Would be an idea to have "headphones" presets, maybe even particularly catering to specific models.

Dear Fleer - in the meantime, use the Freeze Parameter set up page ( the little square box to the left of the word "Random" at the top of the main GUI) and then select  "Binaural settings" - Doing so will make all of the presets in Pianoteq play in the binaural mode -

Lanny

From my experience, the presets sounds entirely different between earbuds, over-the-ear headphones, speakers pointed towards the player, speakers pointed towards the ceiling, speakers pointed towards each other under my piano's keyboard, etc.

In summary, the presets are extremely dependent on the sound production hardware, and no one at Modartt or even on this forum will likely be able to give you the perfect piano sound that you look for, unless they have both your physical setup as well as your ears and brain.  A variety of presets are available.  Try several until you find one that it close, and tweak from there.  For example, when using the Model B, "Prelude" sounds pretty good with my setup with speakers facing the ceiling and placed to each side of the piano, with the speaker elements out of direct earshot of my ears.  "Gentle" sounds too muffled.  Here on vacation using Alphatronix earbuds, "Prelude" sounds entirely too strident, while "Gentle" is entirely pleasant and playable.

One of the most ear-opening experiences I have had in this realm is visiting Randy's Piano Warehouse in Clearwater, Florida.  There, I got to go up and down the aisles playing the same little bits on literally dozens of used pianos of all makes, ages, sizes, and configurations.  They even had at least 4 Steinway Ms, and each sounded different in timbre from the others, as did the 2 Apollos, multiple Yamahas, Baldwins, etc.

David

My personal first impressions with Pianoteq were somewhat spoiled as I've been striving for a long time to find some combination of piano model and presets that would sound to my ears the way I would expected real acoustic piano does. As I also have seen how many other users mentioned as a fact that it takes a lot of time to achieve authentic sound in PTQ, it seems to be not just my inexperience with this particular software. It seems these presets are not that optimal as they should be (and that especially big problem for Stage users like me, which has very limited selection of parameters to tweak).

First, I must admit that I always play with my headphones on, so that may affect the result greatly. Many of most "usual" presets, like "daily" sounded somewhat poor in terms of reverberation and overtones to me. It was like clean, synthetic, plastic, dead sound. Adding reverb presets like "Small Studio" or even "Medium Studio" didn't help that much. Only "Large Hall"/"Medium Hall" starting sound, like, "just ok". Clearly not what I would like to hear, though. It wasn't natural, still, or let's say "authentic", or pleasant to the ear.

It took a couple of days of comparing its sound to sound in some recordings on youtube I liked and tweaking "Reverb" and "Delay" effects blindly (I know almost nothing about sound engineering) before I suddenly started to feel that I really like the sound of K2 model. It finally became a real pleasure to play it.

I don't know why it's like that (though, this lack of reverb in these presets made me think PTQ never was prepared really well for those playing in headphones; perhaps when this sound is played by some good acoustic system, and then reverb of room itself is added to it, you don't need that much reverb from the model itself; actually you may even don't want that much reverb from PTQ as it will be TOO much of it after reverb from physical environment will be added). Still, this cannot be called a "soft landing" at all, and I perceive it as a problem of the tool. A lot of things to tweak is great, but being more friendly to total newbies by providing a couple of really well polished presets that sound great both when played back through speakers AND headphones without any additional tweaking certainly would add some marketing value.

Jake Johnson wrote:

Not paraphrasing the problem. Suggesting that you raise the amplitude and experiment with different velocity curves. Version 5 has new pianos, so would it make sense that the previous amplitude and velocity response would sound the same? Granted, some of the new pianos are a continuation of the old, but they are new editions. Arguably, the situation is similar to that of having bought a new sampled instrument--the amplitude and velocity curve might well need to be adjusted to taste.

Again, same midi file = same velocities, and same velocity curves = same velocity responses. Amplitude continually changes, so saying they're different is meaningless. That's why you're inadvertently just paraphrasing the issue instead of making a point; the issue being that PT5 attenuates the sustain (amplitude) more than PT3 or a real piano (which, in my case, I'm pretty damn sure shouldn't have stronger sustain than a Steinway Concert D). *PEAK* amplitude is the same. So the comparison is fair. I did raise the output of PT5 by about 10dB to achieve the same peak output level in this performance. Here's the same snippet without that level adjustment. PT5's waveform is only graphically stretched (within Reaper) to make the comparison easier (PT3 above, PT5 below):

Same issue, whether you adjust for peak output or not.

