apparemment très qualifiés concernant la musique, et particulièrement le piano.
La plupart du temps, vous parlez de vitesse du son, de caisse de résonnance, de l'importance de la dureté du marteau sur la longueur des cordes, de la résonnance par rapport à ceci, par rapport à cela, etc...
Je dois avouer que je ne comprends pas un traitre mot de tout ce charabia technique. Pour ma part, parler du piano c'est parler musique, donc parler d'Amour.

Depuis toujours; mon rêve a toujours été de posséder un piano. Pas un vulgaire piano, mais un piano qui deviendrait "mon" piano... et il serait unique, et majestueux, et sa sonorité serait si particulière parce qu'il mesurerait trois metres de long, et je pourrais l'adapter à ma (si particulière) personnalité, et ce piano ne ressemblerait à aucun autre, et puis surtout: il serait à moi, seulement à moi...
Mais pour x raisons, surtout financières, ce rêve n'a jamais pû être exaucé, et j'avais fini par faire une croix dessus. C'est la vie, c'est comme ça...
Puis j'ai découvert qu'il existait des simulations de pianos, virtuels certes, mais là était peut être une réponse « acceptable» à mes attentes... Alors j'en ai tésté des douzaines, des vingtaines...

En aucun cas j’oserais affirmer que Pianoteq a réussi à creer la simulation de piano parfaite, je ne suis certainement pas suffisamment qualifié pour cela étant donné que je ne connais pas «l’incidence de telle ou telle partie» sur «telle ou telle autre partie» de l’instrument (personnellement: savoir qu’il serait mieux que le vecteur X soit plus rapide et plus approprié, ou que l’incidence Y  résonnerait bien mieux comme ci ou comme ça ... mais je constate que: outre les possibilités quasi infinies de «farfouiller» dans le logiciel pour réellement créer de nouvelles sonorités, il m’est possible de jouer du piano et surtout, point important pour moi, de régler celui ci avec une précision d’horloger suisse et à ma propre convenance...

Pour finir, je suis, personnellement très satisfait de ce logiciel qu’est Pianoteq 3 . Et il y a fort à parier que la prochaine version m’enchantera encore davantage...

J’estime que c’est bien plus qu’une simple simulation de piano qui; bien que prenant très peu de place dans mon ordinateur, occupe une place tant importante dans mon coeur... mais ce que j’en dis... dans le fond; je n’y connais rien en musique...

PS: râler parce que l’on aura à payer une somme ridicule pour une mise à jour ...
me parait franchement déplacé.

                                 *************************

Allow me:
From what I read here and there, most of you seem to be professional musicians, sound technicians, etc. ... Finally people seem very qualified for the music, especially piano.
Most times, you talk about speed of sound, sounding, the importance of the hardness of the hammer on the string length, the resonance from this, compared to that, etc. ...
I must admit I do not understand a word of all that technical mumbo jumbo.
For me, speak about the piano, is speaking about music, so: speaking of Love.
Historically, my dream has always been to own a piano. Not an ordinary piano, a piano that would become "my" piano ... and it would be unique and majestic, and his sound is so special because it would measure three meters long, and I could adapt it to my (very special) personality, and this piano would be unlike any other, and above all : it would be for me, only me ...
But for some reason, especially financial, that dream has never been heard, and I ended up doing a cross over. That's life, that's how ...
Then I discovered that there were simulations of piano, virtual certainly, but there may be a response was "acceptable" to my expectations ... So I tested dozens, scores ...

In any case I would dare say that Pianoteq has managed to create the perfect simulation of piano, I am certainly not qualified enough for that because I do not know "the impact of a particular party" on "this or that other side "of the instrument (personally: that it would be better than the vector X is faster and more appropriate, or that the incidence Y resonate much better like this or like that ... but I find that : besides the almost limitless possibilities of "rummage" in the software to actually create new sounds, I can play the piano and especially important for me to settle this one with a precision of Swiss watchmaking and my own convenience ...

