jcfelice88keys wrote:

Enough of my rambling.  Enjoy the midi file.

I did enjoy it. 

However, I must say that if I played it like that, given my skill level, my listening audience would automatically assume I was playing in a herky-jerky manner because I did not know the piece very well.    LOL ...

Thanks again for your help,

Don

Hey Don,

Don't worry about what your listening audience would assume;  you did a great job!  I played this piece with a great deal of rubato (intentionally highly variable tempo), just to bring out the various notes in the gavotte.  Of course, a gavotte is a relatively quick dance piece, and it should be played more quickly and in a more strict tempo than I played.

Cheers,

Joe

Enough of my rambling.  Enjoy the midi file.

I did enjoy it. 

However, I must say that if I played it like that, given my skill level, my listening audience would automatically assume I was playing in a herky-jerky manner because I did not know the piece very well.    LOL ...

Thanks again for your help,

Don

It was my pleasure to listen to, then re-work the velocities, and eventually re-perform the Gavotte you kindly furnished in midi file format.

Uploaded to the Other Files area is my own midi file of my performance of your furnished Gavotte.  If you open this file and study its structure in the graphic editor of your DAW, this will enable you to see several aspects of my performance versus your original file.  Regarding the soft pedal, you will see that some of the repeated sections make use of the una corda pedal, but definitely NOT throughout the entire piece.

Regarding note on velocities, you will immediately sense that I played with much lower velocities -- in some parts -- and much higher velocities in other parts than your original midi file.  Personally, I feel that some of the harshness that people experience happens, because with electronic keyboards, we tend to play with wayyyy too high overall velocity!

Lastly, please notice how I made the left hand subordinate to the right hand, regarding velocity.  This is very important!   I suppose I do this, because in a real acoustic piano, the combined mass and length of the lower strings cause me to play with a comparatively "light" left hand versus the right hand.  I think that too many people miss this point.

Still regarding note velocity, in 2009 I attended the NAMM show in Anaheim, California, USA where all of the top end piano manufacturers displayed their wares.  I distinctly remember playing very quietly (actually, respectfully) on a 9' C.F. Bechstein -- when my rapture was interrupted by another person next to me, who was banging the daylights of that other Bechstein.   The difference in sounds and timbres were akin to "night and day".  While I felt my piano was "singing", the other person's Bechstein piano sounded loud, brash, overly bright, and quite frankly, ugly.

To that end, I truely believe that Pianoteq's D4 and Bluthner virtual pianos behave like the acoustic counterpounts in real life.  If one bangs (either intentionally, or unintentionally, via electronic keyboard), these pianos are able to "sing" as well as sound harsh!

Enough of my rambling.  Enjoy the midi file.

Cheers,

Joe

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...0Forum.mid

I rendered your original midi file in the Bluthner Concert Recording preset as an mp3 file.

I listened through my audio path to my speakers and I can only describe it as "harsh", not something pleasing to me.

You indicated that for the next step you modified the midi file

.

Listening to that, it sounded much, much better.   It had a quiet, calm about it.   Very pleasing.

Let me see if I understand what your modifications consisted of ...

[adjusting note-on velocities]

I am guessing that this means that you modified keypress velocities to make them more consistent within a given passage as opposed to the way an amateur might vary them due to improper technique.

[adding only soft pedal]

You added soft pedal in passages where your intent was to get very soft and quiet.

Or did you add softpedal throughout ?

The sound of these two files was very nice and clear.   

I do tend to play softly ... probably a side effect of the sound getting harsh when it is too loud.

Well, you missed this one.   Unless you are referring to my internal metronome.   LOL ...
Playing in-time is one of my things, I guess, especially with these classical standards.

Very possible.   In fact, as I may have mentioned earlier, I think all demos tend to consist of very beautiful pieces played by accomplished pianists and that, in itself, raises the level of the perceived beauty of the sound.

The sound of the original midi rendered through your system is not appreciably different than what I hear through my software and audio system.    After modifying it, it sounds much better.   

Does that mean you do not adjust note-on velocities nor do you apply soft-pedal to portions ?