(I'm resurrecting this thread after running across it by accident while searching for something else.) Joshua, a thought occurs: is it possible that a new velocity curve or keyboard calibration would change your results? It is possible that you were naturally assuming that by keeping all of the other variables the same, the change in the model is only the change being heard in your files. But the new model could be more accurate, yet need other adjustments to achieve the desired result. Not trying to continue the argument here. Only noting a possibility.

But my real question is completely different: You mention the decay of an older Chickering, but I don't a mention of a Chickering earlier in this thread. Did I miss the reference, or were you alluding to another thread? I'm not making an academic argument about citations. I recently came into possession of a 1905 Chickering 116. I will not claim that its sustain is equal to that of a Steinway D, but even with old strings, it does have a good sustain. Part of the reason may be that what many people call Chickering baby grand are not all that small--they are a "parlour grand," which is about 6'5" long.

And of course I'm curious--who here has an old Chickering? I would like to compare impressions.

Hi, I am returning to Pianoteq after not having used it for a few years. I upgraded to version 5 and can't get it to work on a brand new i7 laptop running windows 8. The emu 0404 doesn't seem to want to communicate. When I play the attached keyboard, nothing happens. If I mouse-click on the image of the keyboard on the pianoteq interface it does make a good sound, though. Oddly, on my very old centrino laptop running windows 7 I can play, but only for a few seconds - it starts cracking after a few big chords. Increasing the buffer seems to allow me to play (a bit) longer before the cracking starts, but in any case the lag is too great to make that a reasonable option. I tried adding asio4all but when I choose it in the pianoteq interface the only difference is that when I click on the keyboard image the sound emanates from the laptop's speakers rather than from the monitor attached to the emu 0404 and there's still no response when i actually play the physical keyboard.
Sorry for the rambling, but if anyone could suggest something to get my equipment to play nicely together, I'd be very grateful.

Have you properly selected your EMU0404 in ASIO4ALL control pannel ? (Onboard soundcard is checked by default) :
Pianoteq options > Devices, then "show this device's control pannel", and select (and enable) your 0404

ManchesterRambler wrote:

A bit off-topic, but relevant to the general theme of software/hardware upgrades -

Temperament (post 134) wrote:

"HW upgrade: Audio interface: from Focusrite 6i6 to RME Babyface was a markable improvement (the Babyface is about the same quality level as my old and much cheaper EMU0404USB was.)"

As someone who continues to use an old-ish EMU0404USB can I ask what prompted you to upgrade? I have had to download ASIO4all version 2 to get the thing to produce sound from PT4 onwards, which may have been due to my switching at the time to a Windows 8 Core i7 laptop. Despite the use, (I think), of the generic driver, it continues to sound great, esp. with PT5.

Is anyone else still using this venerable sound card and, if so, have you had any problems getting it to work with post- windows 7 operating systems/more recent versions of PT?

Partly my reason for asking is because when loading PT 4 then 5 the thing produced no sound until I loaded Asio4all v.2 and rotated through various parameters in the device options dialogue, but I have no real idea what the problem was and what I did to cure it, which is a pain. Creative no longer provide support for the thing so I'm working with an old beta driver loaded but also Asio4all - but I have no real idea which is in use. How to tell?

I looked at the price of a Babyface which would at least have current drivers and on going support, presumably, and, er, ouch. Any hints/tips/experiences welcome as the EMU remains a good soundcard IMHO.

Hi, the reason for wanting to update was manyfold.

My PC (WIN7) was never stable; I did want the flexibility to output to more than one pair of boxes to experiment with; my sound system was generally flawed, it happened probably due to a confict between some 32bit and 64bit installed drivers. (Resulting in degraded sound quality within Pianoteq standalone, which became markedly better when using a DAW like Reaper.)

And I did want to get an answer to the basic question: how the audio quality of the used components and built in effects was a limiting factor responsible for  the shortcomings of PTQ4.5 were to be attributed to. (It was mainly the poor attack which sounded too artificial, synthetic ).

Pianoteq 5 and the PRO version with the 192bit internal proceeding engine performance option brought the answer: it's components are flawless and of excellent quality, even with the old EMU0404.

