Еще у реального инструмента при игре полунажатием по звучащей струне можно немного приглушить струну молоточком. Получается весьма интересный эффект. В Pianoteq я такого не встретил..

Вот 2 проблемы, которые я нашел. Надеюсь в следующих версиях программы авторы обратят на это внимание. Спасибо за восхитительный продукт! 

(не владею в достаточной мере английским..простите..)

(google translate: The upper and lower bands are implemented perfectly (!!! charmingly simple !!), but 4 and 5 octaves when playing chromatic repeating sequence or playing thirds audible "artificiality" too big idializirovannost and sameness. Probably need a version of the Pro (stage I), where you will make additional distortion every note for more realistic ..
Still have a real tool in the game for you half-sounding string can be a bit muted string hammer. It turns out a very interesting effect. The Pianoteq I have not met ..
Here are two problems I found. I hope in future versions of the program the authors pay attention to it. Thank you for the delicious foods!
(I do not own enough english....)

So these companies put together good products that will work as intended for most of today's music.  But if you're style of playing includes exposed solo passages of classical music that has to be played beautifully, the Yamaha isn't for you because you can't get convincing soft play with the stock settings.  The Roland sounds good played softly and medium play is okay, but when you bang it, it sounds like a beat up conservatory grand because the hard attack is too exaggerated and the decays sound like an overstressed soundboard that lost its crown.  If you try to play soft rolling arpeggios to paint a nice wall of sound the Roland sounds clunky compared to PT where even with limited voices... the piano sounds natural and you can make it swell and flow like a real concert grand.  And with PT, you can take the Steinway and turn it into a Baldwin by extending the decay.  In addition, the CP4 and the RD800 have very sterile decays that sound like single cycle loops which detracts from classical expression but doesn't affect pop music very much.

So the CP4 velocity performance is in line with Yamaha products in general (Motif Classic 8, Motif ES, Motif XS).  They WILL reach down below 55 but not with very predictable control.  And they program their sounds on that curve which for the most part, you might never notice a problem until you try to control something else with it and even then, it's not that it's bad... it's just that you don't know what you're missing.  The Roland hammer action is able to reach down WITH control to areas the Yamahas can't touch.  It seems Roland designed the hammer action to have its emphasis on the smooth articulation from very low velocities through to about midi velocity 115 (guessing).  Above 115, the Roland may be problematic for some sounds but not for piano.  When I hooked up the Roland to a Yamaha and pulled up a guitar patch that has a slide in it that you can easily get if you're playing the Yamaha's keyboard (whack the note and it slides)... it's nearly impossible to slide that guitar using the RD800.  So, it may be apples and oranges... one action does one thing better and the other does it's thing better.  Either way, my point was on these 'hi density midi' keyboards or controllers was... that having more midi resolution seems fruitless since manufacturers don't even use all 127 midi velocities available for their dynamic articulations of instruments.

I have found PT to be superior to any of the stage pianos, and nearly all of the monster memory VST pianos which all suffer from a horde of problems that seriously degrade performance which is the direct result of the lack of any editing (there's too much memory for that).  Whereas, with PT, you can edit just about anything.  But that's not easy work and the unedited versions presented by PT lack the polish needed to be able to crank up the volume on stage and have a beautiful result.  Without editing they still sound nice but not at high volume where all the demons come running out.  PT is aware of this, otherwise they wouldn't have included the option to edit most of the important things that need editing.  Their hard work was getting a product to market that is cutting edge modeling and I'm sure... being exhausted and overwhelmed by that enterprise, they were either too tired or didn't have the resources to hire a designer to come in and perfect the patches (model corrections).

Just some general observations as I read through this thread:

I'm having great luck with the Roland RD800 matching up to PT.  My Yamaha CP4 lacks the soft controllable play at velocities under 55.  However, either of these is a very expensive solution and one I didn't plan on as I bought them both to see if it might be possible to have something 'in the box' to play on stage and in the studio.  In the end, they are both nice boxes but the pianos will never be what PT edits can be and the audience response has confirmed that.

High res midi is puzzling since most instruments use far less than the 127 available so why add more?  And I defy anyone to consistently identify an instrument playing at 80 vs 81 unless there's a velocity switch at that point.  Right now, no controller is presently measuring acceleration... they just measure velocity between two points or with an impact sensor.  Thus, there is not enough information read from the keystroke to do much of anything other than what manufacturers are already doing.  But it's the acceleration measurement on the disc clavier that allows it to reproduce exactly what you play.  Piano strips/sensors in acoustic pianos are notoriously poor interpreters of what you're playing but it's still better than having no midi data at all coming from an acoustic instrument. 

