Hi.
Why can't I download these files?! The site tells me I'm not authorized...

Thanks

They are four years old and non of the links work.

Thanks

They need time to breath... I supose they are working to implement the model-B modelled advances in some of the other models.

If this was a forum about a beautiful actress, people here would be looking for wrinkles or cellulitis with 30mp camera using 10x zoom.

LOL! You're right.   A few days ago I played my MIDI keyboard using what was previously my favorite sampled piano, the "Perfect Piano" by William Coakley. After 15 minutes I was frustrated by the lackluster, flat sound and returned to the more dynamic, expressive and fulfilling Pianoteq instruments.

Although the Pianoteq developers might decide to add a little more configurable "noise" or "metallic" type waveform variances to one or more instruments to simulate the complex (but perhaps not ideal) sound of an acoustic piano, then that will be interesting, but I think that the Pianoteq instruments sound great as they are right now.

Just kidding...

;-)

Greg.

Jake Johnson, the energy between the partial - is noise while recording. Noises premises - ventilation, lighting, street noise of the recording device. So as I was a little increased the sound level - increased noise. Therefore, a piano between the partial orange.
If I placed the recorder another example closer to the strings and soundboard, it is possible to get more quantity and large volume of the upper part by the record.

I think I understand what you are saying about the relationship between the relationship between the phases (I think), and I do understand and see the differences between the regularity and amplitude of the beats in the model and the real piano. But I also want to hang onto the subject of the "fur" a little longer: I understand that the energy between the partials can be noise from the street, the recording device, etc. But I think I still notice that very close to the partials, there is still more fur (near partial frequencies) on the real piano than on the model. In your video, when you have the frequency window exposed and play the note, isn't the frequency band on the real piano a little wider on many of the partials? In other words, yes, I can see that the broad swath of orange between the partials is noise. But is each partial on the real piano also composed of a wider range of frequencies?

Thanks again for posting these comparisons.

1. Are the pianos tuned slightly differently? I think I hear the Model C as tuned a little lower. If so, that will not affect the general points, but it does affect the tone of each section that was isolated.
2. I can't help but notice the energy between the partials in the real piano. The partials in the real piano are much more furry, particularly the lower partials--the spread of freqs between the partials have much, much more amplitude than the same freqs in the model. (In the model, there appears to be complete silence between the well-defined partials. The space in between is completely black. In the real piano, there is a lot of orange and ocher. I have to wonder how much economy is earned through the simplification in the model: Would reproducing the "fur" require so much computational time that polyphony would suffer? Would a trade-off be possible, so that there is more fur with only a little loss in polyphony? (Might this be a user-setting--a slider that moved between grain and high polyphony, so that a user wanting to play legato piece could get the most realism without worry?)
3. There is much more energy in the upper, upper partials in the model than in the real piano. This could be because the piano has strings that are older, so it may not be a problem with the model. Does affect the overall timbre of the note, however.

Sampled pianos can sound good if they (a) have a sh*tload of samples for every single feature, and (b) use sample offsets, for example you can get pretty good sympathetic resonance by playing low volume note samples past the attack/decay part, with just a bit of lowpass filtering for good measure, and (c) clever -and well applied- filtering tricks for effects like lid angle, dampers touching the vibrating strings, etc etc.

Then again i'm far from being an expert, this is just my personal opinion

https://youtu.be/f4pNwgGwyjs
(When downloading a video on YouTube appeared audio compression artifacts.)

attracted the attention of two features:
1. The nature of the overtones of the beat. On the spectrum of the piano visible uneven movement. In Pianoteq character beats plastic, with smooth appearance and damping. At the piano with a little "bounce". With an additional acceleration or deceleration in motion. The formula of each stroke amplitude has additional wiggle.
2. Groups of high overtones. In total there Pianoteq beating overtones in the group. The piano overtones behave more erratically to each other. At the piano is not there beats in formant. It's more like timbre flickering, but not beating. Beat phase adjacent overtones must be different. And perhaps a little more speed differ from each other.
It turns out that beats in the formant (formed by the coincidence of the phase of the beat overtones) can cause tingling. When playing the chords may occur strangeness tone. Perhaps beating upper overtones little slower.
But overall Pianoteq incredibly close to the sound of the piano.

(Damn translator. Hopefully, a little sense will remain after the transfer .. eh ..)

Greg.