Finally, I am personally very pleased with what this software Pianoteq 3. And it's a safe bet that the next version will enchant me even more ...

I think it is more than just a simulation of piano, although taking up very little space in my computer, occupies a place as important in my heart ... but what I say ... in the background, I do not know anything about music ...

PS: bitching because you have to pay a ridiculous sum for an update ...
seems to me truly outrageous.

:-)

I like what I hear of Pianoteq 4 work-in-progress

Like what you hear ?

What do you hear ?    Just tidbits at the beginning of this thread ?

The most striking demonstration of this (that can be checked at a guitar store), is to strum a solid body guitar with the power turned off.  Very faint sound.  Then strum an acoustic guitar with the same energy input.  Good ones will fill an auditorium with sound without amplification.

I've discussed this with an old friend that plays and builds classical guitars.  He of course knows all about this.

Glenn

Now the question is:  Did your voice excite the strings via vibrations in the air (hint:  Yes), or were the strings excited mostly by the vibration and impedance qualities of the bridge (hint:  probably not). 

In my opinion, the sympathetic vibrations of strings are limited in time only by the speed of sound in air.

Joe, have you shouted at any harps recently? :-)

Sympathetic vibration requires energy input into the system - in this case from shouting. The coupling between energy in the air and the piano strings is poor compared to the coupling with other parts of the system. The initial dominant sound is from acoustics of the cabinet as a resonant chamber excited by specific frequencies in the shouting. (Get your wife to shout into the piano :-). This is primarily what distinguishes a piano from a harp in the first instance. Once the shout is inside the cabinet, more of it impacts the soundboard than the strings. The coupling of the soundboard to the the strings is very good compared to the coupling of the cabinet to the string, and the energy in the soundboard transfers to the strings more easily than from the air to the strings. This begs the question why the ear picks up the resultant vibration of the strings in preference to the resultant vibration of the soundboard. 

The sympathetic vibrations are limited in time by the mechanical resistance (also called damping) in the entire system - not by the speed of sound in air. Speed of sound is different depending on the material, but a characteristic of the propagation of energy is not a cause. Time limits on the amount of power in the system are dependent on the rate of energy loss from the system. One loss is by the mechanical connection of parts with other parts (where impedances matter). The other loss is due to internal dissipation within the material from internal mechanical resistance (also called damping). A piano's sympathetic vibrations are curtailed by dropping the dampers. Some characteristics of felt can be demonstrated by shouting at it :-)

To pick up the dangling question, the wood of the soundboard has higher internal resistance(s) than the strings. This alters the physical character of resonances in its pattern of vibration - they are not as 'loud' and their active frequencies are 'smeared' over a larger range. Psychoacoustically, the perception of resonances depends on both of these physical factors, but not only these. Another important factor is that the multiple resonances in the soundboard are different from those of a string, and are not typically heard (though not by musical instrument makers) as being pitched in the way that a string under tension is.

So is this any more enlightening? Or, for that matter, relevant to the topic?

From the point of view of the physics, that is of simulating the acoustic response of a piano, there are two aspects: the transient behaviour (as the energy input initially travels around the mechanicals), and the steady state behaviour (as the flows net off).

From the subjective side, comments in this thread suggest to me that (some) users feel the attack portion of the sound can be improved. I also note general comments about the timbre of the sound from Pianoteq in different reviews and forums. These tend to be of two types, but they could be different ways of making the same observation. One type of criticism I read is that the sound has a metallic edge. Another is that the sound lacks the woodiness of actual pianos. I think there is an element of is-the-glass-half-full-or-half-empty variety to these. Nevertheless, such criticisms persist - even after accounting for the fact that a demo version of Pianoteq is available which allows users to mitigate in various ways characteristics of the sound which they don't like.

