I'm 100% sure that I'm not 100% sure! Just that my standard MIDI keyboards feel a bit lifeless compared to the PX-160. When I am playing a piece or a section of a piece that only moves between say ppp and pp, I'm limited to just 10 or so levels --- might as well have a sampled instrument at that point. But since I cannot control my touch to within more than a couple of levels out of 127 at best, the jitter idea sounds very good. There is no reason I can think of why it should not work. I'll give it a try. Thanks for the tip!

But there is another shortcoming of 7-bit (0,1,...,127) MIDI. If I want to radically alter the velocity curve in software, there will be big gaps in places, so I am limited in how far I can push things. It's like photo editing/processing with 8-bit colour vs 16-bit colour. The 16-bit colour gives you "headroom" (extra precision to allow for crazy things you might do to the data). Same again with 16-bit vs 24- or 32-bit audio: 16-bit is fine for the final mix but you want more when you want to tinker.

I would not be so harsh on the OP. If he/she does not like Pianoteq that's their call. That's why Pianoteq offers demo versions so people can try it out and see if they like it or not. Maybe the OP would prefer Ivory or Ravenscroft or True Keys etc. I know a lot of people do. Or maybe even a Roland or an older RealPiano hardware module (they were the s**t back in the 1990s). Choosing an instrument is a very subjective thing.

I understand your reasoning as I use Photoshop.  However you are mistaken when it comes to MIDI velocity.    I challenge you to try the following test.   Set up your pianoteq to view the midi velocity.  Now play a note and check the midi value. repeat ten times.   What variation is there in the values?   Try again this time to making each press the same midi value.  Report your results.   Now you can see that it does not matter if you lose a few values around the lowest and the highest midi value.    127 levels are way beyond what your finger can accurately re-produce.   

Ian

I'm posting 2 recordings of my current Pianoteq sound showing 2 issues which bother me most ofall atm. How those were done:

1) First it's played on Casio while Pianoteq is in ASIO mode
2) Then ASIO mode changed to "Windows Audio" (as otherwise it usurps audio output and doesn't allow to record anything) and "replay last MIDI input" feature used in Pianoteq.
Recordings are done with Audacity.

First file shows the issue I've mentioned, unpleasant discord sound that appears when C -> D note sequence is played rapidly in 5th octave (if they are played slow enough it doesn't occur). There are 3 octaves covered in the file; 1st one you'll hear is the problematic one (5th octave), you can clearly feel that very unpleasant sensation when it sounds; then the same notes are played in 6th and 4th octaves, for comparison; as you can hear, there is little to no discords there. Casio also have no such issues.
I must note that not all instruments/presets have this problem. To name one, "Model B (Bright)" doesn't have it (or my ear is unable to register it)

Is there some way to fix it for other models too? Is it some sort of issue real pianos manifest, too?

Second file contains sound of white keys played in 2nd octave on "Bluthner (daily)" preset. Again, I have zero experience with how piano timbres can possibly vary, but can't make myself accept that it's a piano sound. For me, it looks already close to some sort of organ Or, say, electric piano.

Is this really how some acoustic pianos may sound? Or mb you can point out what parameters I need to tune to make it more natural?

Atm I haven't yet figured out how to handle recording of internal Cassio's sound best, so please bear with me a little more, I would like to make a little comparison between it and Pianoteq, and to learn some opinions on what is closer to real piano, and whether or not I can achieve similar (but richer) sound in Pianoteq.

Why do you expect us to register a site just to listen to your files?

Ian

Having now moved house, the same configuration was a bit bass heavy in the room housing the ES7, resolved through Pianoteq via mic placing, and, now in a different room, the sound through the domestic system is much improved, more solid.

Unless you are an acoustic engineer, or have vast experience of audio systems, it is a lottery, but one of the beauties of Pianoteq is the almost endless possibiities of tuning the sound to suit your environment. My advice when faced with poor quality sound in the room is first explore how Pianoteq can be tweaked before investing in (more) audio kit.  Unless you can try it for free in your home of course, but even then some PT tweaking may be necessary.

One other thought: when reasonably satisfied, leave it alone, don't play it for a while.  Your reaction may be quite different when returning to it: our ears adapt to the changes we make as we make them and we can be fooled into believing we have a wonderful sound, then a week later get a shock.  Keep intermediate configurations, which may tell you that you went beyond the optimum with your changes without realising it.