I have with Windows 7 and WIN8.1 no extra stability problems with this sound card, but the drivers are legacy ones and for home use only, one shouldn't use it in a live performance.
   
By the way the ASUS Xonar Essence One has now and upgrade (mkII) which I am tempted to try out as a real replacement for this old EMU. (The RME goes then to my son.)

EDIT #2: The most important thing I forgot to mention why I need a replacement gear: the EMU is broken after some 5-6 Years of heavy usage, the attenuation knob of the EMU has got losen, so noisy that it is practically unusable (without damage to the  speakers.) It can be used only as the default audio equipment with the built-in windows volume control.

Asio4ALL has it's own limitation, beside of the inferior sound incomparison to the factory driver.

EDIT: I Just tried it for fresh comparison to formulate it in an authetentic way: yes ASIO4ALL is useable, it is ways better with a decent audio interface (+ speaker) than most built in audio in PCs. Nonetheless, the clear edge has the native driver over ASIO4ALL, very audibly.

Hi, I am returning to Pianoteq after not having used it for a few years. I upgraded to version 5 and can't get it to work on a brand new i7 laptop running windows 8. The emu 0404 doesn't seem to want to communicate. When I play the attached keyboard, nothing happens. If I mouse-click on the image of the keyboard on the pianoteq interface it does make a good sound, though. Oddly, on my very old centrino laptop running windows 7 I can play, but only for a few seconds - it starts cracking after a few big chords. Increasing the buffer seems to allow me to play (a bit) longer before the cracking starts, but in any case the lag is too great to make that a reasonable option. I tried adding asio4all but when I choose it in the pianoteq interface the only difference is that when I click on the keyboard image the sound emanates from the laptop's speakers rather than from the monitor attached to the emu 0404 and there's still no response when i actually play the physical keyboard.
Sorry for the rambling, but if anyone could suggest something to get my equipment to play nicely together, I'd be very grateful.

The sounds it's overal very realistic. I didn't expected that Modartt would reach this level of sound naturality so early.

Beemer wrote:

EDIT : re-listening to Phil-best's improvisation 119 I couldn't help noticing the high notes at 1:37 feel a bit unnatural sounding, like plastic-sounding. Kinda like an e-piano. But other than that I couldn't have guessed it was not a real piano in a blind test

You said "I'm not even a PT user but I love how mathematics can approximate reality",  then went on to make negative comments.   Just why did you make this post?

Ian

I think negative comments are useful. Its like an honest teacher preparing a student to stand alone. The blind test is the true state of affairs, since all pianos will sound different anyway.
Those notes at 1:37 sounded like a piano to me. When listening or reading about discussions on piano sounds, I've often wonder how we hear frequencies when we get older. Especially what we subject our hearing to.

pjb12345 wrote:

I'm still in a state of amazement (it's increasing, in fact) as I continue to play with v5. The D4 is simply a dream come true. My own prisitine Steinway concert grand!!

I recorded this little improvisation to illustrate how extraordinarily expressive an instrument this is. The Rachmaninov-esque textures are brought to life by its magnificent tone. Right across the full range of the instrument (pitch and dynamics), there is beauty and living warmth. The bloom on the tone right through the entire decay of every note is wonderful. As the sustained sound evolves, it seems to live and breathe and I'm in love with it! It must be a truly beautiful instrument that has been modelled here! I've performed on concert grand Steinways but I don't think I've played one as delicious as this. Thank you all at Pianoteq for this...

https://soundcloud.com/phil-best/improvisation-119

This is seriously the best demo I've heard of PT 5.

Soulful playing and admirable sound production goes a long way. Thank you sir.
PT guys you need to advertise your product with this improvisation

Also this is a really interesting thread. I'm not even a PT user but I love how mathematics can approximate reality

EDIT : re-listening to Phil-best's improvisation 119 I couldn't help noticing the high notes at 1:37 feel a bit unnatural sounding, like plastic-sounding. Kinda like an e-piano. But other than that I couldn't have guessed it was not a real piano in a blind test

You said "I'm not even a PT user but I love how mathematics can approximate reality",  then went on to make negative comments.   Just why did you make this post?

Ian

I'm still in a state of amazement (it's increasing, in fact) as I continue to play with v5. The D4 is simply a dream come true. My own prisitine Steinway concert grand!!

