Now you know where goes all the money from the small box collector.

Pianoteq earlier versions had some artificial metallic, but now V4  D4 have quite natural metallic in the right places.
But who used to keep hunting metallic hints in earlier version, now got their brains trained and will complain about the minimal metallic sounds, even if sounds like a real piano metallic in a note that it's right to have it.

Hans

And did you notice there are always certain notes on real instruments that have a "synthetic" element? We tend to ignore them because the instrument is real...

I find this statement to be true. I attend a church that has a Steinway D grand, a baby grand, and an upright acoustic pianos, as well as two digital Roland (I can't remember the make). When I hear these and in light of many discussions on this forum, I have often thought how metallic, even synthetic they can actually sound. When played staccato they reach piercing a pitch, especially the baby grand and the upright, yet still sounds soft when played softly. Many say woody but I hear a sort of ceramic sound.

Here is my attempt the describe the sound of sampled notes:
I hear a sort of air behind the notes.
Notes seems shorter.
More amplified when played staccato. This must be the attack feature that many desire. (The GEM rpx-p has this attack in its sound).
At higher end of the keyboard they seem to have a sort of tweeting sound in the end of the notes.
Keys sound less integrated.

I think P4 sounds quite realistic.
Maybe for some the effects achieved with the parameters needs to be more exaggerated in regards to putting in or stripping out sound elements.

I like the 'AMP' and 'COMP' feature in the 'Effects' panel, thought the drive slider is a bit unforgiving.
Turn on 3 AMPs and you could blow-up your speakers.

As I've received a mail from Niclas who felt not very well about my post.
I just want to say, that I heaven't meant the pianoteq-team with all I've said or didn't say well.

I could have expressed myself in better words, but I was angry enough to don't.

sorry folks, that's the truth.

So have a good time with PTQ4 and enjoy yourself!

Heinke

Now azrael4  adds his personal opinion - which sounds most interesting. But where is the reason to leave the forum, answering to such a noisy thread without any real criticism?

Again, I am happy with pianoteq. It is true, if I could play  real piano (but thanks to Modartt I don't have to get that one 125 steps up to my attic-flat, and besides, I had no money to buy it, too) - there would be some things that would differ. There are no real hammers inside my clavinova, is it.

Really, I don't quite get this thread. There's a lot of encouraging criticism in here. Azrael4 is simply wrong. I hope with his statement, the improvement he means would "take 10 years" he did not want to start a "buy faster machines"-war.

Thanks again for pianoteq4! I'm all happy to be able to play it, I really like the whole way it is built, no need for 187GB of samples; and what I aim at is to understand all the many many features of my pro-version better. Maybe we'll get another section in our forum some year, where "in the know" people write about the building of pianos, of all the things we can model and change in the pro version, so that we, the humble rest, might learn a bit, how to do this or that with the old models like my beloved Bechstein and Pleyel, how to do this and do that....
Cheerio to all, and maybe calm down a bit, OP, of course you are free to shout about garbage dumps and all, but it is not much "criticism" one could extract from it. And as already said, you can use PT3 instead of 4, whenever you prefer. Happy playing, all!

Maybe if they reformulate the basic algorithm, the sound board model, harp model, to allow more characteristic to be selected in the equation resume process, which creates more demanding CPU needs, this little problem will be solved.

But for other side, the more they learn to solve the problems without appeal to change CPU needs, the more refined the system gets.  Maybe it's a step required to refine the technology.

The major improvement it's on D4 model, and the other, despite got some improvement too, do not get all the richness of D4.

2.    Nasal character

Can't disagree with this more.

1.    Dullness, lack of clarity – even if to do the sound artificially bright by editing Mallet Hardness or / and EQ
2.    Nasal character
3.    A touch of metal colouration

The same dullness of sound… the same phase problems, leading to its nasal quality…

The thing is that all of PT merits are hardly masked being put into orchestra context (even into a non-aggressive string orchestra). Seems as if someone plays piano from neighbor’s flat. If to tweak parameters here and there to make sound brighter, the overall sound assumes some artificial metallic quality, and becomes too synthetic.

Haven’t say anything new? Perhaps. But the question is: doesn’t the concept (doctrine, fundamental vector of equations) of this particular approach to sound synthesis exhaust its potential? Isn’t it similar to an attempt to improve steam train locomotive engine instead of to step onto the next level and invent a kind of the gas-engine?

Again, I wouldn’t like to be misunderstood. I very much appreciate Modartt’s efforts to do all its best. I would just like the things to move…

Version 4 have some fine woodness, despite not so much as some people wish.

Personally I've been lucky to see and hear its development for years now and also be part of some beta tests. I have noticed that this is a product which clearly divides people to two camps: lovers and haters. As much as I am amazed of those fanatic critics, I still feel strange to read comments like "PTQ beats ALL the sample libraries and other models like V-piano. Period." Personally I feel that PTQ is a great and brave project which has many great features and it can give you something those sample libraries cannot, but same time it has weaknesses and some artificial character or lack of woodness. I totally accept that latter "fact" and still say that it's a great product.

Other thing is that IMO Modartt should really try to take more real critics to its next beta team. I have had a feeling that most of the beta guys have been kind of PTQ lovers (there's nothing wrong with those! I am a kind of a fan too...). At least if it's about developing a new model. One other thing is that I feel that recent beta teams have been more solo or home players than band or live players (like myself). I think live pop/rock/jazz players are after different piano sound than players which primarily use it at home or in studio. On stage for example all those string resonance nuances are quite secondary to basic sound. I have said this before: when we'll see someone like Herbie Hancock using PTQ on stage? This is a real test for a product IMO...