I agree with AKM's recent comments in the discussion.

Although I have a pair of nice self-powered studio monitor speakers (each has its own internal amplifier and several buttons and switches to tune the sound and tailor it to the room), I usually play using headphones, which are showing signs of age. So I'm thinking about buying a nice set of headphones rather than replacing the monitors, which are more than a dozen years old at this point (but still sound perfectly good). So buying some good headphones for personal monitoring, and using your nice Rokit monitors when you want or need to, might be a nice and more economical solution.

A also agree with AKM that if PianoTeq's sound is too clean and pure, which I like very much, it doesn't have the impurities, extraneous sounds (like the breathing and moaning of the pianist picked up by the mics during recording, ambient noise however small, audio degradation but increased complexity from the electrical cables, reverb, eccentricities of sound introduced by the room and whatever else might exist both in a recorded performance and during a live performance) that may cause the piano to sound less ideal (in a way) but more complex and "real" (perhaps merely because we are accustomed to hearing so many "impurities" in the sound of a piano including eccentricities of its own action, keys and strings). So "purity of sound" and a flat, even tone response to most or nearly all frequencies of the human-hearing spectrum, achieved from high-quality studio-monitor speakers, may not be as important or sound as good or convincing to your ears as other factors. I have never used Rockit speakers (my studio monitors are Mackie brand, two HR 824's), but my impression from visiting their website and from comments about them on the Internet is that they are very nice.

Anyway, as with others' comments, these are just a few (perhaps not very valuable) thoughts to add to the discussion.

Thanks, I just noticed that I stupidly had a switch that cut off -2db of bass from the Rokits, and it makes a world of difference to switch it to zero. The +2 option added too much bass.

I'm getting a very satisfying bass now and the added bass frequency is helping with the mid-range, but it's not perfect. At some point, I'm going to bring some more expensive monitors home and A/B them.

However, it's better to spend more time thinking about music rather than sound production. Even with a real acoustic piano, one might get obsessed with room placement and acoustics and lose concentration from the beauty of the music. So thanks for the reminder.

Although I have a pair of nice self-powered studio monitor speakers (each has its own internal amplifier and several buttons and switches to tune the sound and tailor it to the room), I usually play using headphones, which are showing signs of age. So I'm thinking about buying a nice set of headphones rather than replacing the monitors, which are more than a dozen years old at this point (but still sound perfectly good). So buying some good headphones for personal monitoring, and using your nice Rokit monitors when you want or need to, might be a nice and more economical solution.

A also agree with AKM that if PianoTeq's sound is too clean and pure, which I like very much, it doesn't have the impurities, extraneous sounds (like the breathing and moaning of the pianist picked up by the mics during recording, ambient noise however small, audio degradation but increased complexity from the electrical cables, reverb, eccentricities of sound introduced by the room and whatever else might exist both in a recorded performance and during a live performance) that may cause the piano to sound less ideal (in a way) but more complex and "real" (perhaps merely because we are accustomed to hearing so many "impurities" in the sound of a piano including eccentricities of its own action, keys and strings). So "purity of sound" and a flat, even tone response to most or nearly all frequencies of the human-hearing spectrum, achieved from high-quality studio-monitor speakers, may not be as important or sound as good or convincing to your ears as other factors. I have never used Rockit speakers (my studio monitors are Mackie brand, two HR 824's), but my impression from visiting their website and from comments about them on the Internet is that they are very nice.

Anyway, as with others' comments, these are just a few (perhaps not very valuable) thoughts to add to the discussion.

I have one more question for the audiophiles who are still following this thread. Would I see a greater improvement in sound upgrading monitors from the $400/pair Rokit 6s to a more expensive monitor or by adding a subwoofer? The Rokits are rated down to 38Hz. Money is tight.

Maybe I would upgrade the monitors this year and add the subwoofer the next year. Thanks in advance.

Yes and no. You'll probably have a better sound image but the question is if it is worthy in the particular context. In a proper acoustically treated room (home studio) I would consider them, in other contests I would be somewhat dubious and I would rather choose something cheaper.

*forum settings does not let me to write it correctly.