SUMMARY:   What I got out of all this is that my audio system is not that far out of whack to warrant wholesale changes to everything immediately. 

I also learned some things about how my computer's audio system works and how to interface various external devices and/or software with it.    That was worth it, in itself.

Thank you very much for time and effort, I do appreciate it.

Don

As Philippe has stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio.  You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.

Cheers,

Joe

I can attest to that as my contributions sound just like they do in my studio.

I'm using a Delta 1010 card.
Monitors are Event ASP8 and Yamaha NS10 with a Bryston 4B amplifier.

Headphones are Sony 7506. V6 and Sennheiser HD650 run through a Mackie 1604VLZ as a headphone amp / routing mixer as well as through my Presonus Central Station.

Once again as Philippe and Joe have stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio.  You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.

jcfelice88keys wrote:

Here is something I would propose:  Would you be so kind as to make a standard midi file of some of your playing -- either an excerpt from a favorite piece, or even some arpeggios / chords / scales that do not sound up to par with the demos?  If you would post it in this website, I will gladly download it, listen to it, classify how your velocities and pedalling are, ... and then see if I might rework that same midi file in a way similar to the way I make demos for Pianoteq.  This might be a great learning experience for everyone in this forum!

Done !

I uploaded a file called ... ddascher_gavotte.mid ... into the other files area.

This should be interesting.    Thanks.

Hello Don,

Uploaded to the Other Files section, find four mp3 files representing the gavotte you graciously provided as a midi file.  Here are the various URLs:

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...elice_.mp3

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...retto_.mp3

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...Felice.mp3

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...uthner.mp3

The titles are fairly explanatory.  For the benefit of those who have not followed this thread, I rendered your original midi file in the Bluthner Concert Recording preset as an mp3 file.

The other three mp3 files represent:

My rework of your original midi files, by adjusting note-on velocities, and adding only soft pedal.
Additionally, I have performed the gavotte in two playing styles:  one in a rubato style, and the other in an allegretto style.

One characteristic I found of your playing (as evidenced by note-on velocities of your original midi file), was that the note-on velocities were rather restricted to the nominally 60 to 80 range.  Mind you, I am not criticizing your playing at all!!  It is just an observation.  I also suspect that you recorded your midi file with the aid of a metronome -- again, this is not a bad thing; it's just an observation.  This can tend to leave people's performances not to sound like many of the demo recordings.

Please give the four mp3's a listen.  I do not know whether they will sound better (or worse) than Pianoteq sounds in your audio system.

I would be glad to hear what you think how your original midi file sounds when rendered through a different system, and how it sounds in general.

As Philippe has stated earlier, there is absolutely no post processing of the audio.  You are listening to the Bluthner as it comes out of the box.

Cheers,

Joe

I would like to get a list of equipment that others are using to get the sound from their computer to their ears.

Numa Nero keyboard
10 49 year old fingers connected to the hand bones...
PreSonus AudioBox 22VSL audio interface
Lenovo laptop, i5 2.40 GHz, 6 GB RAM
Yamaha MSP7 powered studio monitors

My essential rave point (though all what the other ravers say is true) and the HD 600 personal gift, to me, is on first wearing I got a clear stereo image of my PTQ (with my own PTQ-internal miking, chasing a personal obsession as to what piano solo sound should convey). Where previously that image had been so fugitively-present I doubted my own hearing, now those doubts were removed. Subsequent hearing says the image isn't NOTE-precise, but is pretty near it. Lucid. It clarifies what's where with bass and treble (true incidentally with Modartt's Bluthner MP3s, which haven't my own miking).

Downside is that atop of HD 600's price a headphone amp is needed to drive them. I'll refrain from specifying what I went for, unless you press, because it is entangled with the Windows' Directsound mess, complexly of course, and why should you put up with it? Windows-free is simpler.   

Now an upside. Though not to the very same samples as you've been hearing, which are probably drawn from the Minnesota e-piano Competition's latest year, I've been listening to 2009, to Eric Zuber specifically (think he placed fifth), and to the Disklavier rendition.