My general impression of Pianoteq 3, FWIW then, is that the product does well modelling strings, but has potential for improvement in respect of modelling the other components of a piano. This is perhaps not unexpected given the relatively complexities of the physics of strings and of planks of wood.

Nevertheless, I like what I hear of Pianoteq 4 work-in-progress. I may find when it emerges that I've been barking up the wrong tree here :-)

This really gets interesting; I never thought about the explanation by Joe of SR until now, but I have no doubt that one's voice will do this; I recall it happening on my Yamaha G2, so I can confirm this to be true.

But if the bridge/soundboard is vibrating (note I said IS not ARE, as they are virtually one and the same for physics purposes - generally glued together quite well ), then would not a unison of three for example be exciting the bridge/soundboard, and hence the other some two hundred strings?

As an aside, this raises the interesting case of the upright piano that is up against a wall (where they are typically placed).  At what distance should they be placed so that the sound waves coming off the soundboard, striking the wall and returning, do not cancel/amplify the newer waves of sound from the soundboard?   This was discussed  in a past forum by Modartt et al in regard to the lid of a grand piano, in regard to all the reflections that occur within the case before the sound escapes to our ears.  Complex - exceedingly complex.

On Jake's question about the delay of SR, I would suspect that theoretically there is a delay, but we must be talking about very small time intervals.

Recalling the comments by Joe about repetitive sounds that sound like one - I think the sound delay in this situation is extremely small or small enough to not be detectable by the human ear/brain.  But this is just my conclusion from thinking about it, not any result resulting from calculations or measurements.

On the matter of impedance, every physical body has mass and stiffness which results in impedance (resistance to being moved, deformed, etc), - so there has to be a time delay.  How large is the delay?  I don't know, but again I suspect it's really quite small.  Is it significant?  I'm not sure, but many things occur/exist in this world that are not significant.  The trick is determining what is significant and what is not.

Glenn

Jake Johnson wrote:

Something just occurred to me while listening to some recorded piano: On a real piano, is there a slight delay in the sympathetic resonance? (Does it take a very few milliseconds for the vibrations to travel down the bridge and excite the other strings? A matter of bridge impedance?)

Hello Jake,

The quick answers to your three posed questions are ... Yes.  Partially Yes.  Partially Yes.

I would completely agree there is a slight delay in the onset of sympathetic resonance in the strings.  However, that actual sympathetic resonance (in the form of undamped strings being excited into sympathetic vibration) is not 100% conducted through the bridge.  Rather, it is mostly caused by vibrations in the air! 

Try this experiment, yourself, if you have access to any grand piano, or an upright piano with the front of the case removed such that the strings are exposed:

1) Depress the sustain pedal, in order to free all of the strings to be able to vibrate (if excited), and hold it down with your foot during this entire experiment;

2) Place your mouth somewhat close to the strings, say within about 12" / 30cm or so;

3) Yell any word you wish to say, such as "Hey!!!" -- or any expletive of your choosing -- into the undamped strings.

The sound and pitch of your voice will be sympathetically captured by the strings!  If you want proof, simply release the sustain pedal, and the strings will cease vibrating sympathetically in response to your voice.

Even the longest strings' upper harmonics will vibrate in sympathy with your voice.

Now the question is:  Did your voice excite the strings via vibrations in the air (hint:  Yes), or were the strings excited mostly by the vibration and impedance qualities of the bridge (hint:  probably not). 

In my opinion, the sympathetic vibrations of strings are limited in time only by the speed of sound in air.

Hopefully this helps you answer you curiosity.

Cheers,

Joe

Yes, I forgot the "sing into the piano" experiment. I wonder if the transmission along the bridge does much. Seems as though it might--if the vibrations in the air can overcome the pressure of the damper, surely the vibrations along the bridge could, too?

Something just occurred to me while listening to some recorded piano: On a real piano, is there a slight delay in the sympathetic resonance? (Does it take a very few milliseconds for the vibrations to travel down the bridge and excite the other strings? A matter of bridge impedance?)