Maybe I would upgrade the monitors this year and add the subwoofer the next year. Thanks in advance.

I play in a relatively confined space like 12'x16'. With more expensive monitors, is the subwoofer that important? I would have to put the subwoofer in the corner. Isn't this supposed to be bad?

Another question I have is that with my monitors pointing at me diagonally, each of them is practically touching the drywall. I don't have much space to pull them away from the wall. How important is it for me to acoustically treat the wall to reduce vibration?

i think the sub is very important for representing the lower registers... your monitors aren't going to reasonably get you to 29Hz.  the sub is non-directional so placement isn't such an issue (though i do keep mine under the lower end of the keyboard.  further, i've been experimenting with angling the monitors in an upward configuration (i'm aware that this is not how they're designed to work) in an effort at emulating the radiance of an acoustic instrument's soundboard/lid configuration.  i personally find it quite convincing, but your mileage may vary...

(pardon the mess!)

GRB wrote:

Secondly, the speakers themselves with must replicate the sound of an actual acoustic instrument as authentically as possible.

This!

I recently upgraded to a pair of Dynaudio monitors and sub and the difference has been night and day.  While Pianoteq sounded very good on what I had before, it's now awfully darn close to truly sounding like "the instrument in the room".  Full and clean production of the audio spectrum for the acoustic instrument(s) we're representing is simply a must!

Touch is of course important as well, but perhaps not as make-it-or-break-it as some might be inclined to imagine.  Every acoustic instrument has its own unique feel, and when we start getting into historic pianos/fortepianos (especially those with wienermekanik) then it's all very much up for grabs.  A digital keyboard should of course be responsive and allow for an ample spread of color/nuance, but at the end of the day (given a certain baseline of construction quality) this is I think more about the individual player's control than it is about the keyboard itself.  I'm working with a Roland A-88 and am quite pleased with the results.  Does it feel like a Steinway?  No, and neither does it feel like, say, an actual 1790s Walter (several of which I have experience working with).  It does however give me the control that I need and I really don't feel like I'm "missing" something by using the digital instrument over an acoustic one, nor do I find any difficulty switching between the A-88 and acoustic instruments.  "it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools"...

This is very interesting for me. My setup is a Casio PX-160 going into a PC and a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 going out to KRK Rokit 6 G3's. I'm not 100% happy with the sound. My biggest dissatisfaction is with the mid-range, but not having experience with concert grands, I assumed the most important upgrade for me would be to a better keyboard.

I have a few questions.

Has anyone here played around with the KRKs and with some relatively expensive monitors and noticed a big difference?

I play in a relatively confined space like 12'x16'. With more expensive monitors, is the subwoofer that important? I would have to put the subwoofer in the corner. Isn't this supposed to be bad?

Another question I have is that with my monitors pointing at me diagonally, each of them is practically touching the drywall. I don't have much space to pull them away from the wall. How important is it for me to acoustically treat the wall to reduce vibration?

I think it would cost me about $500 to upgrade to the Dynaudios without the subwoofer, and I'm wondering if it will make such a big difference.

Secondly, the speakers themselves with must replicate the sound of an actual acoustic instrument as authentically as possible.

This!

I recently upgraded to a pair of Dynaudio monitors and sub and the difference has been night and day.  While Pianoteq sounded very good on what I had before, it's now awfully darn close to truly sounding like "the instrument in the room".  Full and clean production of the audio spectrum for the acoustic instrument(s) we're representing is simply a must!

Touch is of course important as well, but perhaps not as make-it-or-break-it as some might be inclined to imagine.  Every acoustic instrument has its own unique feel, and when we start getting into historic pianos/fortepianos (especially those with wienermekanik) then it's all very much up for grabs.  A digital keyboard should of course be responsive and allow for an ample spread of color/nuance, but at the end of the day (given a certain baseline of construction quality) this is I think more about the individual player's control than it is about the keyboard itself.  I'm working with a Roland A-88 and am quite pleased with the results.  Does it feel like a Steinway?  No, and neither does it feel like, say, an actual 1790s Walter (several of which I have experience working with).  It does however give me the control that I need and I really don't feel like I'm "missing" something by using the digital instrument over an acoustic one, nor do I find any difficulty switching between the A-88 and acoustic instruments.  "it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools"...