Take his Liszt Sonata. Made a believer in Bluthner out of me. Thunderous? Sparkle? Lord! Second movement of his Schubert sonata (these sonatas are #s 8 and 9 of his competition) is wonderful at the controlled end of the range too - a brown study while rain drips onto the window-sill.

Now, if I go for Disklavier renditions listening, why wouldn't Moddartt go for them, making MP3 samples to listen to? Particularly when they bothered to make Pianoteq a Disklavier-interpreter?

So a likely answer to the difference you hear is just that (though good headphones help). Hunt up the Minnesota midis (probably latest year) for your favorite Modartt samples, and see.

Toshiba A-665-16K laptop, i5 2.67 GHz, 8 GB RAM, using onboard soundcard and output through my BeyerDynamic DT 880 headphones.

Currently awaiting my new PC, which will kick some ass. I have TC Electronic Impact Twin audio interface that's going to be used with that PC (and which I used extremely well with my previous XP machine), and Kurzweil KS-40A powered monitors (cheap, but they work really surprisingly well!). I plan to move on to Adam A7X later on.

I would recommend to start experimenting with the equalizer. If you have the Pro version, I would experiment with the microphone positions, too.

Well, to be clear.    I am not trying to create a sound that I like out of nowhere. 

I like the sound of the demos.   I just want to hear that sound through my equipment.

I shouldn't have to do a lot of tweaking to accomplish that.    Otherwise, what is the point of even including presets ?   

I am willing to do a little of that but I pretty much leave that to the experts creating the presets.  I assume they are trying to create sounds that they think we (their customers) will like.   I should not have to do no more than to run through the presets, pick one, and then perhaps a little tweaking.   That's it.

I would like to get a list of equipment that others are using to get the sound from their computer to their ears.

Then I could look that stuff up on the internet, see if I can afford it, discuss it with other experts, and decide what to do.

Then, if that didn't result in improvement, I could send it all back and try something else.

And, on and on and on ...

One thing that is I run into on a regular basis with Pianoteq and other software piano sounds is that it always sounds great when I hear it online but when I put it on my equipment it never sounds quite that good.

First of all: hello to everyone. Although I have been using Ptq for quite some time now, today I decided to register at the forum.

From experimenting with Ptq, I learned that it is extremely difficult to get the sound right. For example: using my CLP 157 (digital piano) audio system requires a different preset than my other audio system, consisting of Quad 303 -> Kef 104/2 (yes, old but nothing better found yet...).

Comparing with different audio systems is - like we say in NL - comparing apples with pears.

I would recommend to start experimenting with the equalizer. If you have the Pro version, I would experiment with the microphone positions, too.

Many audio systems "colour" the sound, not only because of the environment (reflections etc. around the speakers), but also because the frequency and phase response is never flat.

Regards and enjoy!

Wave

BTW: bought the Bluethner add-on: worth every penny!

"ue" is substitution diphtong for writing "ü". This is probably done so that non-Unicode systems don't have messed up display of that word.

Phew! I wasn't seeing things!

Here is something I would propose:  Would you be so kind as to make a standard midi file of some of your playing -- either an excerpt from a favorite piece, or even some arpeggios / chords / scales that do not sound up to par with the demos?  If you would post it in this website, I will gladly download it, listen to it, classify how your velocities and pedalling are, ... and then see if I might rework that same midi file in a way similar to the way I make demos for Pianoteq.  This might be a great learning experience for everyone in this forum!

Done !

I uploaded a file called ... ddascher_gavotte.mid ... into the other files area.

This should be interesting.    Thanks.

Now....are my eyes seeing things....I was sure that on the website earlier today, Blüthner was spelled Bluethner...hence my spelling for this post...and, of course, I know that it is meant to be Blüthner, but I thought maybe there was some copyright issue, hence "Bluethner"....but now, when I look it all seems the correct spelling??!!? Was I seeing things?

"ue" is substitution diphtong for writing "ü". This is probably done so that non-Unicode systems don't have messed up display of that word.