;-)

Everyone wishes the vintage instruments get the same quality standard of the Grotrian's engine.

So far we're at version 5.8.1 and version 5 has been out for about 34 months. Past results are not necessarily an indicator of future performance and Modartt may change its pattern at any time, but a reasonable inference could be drawn that we're getting close to version 6...

38 months and counting..

Regarding small imperfections in the piano models, here is an outline of some of the slight modifications I make to any given piano model on any given day.  Please realize this is done in Pianoteq PRO, and I specifically do NOT save .fxp's of my modifications.  The following slight modifications I make to any given Pianoteq model are based on decades of tuning real pianos, and noticing the wear patterns that accumulate after years of play on a given instrument:

1) Hammer Hardness:  Depending on who owns a given real piano, the hammers tend to be harder in the "grand staff" of the keyboard.  This is because most people play most of our notes in the central three or four octaves.  To mimic this hardness pattern, I gradually raise the hardness of all three hammer families from C2 to C4 (Middle C) and back down by the time I hit C6 (two octaves above middle C).  Next, I hit the click the "random(ize)" button to add slight additional random variation to the entire key range.

Please note:  I am not heavyhanded when making these changes; if you can "hear" individual hammers as being harder (or softer), then you have over-done the effect.

2) Hammer Noise:  In general, I use the same scheme for increasing hammer noise as is done for Hammer Hardness.  Restated, pianos become worn in the middle four octaves where they are most often played.

3) Strike Point:  Normally, this value is set by the piano designer throughout the entire key range.  However, I usually give a few clicks of the "random" button in the Pianoteq PRO Note Edit Screen.  Why?  The strike point contributes to the "tone color" of a given piano's design.  Although this is not normally changed (because it is fixed by the piano builder), I enjoy making a few clicks of the "Random" button to instill a very slight harmonic variation over the entire key range.

4)  Parameters that are most often left untouched:  Pickup Symmetry, Pickup Distance, Impedance, Cutoff, Q Factor, String Length, Blooming Energy and Inertia.  Why?  To my ears, they don't make "that much difference" when parameters are randomized with one or two clicks of the Random button.

5) Sympathetic Resonance, Duplex Scale Resonance:  If anything, I might raise the overall levels from 1,00 to approximately 1.20 (very little) and then randomize them with a few clicks of the Random button.  Personally, Duplex Scale is a "cure without a disease" invented as a marketing gimmick by Steinway & Sons.

6) Damper Position and Damping Duration:  Sometimes, I simply randomize the former with a few clicks of the Random button.  Why?  The damper position controls the harmonics of notes that are prominent when the note is released. 

Damping Duration is something quite different:  I have known the very lowest notes to continue to "sound" for a full half second or longer after the note has been released.  This is because the heaviest copper-wound strings have the most vibrational inertia, and should take a longer time to silence.  The highest notes have no dampers, so sometimes I will increase them, too.  And then randomize the entire key range.

7)  Key release noise:  In general, I tend to click the Random button about 4 or 5 times to impart a greater randomness to the volume of key release noise.  Pianos that are played more often over the years ... simply have noisier actions, even if those actions are carefully regulated.

8)  Volume, Detune and Unison Width:  Suffice to say, I give a few clicks to Randomize them.  Again, if the affect can be discerned, then the effect was done to excess.

* * * * * *

Please do not ask me for any fxp's of these settings, as I do a little of everything ... every time I start out with a new piano model.  It does me no good to save any of these randomizations.  In the earlier years of owning Pianoteq PRO, I tended to save everything.  Nowadays, it's more spontaneous for me to alter a piano's condition according to known wear characteristics.  The condition slider is intended to reproduce the above steps; however, I like to control my own instrument, rather than relying on someone else's concept of what aging consists of doing to the settings.

Hope this helps,

Joe

I'm going to go out on a limb and state that the odds of our seeing Pianoteq 6 presented at MusikMesse 2017 are very small.

i really dont think they can improve much with version 6. that is, unless it takes the resources of a considerably more powerful cpu, than the current bottom line specification, and then, how much better will it be ? they are at the top of their game. they already know all the mathematical formulas and their permutations. it is simply just how many can be computed in real time with the current technology. they have been doing this for years. the maths has not changed. i would personally like to see more different instruments modelled in version 6, as the current other instruments are excellent.

Agree, it is amazing what Moddart has done. Very realistic, highly adjustable, and low on the CPU. Furthermore, the repertoire of pianos and other instruments modelled is varied and growing, and all are excellent. (Further, the price of each is very fair - I never get the feeling that Moddart is gouging).  There is always room for improvement, but improvement of existing instruments now does occur at a marginal rate of return. So I agree with you that adding new instruments - for example, a couple more keyboard instruments, as well as perhaps another plucked/strummed instrument like a guitar to follow up on the harp - appears to be a good direction. I also would not mind seeing an extension of the range of some of the existing parameters (e.g., extend direct sound duration so that the volume of a struck note can increase over time), and perhaps an addition or two to the set of parameters - vibrato for example. Since it's a model, it should be unconstrained (up to a practical limit).

