Hi ! I'm trying to use the Harp instrument in a more realistic context than only glissandi, and cannot find a way to palm mute the strings… Can anyone help me on this ? Or isn't this implemented ?

In any patch (excluding the "a la piano") the sustain pedal (mapped to CC64) acts as a palm mute.

Maybe I can show here my video demo about the black keys pedal principle?

Je ne joue pas de la harpe, dès maintenant je comprends un peu comment fonctionne l'instrument. Vos explications et démonstrations ont été très intéressantes. Merci d'avoir partagé avec nous vos idées.

I don't play the harp, but now I appreciate more how it 'works.' Your demo and proposal is fascinating. Thank you for sharing with us your thoughts.

Hi ! I'm trying to use the Harp instrument in a more realistic context than only glissandi, and cannot find a way to palm mute the strings… Can anyone help me on this ? Or isn't this implemented ?

AFAIK there is no dedicated Palm Mute parameter.
You can try a mix of the Buff Stop pedal and the Sustain pedal both at value 1.00, it may achieve something at least similar.

Unfortunately, a software instrument can't know in advance when a note will be played. So, if this "pre-pluck buzz" thing is implemented, it will always occur AFTER it would occur normally on a real instrument - ie. when the note is played, rather than before the note sounds. A keyboardist normally expects the actual note to sound when the key is pressed down - not 40 or 50ms later.

I have to disagree with this.  As others have mentioned there are other instruments out there with noises that immediately precede notes being played without any latency problems.  Buzz would come immediately before a played note so it would be very quick.

That squirrel mating dance can't all be made of harp (or pianoteq generally), can it?

I have a quite insane idea, maybe very stupid, that I'm really afraid to tell:

So there is a true harp now, beautiful and very realist.
Understanding pianoteq not just as a great digital instrument to recreate realitic soubnd of instruments as well as possible, but also as a incredible flexible syntesezer able to reach countless combinations of adjustments, is that possible to virtually connect this harp to a virtual piano soundboard?

I understand pianoteq engine have virtual modules for string, hammers, soundboard, lid, and the main body.

A second insane idea: Hability to use the piano models itself like plucking the strings. Just like removing the hammers and the strings behave like was being plucked.

I warned it was insane...

I'd love to see this. This sort of idea seems to be where physical modeling of instruments has the most potential. You take a very realistic, dynamic model of a fine instrument, and then give the ability to manipulate it in endless ways which would be very impractical (if not impossible) to achieve in the physical world. The result being a huge array of completely new instruments, which unlike so many synthesizers, have extremely organic musical qualities -- so satisfying to play.

It's also handy to have a realistic and responsive artificial piano, or harp, or xylophone. But for a serious recording I'm going to simply use the real thing. However, if I wish to take a fortepiano, greatly increase its sustain, adjust the overtones of its upper range, give it a wider dynamic range with a larger sonic variety from ppp to fff... to do all this I need Pianoteq. Yes, the potential is enormous.

Hi Phillipe

I have found out what i did wrong in the Mic section.
The pictures explain best

Mono the wrong way https://www.dropbox.com/s/lookszzdsoqj6...1.jpg?dl=0
Mono the right way https://www.dropbox.com/s/9rm2ox2s74aj5...2.jpg?dl=0

( And thanks AKM and EvilDragon for the help about setting the microphones identical)

Ah, I am glad that you solved the issue! And thank you for sharing

I have found out what i did wrong in the Mic section.
The pictures explain best

Mono the wrong way https://www.dropbox.com/s/lookszzdsoqj6...1.jpg?dl=0
Mono the right way https://www.dropbox.com/s/9rm2ox2s74aj5...2.jpg?dl=0

( And thanks AKM and EvilDragon for the help about setting the microphones identical)

EvilDragon wrote:

AKM wrote:

Sorry I'm not deep into this recent discussion but you may not know that there is a possibility for a numeric input for the microphones placement so you can set them precisely in the exact same positions.

Already possible - right-click the microphone!

Lol, is it my English bad or yours? It was what I try to say

I think it was me being tired, since I typed the post at 2 PM

AKM wrote:

Sorry I'm not deep into this recent discussion but you may not know that there is a possibility for a numeric input for the microphones placement so you can set them precisely in the exact same positions.

Yes, but as i wrote will two microphones in the same position still make the stereo chorus fx mono when applied.
This is what i think is wrong.
In a normal mixing situation you often use a chorus fx to widen a mono sound source, but this wont happen in Pianoteq.

Olepro, It does get stereo, I just checked on the CP-80 with 2 mics located at exactly the same position (entering the same numeric values), and the chorus sounds stereo. You can hear a more evident stereo with the phaser effect (check of course the stereo switch in the effect panel).

Sorry I'm not deep into this recent discussion but you may not know that there is a possibility for a numeric input for the microphones placement so you can set them precisely in the exact same positions.

Yes, but as i wrote will two microphones in the same position still make the stereo chorus fx mono when applied.
This is what i think is wrong.
In a normal mixing situation you often use a chorus fx to widen a mono sound source, but this wont happen in Pianoteq.

But anyway, this should have it's own topic.

AKM wrote:

Sorry I'm not deep into this recent discussion but you may not know that there is a possibility for a numeric input for the microphones placement so you can set them precisely in the exact same positions.

Already possible - right-click the microphone!

Lol, is it my English bad or yours? It was what I try to say