I recorded this little improvisation to illustrate how extraordinarily expressive an instrument this is. The Rachmaninov-esque textures are brought to life by its magnificent tone. Right across the full range of the instrument (pitch and dynamics), there is beauty and living warmth. The bloom on the tone right through the entire decay of every note is wonderful. As the sustained sound evolves, it seems to live and breathe and I'm in love with it! It must be a truly beautiful instrument that has been modelled here! I've performed on concert grand Steinways but I don't think I've played one as delicious as this. Thank you all at Pianoteq for this...

https://soundcloud.com/phil-best/improvisation-119

This is seriously the best demo I've heard of PT 5.

Soulful playing and admirable sound production goes a long way. Thank you sir.
PT guys you need to advertise your product with this improvisation

Also this is a really interesting thread. I'm not even a PT user but I love how mathematics can approximate reality

EDIT : re-listening to Phil-best's improvisation 119 I couldn't help noticing the high notes at 1:37 feel a bit unnatural sounding, like plastic-sounding. Kinda like an e-piano. But other than that I couldn't have guessed it was not a real piano in a blind test

honjr wrote:

[

However, many if not most of the finest classical concert pianos seldom sound shrill and ugly when they are used to play the standard repertoire, even if they can be made to sound bright and metallic. I do not expect the goal of modelling the Bluthner is to create solely a virtual pop music piano since there are already several other PT models which do that.

I wish to tell you that the finest classical concert pianos DO sound shrill and ugly, at least under the hands of someone who is not used to playing them.  I recall a real experience I had at a recent NAMM show involving a Bechstein 9' grand:

I was playing very quietly the opening measures of Beethoven's Piano Concerto #4 in G, with eyes closed, and reveling in the beautiful tonal palette afforded by the particular Bechstein I was playing.  Suddenly, to my side, another NAMM visitor sat down and literally BANGED on another 9' Bechstein.  Well Sir!  I am able to speak from firsthand experience that the other 9' Bechstein sounded HORRIBLE!! UGLY!!!  METALLIC!!!!  Why?  That's because this buffoon was essentially slapping the keys, and the piano was beautifully "articulating" this person's intentions -- not pretty in my estimation.

Of course, this was not the point you were making in your original statement -- you clearly did state that the finest pianos do not sound shrill when playing standard repertoire.  Agreed.  However, this other "performer" must have been used to banging on cheap electronic keyboards, because he certainly did not have the chops to make use of a precision-crafted instrument.

Cheers,

Joe

Right, we're not talking about banging here, we're talking about playing under very controlled conditions (i.e., 127 velocity layers under complete control of a DAW, even more than Rudolph Serkin used - he claimed he could consciously control about 32 volume levels, according to a Curtis-trained pianist I knew), and about a limited pitch range of a newer version (5) of PT Bluthner. I revoiced a couple pieces to a lower range using the same midi velocity levels as before revoicing and the problem went away.

[

However, many if not most of the finest classical concert pianos seldom sound shrill and ugly when they are used to play the standard repertoire, even if they can be made to sound bright and metallic. I do not expect the goal of modelling the Bluthner is to create solely a virtual pop music piano since there are already several other PT models which do that.

I wish to tell you that the finest classical concert pianos DO sound shrill and ugly, at least under the hands of someone who is not used to playing them.  I recall a real experience I had at a recent NAMM show involving a Bechstein 9' grand:

I was playing very quietly the opening measures of Beethoven's Piano Concerto #4 in G, with eyes closed, and reveling in the beautiful tonal palette afforded by the particular Bechstein I was playing.  Suddenly, to my side, another NAMM visitor sat down and literally BANGED on another 9' Bechstein.  Well Sir!  I am able to speak from firsthand experience that the other 9' Bechstein sounded HORRIBLE!! UGLY!!!  METALLIC!!!!  Why?  That's because this buffoon was essentially slapping the keys, and the piano was beautifully "articulating" this person's intentions -- not pretty in my estimation.

Of course, this was not the point you were making in your original statement -- you clearly did state that the finest pianos do not sound shrill when playing standard repertoire.  Agreed.  However, this other "performer" must have been used to banging on cheap electronic keyboards, because he certainly did not have the chops to make use of a precision-crafted instrument.

Cheers,

Joe