Or game of repetitive chords crescendo pedal ..in Pianoteq need to "put pressure" and in paino think it took a little less effort for rocking sound ..
https://soundcloud.com/bgwoxxxjmwom/pedal-1
It may be the case in the speed of the curve?
This is a very minor differences, maybe I invented it, I do not know ..

There are some internal parameters to control this, but they are not available in the UI. We always tried to keep the UI reasonably simple and comprehensible, without overwhelming the user with too many parameters.

Any chance some cluttered unreasonably full list of possible settings available in some future versions? Not that I that much insist I'll use them but anyway it's cool to have as much as possible available for control just in case.

To create the examples I corrected parameter string length. To disharmony was similar .

So you still can't get as much of that sparkle-effect as you want in Pianoteq?

I'd still like to hear from scherbakov.al about the size of his Bechstein. My guess is that it's a smaller instrument than the Model B, hence the more pronounced "sparkle".

To create the examples I corrected parameter string length. To disharmony was similar .

There are some internal parameters to control this, but they are not available in the UI. We always tried to keep the UI reasonably simple and comprehensible, without overhelming the user with too many parameters.

Sounds like a good approach. (There are already some ~20000 parameters accessible in Ptq Pro. But the UI makes it easy to edit them.)

After having investigated further (as I tried to summarise in earlier posts), I think there is enough flexibility to the model, and the modelling of repeated strikes of already excited strings is very well done. I am in awe with what you and your small team have accomplished, and the way you run things at Modartt (it's clearly a labour of love for you guys). I very much look forward to future Modartt/Pianoteq developments.

I'd still like to hear from scherbakov.al about the size of his Bechstein. My guess is that it's a smaller instrument than the Model B, hence the more pronounced "sparkle".

That's very interesting and impressive that it's already implemented. Is there a way to increase the effect so it sounds more like scherbakov.al's first example?

There are some internal parameters to control this, but they are not available in the UI. We always tried to keep the UI reasonably simple and comprehensible, without overhelming the user with too many parameters.

@scherbakov.al You should try this. Set the Mallet Bounce Initial delay somewhere between 100 and 200 ms and then try it with different notes. On some notes the effect you demonstrate on the Bechstein will be quite pronounced, on some others, more suppressed (as one would expect depending on the relationship between repetition frequency and the note's fundamental frequency). You'll get an even stronger effect (more "colour" or "sparkle") and less dependence on which note you're on if you reduce the string length. That's because the overtones will be have more anharmonicity and their phase cancellations/reinforcements with each strike of the hammer will be more chaotic. What size is the Bechstein you used for your first recording?

The only thing I find puzzling is why polyphony goes out of control with fast lossless Mallet bounce (even without any pedal or sympathetic resonance). It's a bit of a shame because some cool effects can be achieved.

Try reducing the string length. Also experiment with the unison width and randomising the tuning a bit (e.g. using the condition slider). There are probably other things you can do but string length will likely be the most important factor. (Btw, I don't see this quality of the piano sound as a means of expression, since it's beyond the player's ability to control.)