SmilingKeys wrote:

I tried that with PianoTeq 5 (held down middle C while striking the C above it) - I didn't hear any ringing with middle C.

Does anyone else hear the "first note" ringing under circumstances like that?

Yes of course, and Pianoteq is probably the better of all piano softwares for sympathetic resonances.

You should strike and release the note very briefly, and then you will hear the other note resonance.

Unfortunately, even doing this, I don't hear it. I have the Stage version, so it looks like I'm lacking the sympathetic resonance controller Evil Dragon  references.

That's OK, it would have been nice to have that feature, but for the level of work I put out, it's not a deal breaker in the least!

Thanks guys -

I tried that with PianoTeq 5 (held down middle C while striking the C above it) - I didn't hear any ringing with middle C.

Does anyone else hear the "first note" ringing under circumstances like that?

Yes of course, and Pianoteq is probably the better of all piano softwares for sympathetic resonances.

You should strike and release the note very briefly, and then you will hear the other note resonance.

Happy to be told I'm talking rubbish if I've got it all wrong.

SmilingKeys wrote:

stamkorg wrote:

Until now,
Generally, some fine tweaking/tuning of the model itself (those parameters we don't have access) leading to a better/clearer/more real sound. This can be done for one particular model or for all.
Maybe 1 or two new instruments, or rebuilt from scratch an existing one.
Maybe some new functions to the software (a new effect, a better reverb model... this kind of things).

Personnally, I just use the classical pianos, I just wait for an improved global model, which is already fine.

If there is a version 6, it will be a test to see (hear!) if we can still hope some significant improvements from this technology.

Anyway, it will be interesting to hear it when (if) it will go out.

Thanks for the answer, stamkorg!

I went back and read some old SOS reviews as well, they said there was a real improvement in overall realism between 4 and 5. It will be exciting to listen for improvements in PT6 when it comes!

For those with better ears than mine ... is PT5 pretty good at sympathetic resonance? I'm not sure whether I'm using the correct term ... I'm referring when the pedal is down where one played note interacts with the strings of another note ... ?

It is fair/good at that.
The wooden piano purists insist that it is "synthetic" and that it can never be the same as a physical wooden piano because ...just because it ISN'T a physical wooden piano

So far you can't do the demonstration of holding the pedal down, putting your mouth close to the strings and shouting to set them going.
You only have to stomp on the floor next to a wooden piano to get some resonances going, but who needs that in a model ?

I wouldn't expect THAT level of (useless) simulation of a physical piano for quite some time, not because it couldn't be done, but because it makes little/no sense to do it.

OTOH that might come as an unintended consequence of simulating feedback (of room acoustics).
Not a feature on my wish list.

I was reading a bit about some sampled pianos, in terms of "sympathetic resonance".

Apparently with some of those pianos, holding one key down while a second one is struck will cause the first key's strings to ring out.

I tried that with PianoTeq 5 (held down middle C while striking the C above it) - I didn't hear any ringing with middle C.

Does anyone else hear the "first note" ringing under circumstances like that?

stamkorg wrote:

Until now,
Generally, some fine tweaking/tuning of the model itself (those parameters we don't have access) leading to a better/clearer/more real sound. This can be done for one particular model or for all.
Maybe 1 or two new instruments, or rebuilt from scratch an existing one.
Maybe some new functions to the software (a new effect, a better reverb model... this kind of things).

Personnally, I just use the classical pianos, I just wait for an improved global model, which is already fine.

If there is a version 6, it will be a test to see (hear!) if we can still hope some significant improvements from this technology.

Anyway, it will be interesting to hear it when (if) it will go out.

Thanks for the answer, stamkorg!

I went back and read some old SOS reviews as well, they said there was a real improvement in overall realism between 4 and 5. It will be exciting to listen for improvements in PT6 when it comes!

For those with better ears than mine ... is PT5 pretty good at sympathetic resonance? I'm not sure whether I'm using the correct term ... I'm referring when the pedal is down where one played note interacts with the strings of another note ... ?

It is fair/good at that.
The wooden piano purists insist that it is "synthetic" and that it can never be the same as a physical wooden piano because ...just because it ISN'T a physical wooden piano

So far you can't do the demonstration of holding the pedal down, putting your mouth close to the strings and shouting to set them going.
You only have to stomp on the floor next to a wooden piano to get some resonances going, but who needs that in a model ?

I wouldn't expect THAT level of (useless) simulation of a physical piano for quite some time, not because it couldn't be done, but because it makes little/no sense to do it.

OTOH that might come as an unintended consequence of simulating feedback (of room acoustics).
Not a feature on my wish list.