What I really enjoy with Pianoteq is the very light storage space footprint. If we wanted just a quarter of it's expressivity and sound quality, it would use up several Gigabytes of precious space.
For the moment, the offering in piano sounds on iOS isn't really wide. Ik-multimedia has a collection, but they sound very "soundfont'ish" (but less than most apps out there) and takes up quite a bit of space,
CMP grand piano has probably one of the nicest sound qualities out there, but it's around 1 Gb just for one piano sound, and it doesn't integrate very well with cubasis or other iOS DAW's
I often dream of having a pianoteq app, even if it's a cutdown version (I don't mind not having mic placement or effects other then reverb), that would give me a fantastic expressive piano sound, everywhere I go.
Until then, I'll continue busking with a lower quality piano, but continue recording my perf in midi, and then play it back on pianoteq when I get home.
Otherwise long live my favorite virtual instrument of all time
]]>I supose the many features and elements ( virtual soundboard, string, harp) can be set well to diferente cores, when needed.
]]>The point of confusion is whether the Z3770 runs at the full turbo ~2.4ghz the entire time. Obviously when all 4 cores are in use, it can only run at ~1.5ghz. With a single thread without GPU, 2.4ghz should be easy. But with Pianoteq using 2 cores? Hard to stay -- no reviews say anything about the various turbo states. (By comparison, the Avoton server I tested can run all 8-cores at 2.4ghz nonstop.)
So if 2 threads on a Z3770 limit turbo to say 1.8ghz -- that's probably ok performance for a mid-range config. (I use 24 polyphony, 11hz/44hz config on a laptop roughly at that performance level.) It's better than nothing at all of course.
For PR reasons, PTQ developers might not be comfortable releasing versions that have to be run at throttled settings on an smartphone/tablet -- you can imagine the reviews on Apple/Google app stores complaining about sound glitches if a user decides to max the config. Tomorrow's chips will increasingly close the gap though.
]]>But the multi core technology was going well, but somehow alsom stopped a bit in the last 2 years.
We're past the days of huge yearly performance gains of the 90's. Now it's all about making smaller, more efficient chips that run at the same speed as last years chips.
We still see around a 10% increase in cpu performance every year. (And that will continue until quantum mechanics starts to cause problems due to the transistors being too close....still a while till then).
CPU performance isn't a huge factor in gaming, an average desktop cpu is generally enough because almost everything is handled by the (massively) more powerful GPU.
We still see around a 10% increase in cpu performance every year. (And that will continue until quantum mechanics starts to cause problems due to the transistors being too close....still a while till then).
CPU performance isn't a huge factor in gaming, an average desktop cpu is generally enough because almost everything is handled by the (massively) more powerful GPU.
]]>Is only me who feels that people (PC users) no longer had the desire for good CPU power advances like had 10 years ago?
Today people are almost sick with things like Facebook and other Social Nets, that no longer wait for great advances in computer power. People playing silly simple graphics games that are created to steel their Money by selling game credits, just to try some competition with Facebook "Friends".
]]>, and it was about time since laptop'spower were increaing for quite a long time..
I was referring to that^
And in case you're curious. The RC7 in the video is probably an acronym for release candidate 7 (though that is a pretty large number to be associated with an RC...) indicating that they're in the final phase of development.
]]>For pianoteq 5 they created improoved algorithms for soundbaord and for strings, so it will deliver a better sound, closer to natural.
But according to the vídeo some models will have the old version and the improoved models wil be called (RC7), unless I interpretated it wrong.
Not sure what the second part of that sentence is saying though
CPU needs for pianoteq tends to increase, and it was about time since laptop'spower were increaing for quite a long time.
Pianoteq 5 will have reworked version for K1 (K2 now) D4, U4, Bluthner, Yc5, with the new algorithm for soundboard and string moddeling. The new algorithms take more CPU, but the result wil be a sound closer to the natural piano sound.
Yep, the CPU needs will likely increase, but it will probably be marginal. Not sure what the second part of that sentence is saying though
I to am totally stoked for the improved pianos and sound quality.
]]>Pianoteq 5 will have reworked version for K1 (K2 now) D4, U4, Bluthner, Yc5, with the new algorithms for soundboard and string moddeling. The new algorithms take more CPU, but the result will be a sound closer to the natural piano sound.
]]>njaremko wrote:Nothing you just discussed is relevant, the a7 is a lot faster than all of the chips in that benchmark. You're not accounting for the increase in performance and the new instruction set that came with 64bit.
Shrug ... you should be able to post benchmarks proving this statement then.
I'm happy to change my mind if numbers are posted.
Edit 1: Also, the next powerVR chip has hardware accelerated ray tracing....so that would probably help on the physics simulation side. (Though probably won't see it till next year)
Edit 2: It's also quite likely that the A8 will be similar to the Cortex A57 in terms of features, so you can expect IEEE-754 DP FP in NEON. The chips are apparently 4x as efficient at 25% the space....so looking forward to that
http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/09/22/64...-6-months/
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-...s-review/6
Read the comments^
Nothing you just discussed is relevant, the a7 is a lot faster than all of the chips in that benchmark. You're not accounting for the increase in performance and the new instruction set that came with 64bit.
Shrug ... you should be able to post benchmarks proving this statement then.
I'm happy to change my mind if numbers are posted.
]]>