Greg.

Gilles wrote:

Besendorfer is the correct name for this particular instrument.
Look at the last picture in this post: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...02#p931102

I see what you mean, but I still disagree. Spelling was not really 'fixed' in the 19th century, and Ignaz Bösendorfer is first and foremost a person. And his name is nowadays by convention written not as "Besendorfer" but as "Bösendorfer" with an "o umlaut".

I read the Pianoteq designation "I. Besendorfer (1829)" not as a reference to a name plaque, but as a description: "an instrument built by Ignaz Bösendorfer in 1829", and as such I still recommend using the form Bösendorfer, as this is the spelling commonly used today. It just avoids confusion.

I understand your point about spelling, an ongoing and never finished process in all languages. I am not a German speaker, but in French, Besendorfer sounds more like Bösendorfer than the usual erroneous Bosendorfer, without umlaut. Maybe there was an intention on the part of Ignaz Bösendorfer to appeal to the french market of the time...

Also, the instrument's nameplate is publicly accessible at the Kremsegg museum and the modeling is made on the premise of being an accurate reconstruction, hence the idea of keeping the original spelling also.

Besendorfer is the correct name for this particular instrument.
Look at the last picture in this post: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...02#p931102

I see what you mean, but I still disagree. Spelling was not really 'fixed' in the 19th century, and Ignaz Bösendorfer is first and foremost a person. And his name is nowadays by convention written not as "Besendorfer" but as "Bösendorfer" with an "o umlaut".

I read the Pianoteq designation "I. Besendorfer (1829)" not as a reference to a name plaque, but as a description: "an instrument built by Ignaz Bösendorfer in 1829", and as such I still recommend using the form Bösendorfer, as this is the spelling commonly used today. It just avoids confusion.

Not exactly 5.1 specific, but I am really starting to fall in love with the Kremsegg instruments... especially the Joseph Donal from 1795, the Ignaz Bösendorfer (note to Modartt: I'm pretty sure 'Besendorfer' is wrong) from 1829, and the 1899 Carl Bechstein of course.

Besendorfer is the correct name for this particular instrument.
Look at the last picture in this post: http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/viewtopic...02#p931102

Virtual Dummy Heady model...

Uuhhnnn...

Does it consider hair, or hair style?

No kidding... Some long or volumous hair perhaps can alter sound perception a bit.

honjr:

Just to be sure that I understand--in your listing of the notes, would middle C be C4?

Jake,

yes, middle C is C4 (the lowest frequency C is normally defined as C1, not as C0).

honjr

honjr:

Just to be sure that I understand--in your listing of the notes, would middle C be C4?

Let's use the MIDI messages window as standard for topics like this from now on. Click "Options" in the upper right -> MIDI.

Just to be sure that I understand--in your listing of the notes, would middle C be C4?

I had a question concerning new binatural modelling : is the improved model noticeable also in PTQ stage ? Because from the press release, one'd say that only STD and PRO users will benefit from it...

honjr,

Can you identify specific notes that sound this way? You speak of "some of the treble range." Imagine trying to listen for this problem--more specific information would let us all listen for what you mean.

(Do you have any audio examples of what you're hearing, too? The more information shared, the more precisely problems can be discussed...)

Sure thing - I would suggest playing the following f to ff (loud to even louder, and if your ears can stand it, also play fff, or loudest). Count from the lowest keyboard note (so C5 means the fifth C starting with the lowest C of a standard 88-key piano). Let b = flat and # = sharp.

Play the following simple triads in various inversions and in a good musical rhythm, at two or three varying tempi:

Bb5 - Eb5 - G5
Eb5 - G5 - Bb6
G5 - Bb6 - Eb6 etc…..

Also try the same with simple G major, or any other, triads, in the same general range. Next, play the same triads one and then two octaves lower. This helps identify the problem range as being roughly between F#5 and C7. I would also suggest that you record the playing so that when you play it back it is easier to concentrate on the sound. You can even make a little piece and record it, and see where the harshness occurs. You can even hear it in individual notes - e.g. C6, E6, F6, G6 and others - but to get the full impact it's easier to make a little piece and record it. Often, individual notes sound good but notes in combination do not. This is one of the secrets of the Steinway acoustic grand - hit one note and you're not impressed, but play them together and it sounds great.

Can you identify specific notes that sound this way? You speak of "some of the treble range." Imagine trying to listen for this problem--more specific information would let us all listen for what you mean.

(Do you have any audio examples of what you're hearing, too? The more information shared, the more precisely problems can be discussed...)