And as far as variety of pianos is concerned... you will obtain a much greater variation in pianos using different mics on the same piano than using the same mics on different pianos assuming the length of the piano is roughly the same and the recording location is the same.  Having better mic emulations, and fully adjustable rooms with the option to eliminate the nagging mode problems that PT has been programmed with... would probably give you an acceptable level of the variety you're looking for.

Interesting notes. I'm surprised to learn that the CP4 has problems with MIDI velocities below 55. Even with a hard curve and the compressor, assuming it has an onboard compressor? More generally, you are probably in an unusual and enviable position, having an RD800, a CP4, and Pianoteq.  I, for one, would probably spend much energy and time experimenting with all of the possible variations in timbre afforded by editing the many parameters. Learn a new song? Sorry, I just want to see how a low-pass filter sounds in the tenor section of both pianos if I use a softer velocity curve and lower the lid halfway, and can I get that same sound in Pianoteq... But I hope you will be able to record some demonstrations of the strengths and weaknesses of the two pianos and comparisons with Pianoteq--are some ranges, or some notes for that matter, preferable in one instrument? Is one instrument better suited for some types of songs?

I'm having great luck with the Roland RD800 matching up to PT.  My Yamaha CP4 lacks the soft controllable play at velocities under 55.  However, either of these is a very expensive solution and one I didn't plan on as I bought them both to see if it might be possible to have something 'in the box' to play on stage and in the studio.  In the end, they are both nice boxes but the pianos will never be what PT edits can be and the audience response has confirmed that.

High res midi is puzzling since most instruments use far less than the 127 available so why add more?  And I defy anyone to consistently identify an instrument playing at 80 vs 81 unless there's a velocity switch at that point.  Right now, no controller is presently measuring acceleration... they just measure velocity between two points or with an impact sensor.  Thus, there is not enough information read from the keystroke to do much of anything other than what manufacturers are already doing.  But it's the acceleration measurement on the disc clavier that allows it to reproduce exactly what you play.  Piano strips/sensors in acoustic pianos are notoriously poor interpreters of what you're playing but it's still better than having no midi data at all coming from an acoustic instrument. 

And as far as variety of pianos is concerned... you will obtain a much greater variation in pianos using different mics on the same piano than using the same mics on different pianos assuming the length of the piano is roughly the same and the recording location is the same.  Having better mic emulations, and fully adjustable rooms with the option to eliminate the nagging mode problems that PT has been programmed with... would probably give you an acceptable level of the variety you're looking for.

Gilles wrote:

As a more concrete wish, when the tick comes, an American Steinway would be nice...sounds quite different from the German D4.

Bösendorfer is WAY overdue at this point. Screw Steinway!!!

I agree, something DIFFERENT from all the Steinways, both modeled and sampled.
Faz and Stuart would be NICE, though the Stuart may be difficult to get close enough to for recording reference sounds.

A little surprising that there aren't any fxps for the Stuart, maybe they are so rare that too few pianoteq enthusiasts have heard one.

Modellingoptimist wrote:

Examples: You need just one harp glissando for a movie theme or a short steel drum pattern for Caribbean flair. In these cases it's often not worth the effort to find someone playing the real instrument.

Or you may find it here for free: Freesound.org / harp glissando or at Splice.com for some small subscription fee.

Well, I didn't intend my examples to be interpreted that narrow .

Who knows, maybe all instruments benefit from experiences made in those side projects like especially the acoustic pianos did from the soundboard model improvements of v4 and v5.

Examples: You need just one harp glissando for a movie theme or a short steel drum pattern for Caribbean flair. In these cases it's often not worth the effort to find someone playing the real instrument.

Or you may find it here for free: Freesound.org / harp glissando or at Splice.com for some small subscription fee.

Generally I'm no friend of imitating non-key instruments on a keyboard but I see reasons to do this: It's due to pragmatism in studio work flows and provides new possibilities for sound design. Examples: You need just one harp glissando for a movie theme or a short steel drum pattern for Caribbean flair. In these cases it's often not worth the effort to find someone playing the real instrument.

But in my opinion solo recordings and performances on such emulations are always strange.