Hello Jake,

The quick answers to your three posed questions are ... Yes.  Partially Yes.  Partially Yes.

I would completely agree there is a slight delay in the onset of sympathetic resonance in the strings.  However, that actual sympathetic resonance (in the form of undamped strings being excited into sympathetic vibration) is not 100% conducted through the bridge.  Rather, it is mostly caused by vibrations in the air! 

Try this experiment, yourself, if you have access to any grand piano, or an upright piano with the front of the case removed such that the strings are exposed:

1) Depress the sustain pedal, in order to free all of the strings to be able to vibrate (if excited), and hold it down with your foot during this entire experiment;

2) Place your mouth somewhat close to the strings, say within about 12" / 30cm or so;

3) Yell any word you wish to say, such as "Hey!!!" -- or any expletive of your choosing -- into the undamped strings.

The sound and pitch of your voice will be sympathetically captured by the strings!  If you want proof, simply release the sustain pedal, and the strings will cease vibrating sympathetically in response to your voice.

Even the longest strings' upper harmonics will vibrate in sympathy with your voice.

Now the question is:  Did your voice excite the strings via vibrations in the air (hint:  Yes), or were the strings excited mostly by the vibration and impedance qualities of the bridge (hint:  probably not). 

In my opinion, the sympathetic vibrations of strings are limited in time only by the speed of sound in air.

Hopefully this helps you answer you curiosity.

Cheers,

Joe

First, Jake "About posting recordings of those desired notes..." gave me my best laugh of this morning.

And next, listening to Gilles' two performance-posts on Page 2 gave me the idea the desired "attack" (over Pianoteq's) many are on about consists of a little pyramid of emphasis to begin each note. And every note, monotonous to me - I like PTQ's Pleyel lots better, once I get over its slight boxiness. However, Even a dummy (me) can see this pyramid'd cut through the mix of sound onstage from a band, and that would be exactly what the piano player will want.

So maybe they'll be interested in what the Manual describes at Item 4.5, Direct Sound Duration. Haven't tried it, only read. It doesn't seem to beef up the level, only control attack's duration, I presume including shortening PTQ's available pyramid, whereby it may offer a bit more, er, attack, for free.

ADDED: Make that "perceived attack". And if it indeed helps with cut-thru, in view of the PTQ-engineers' elsewhere having spoken of their interface's "exposing" a limited quota of their modeling, yell at them about exposing MORE of it, re this issue.

MORE: Mulling the issues here over (and making no claim to ever have tried these, dead unadventurous), I see that 4.5's brief presentation mentions Hammer Hardness in connection. It may thus chance that this alone would beef up the perceived attack, and all the needed control is "exposed" already. But can't say by own self-hands-on. Have a look.

Heh. My first piano I DID buy because of its bright tone. After having forked over the cash and got the thing, I shortly found that B natural delivered a BONK instead of a note. Severely mismatched and dead middle of where you play. Got a book on tuning, fast, and soon found out the bright tone was due to glue in the hammers, plus that NO amount of pricking the felts fixed the BONK standout. I never did trace the cause, either, despite sawing out bits of soundboard, dropping a felt curtain between hammers and strings, learning to tune (focus B natural). Nada Nada Nada. Last I saw of the box it was upending into landfill. The action went decades later.

Still got the wrest pins, and to end this tale of woe where it began, yes I sympathise with bright tone fanciers, even if I tend to think "glue".

What will be of the actual pianomodels after update to Pianoteq 4 ???

Will the old models work in a improoved way, like if pianoteq 4 have new algorithms for soundboard etc...  or the old piano models will not get extra quality ?

Unfortunately the Logic tuning settings seems to be only available to Logic internal instruments, and not to third-party AU plugins such as pianoteq

OK, thanks for settling that. Too bad, though. But it made me fill out a Logic feature request at Apple's site. Maybe others are interested in this too.