I chose the second option for several reasons:

The state of the 'main' models in v5  still very far away from the 'wine-tasting threshold' where only the most discerning critics could reliably pick out Pianoteq out of a set of sample libraries in an ABX test, given one of its models is tweaked to mimic very closely another sample library (say Pianoteq v7)...

Earlier, someone suggested that posting specific examples of desired piano sounds, or comparisons of piano sounds, might be the best step. That sounds good to me: recordings of specific notes followed by a recording of the same specific note in Pianoteq, followed by a discussion of the differences. Of course, the sound of specific notes is not all that we hear, but starting at that level might be good.

The state of the 'main' models in v5 is still very far away from the 'wine-tasting threshold' where only the most discerning critics could reliably pick out Pianoteq out of a set of sample libraries in an ABX test, given one of its models is tweaked to mimic very closely another sample library (say Pianoteq v7).

As for piano variety - at first I would have been thrilled to see Modartt doing a modern piano* that's not a Steinway, which is the brand they seem to be partial towards. However, I've come to realize that this approaches an exercise in futility. Steinway have come to define every facet of the piano as we know it, and virtually every major brand today borrows heavily from them, at best, or outright copies them, as with Borgato and at one point, Yamaha. Sure, each brand might have their unique 'voices', but even then, they ultimately trace back to the Steinway philosophy, one which has grown very stale especially in the 21st century. For one, I would love if Modartt worked with Klavins††, Adrian Mann†, Stuart, or Boganyi to bring a truly modern take on the piano to the table. Maybe Boganyi could custom-design a new instrument in cooperation with Modartt?

*For the sake of argument, the lengths are defined to be 2m - 2.7m and constructed after 1880.

†Or at least, something radically different!

††When he decides to build another piano, if he doesn't die first!

stamkorg wrote:

Seriously, even if the new harp sounds really good, who wants to play a harp with a keyboard?

In a different thread (the one alluding to Harpo Marx), I presented my own transcription of Marx's 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game', and some people were interested in how I executed the glissandi (other than in the key of C Major) while playing on a keyboard.

The answer is that I used the "diatonic" mode (by clicking on the little letter D, just to the left of the main Pianoteq keyboard),  and simply played the "E-Flat Major" double glissandi in the "key of C Major", but while engaging three virtual harp pedals: "mi-Pedal" (E natural notes lowered to E-Flat), "la-Pedal" (A natural notes lowered to A-Flat), and the "ti-Pedal" (B notes lowered to B-Flat). 

Cheers,

Joe

Yes you are right and I understand.
But that will probably not be interesting for most of the harpists themselves.
A lot of things are possible with the keyboard and the use of controlers... but most of clients are keyboard players. So the more logical is to continue to improve and develop instruments based on keyboard technic, IMO

Seriously, even if the new harp sounds really good, who wants to play a harp with a keyboard?

In a different thread (the one alluding to Harpo Marx), I presented my own transcription of Marx's 'Take Me Out To The Ball Game', and some people were interested in how I executed the glissandi (other than in the key of C Major) while playing on a keyboard.

The answer is that I used the "diatonic" mode (by clicking on the little letter D, just to the left of the main Pianoteq keyboard),  and simply played the "E-Flat Major" double glissandi in the "key of C Major", but while engaging three virtual harp pedals: "mi-Pedal" (E natural notes lowered to E-Flat), "la-Pedal" (A natural notes lowered to A-Flat), and the "ti-Pedal" (B notes lowered to B-Flat). 

Cheers,

Joe

I'm thinking that modelling other instruments can lead to discoveries in the Pianoteq software that will bring new light to the piano models as well.
So it might be a good thing, not just to think piano 24/7

I just looove the other instruments in Pianoteq, and wouldn't be without.
The handdrums are exellent, the Vibes, the new harp...

I woted 3 :-)

I totally agree, there is something like a real research in pianoteq.
Anyway I think the main activity should be focused on the piano sound, because there is really a market for that.
Seriously, even if the new harp sounds really good, who wants to play a harp with a keyboard? How many harpists compared with the pianists?

To the question what should be improved on pianoteq... I don't know, I would like to hear more vibration, more "twang" in the sound

So option one is we get absolutely nothing in the 2-3 years it will take 6.0 to be released because everybody at Modartt is concentrating 100% on the next great piano model.   Or option two,  they have a 6.0 team going down the piano path while a 5.0 team adds new features/instruments -- especially low hanging fruit that can be done fast -- for users to enjoy immediately.