and just wanted to mention that I really like Pianoteq alot.
favorites right now are Steingraeber and Steinway B.

Nathan,

I have heard some pieces you play with Pianoteq and I am very impressed.
Especially your "Transfiguration" has something haunting... very nice piece and sound.
Which is the more convincing Pianoteq instrument in your opinion?
Thanks,
SK

Thanks SK, I appreciate it.

It's tough to say which one is the most convincing as there are such a wide variety of piano sounds represented. However I would say currently the Grotrian is the most realistic, overall, followed closely by the Model B, followed closely by the D4, followed closely by the Bluthner. A lot of people seem to love the Bluthner most, which I understand as it has such a nice tone. The B's tone might put off some Bluthner fans, but it sounds a good bit more realistic, overall, in my opinion. The D is a nice replication of a good typical Steinway D, not as edgy as Pianoteq's B, not as dark/warm as the Bluthner. The Grotrian, in my opinion falls somewhere in between the Bluthner and the D in tone, yet still unique. But I would say it's more consistently realistic than the others (by a hair over the B).

When I say overall, I mean throughout the dynamic range, over the full 88 key range, and with a range of articulations. Some of these pianos shine especially with certain music, for example the Bluthner with quieter, slower, more lyrical pieces. Each has its own strong points and charm.

By the way, I made the same experiences when comparing, for example, the excellent sampled harpsichord from "Realsamples",
like this Ruckers one:
http://www.realsamples.de/epages/178319...2F605-0001
comparing it to the Pianoteq Ruckers. The Realsampels instrument also definitely has much more colors and sound depth.
Do get me wrong, I still like and use Pianoteq very much, I just think, this should be a direction of future improvements.
Regards
Mathias

As I remember, the Realsamples instruments didn't have any sympathetic resonant Kontakt-scripts incuded which is a real shortcoming to a harpsichord,  so can Pianoteq's modelling can be regarded as the more consistent with a real instrument - at least in this regard .

The advantage of a fuller sound (especially while listening to the demos) was historically on the side of some better sample instruments, but this has been steadily diminishing over the newer Pianoteq versions, which came out in a years tact.  With sampling instruments I didn't see such a quick pacing.  I am  also curious to what extent these historical KIVIR instruments will be profiting from the upcoming versions sonically.

I've got to say the demos of that digital Bechstein just aren't that convincing to me. It doesn't sound bad, in fact it's a rather nice tone, but it sounds quite artificial (I mainly listened to Debussy). Now some Pianoteq instruments certainly sound more convincing than others, but the best, in my opinion sound more realistic. What's more they can be heavily modified. Move the mics back a good bit (yes I prefer a classical recording style), add just a touch of nice reverb, and you've got a very convincing piano sound. I've heard some real pianos that sound more artificial!

Nathan,

I have heard some pieces you play with Pianoteq and I am very impressed.
Especially your "Transfiguration" has something haunting... very nice piece and sound.
Which is the more convincing Pianoteq instrument in your opinion?
Thanks,
SK

•  when dropping down to pp or ppp, the piano sounds like it is moving away - distant - like hearing a piano in another room somewhere
•  the pp or ppp, notes in the very upper register sound like the attack transient disappears

IMHO -

Lanny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUSDpxZgy0I

Greg.

The thing that bothers me most about this piano, is its unconvincing dynamics. Surprising really that it should fail as badly as it does in this regard because the instrument apparently has 26 velocity layers — that’s more than twice the amount of some of my favourite sampled instruments — and it certainly has some very clever scripting working under the hood. And yet, when you play it, the dynamic response is distractingly unnatural. I mean, the range is certainly there, from very quiet to very loud, but the instrument almost appears to fade in and out depending on the incoming velocities instead of suggesting a convincing and coherent dynamic behaviour with all the timbral and energy differentiation that this requires.
Adjusting relevant parameters does help somewhat to address this issue, but only a little and you certainly never get it quite right — at least, I haven’t managed it so far — so, to my ears, there’s definitely something wrong with the programming of the dynamics.

example 1
example 2
example 3

(These three examples were all made with the default 'Enjoy Digital Grand M/S' preset. No tricks, no additional processing, simply played live, straight into Kontakt.)

Hear those totally unnatural level changes, depending on how loud or soft I play? Sounds completely wrong to me, and I really don’t understand why this piano, into which so much effort and expertise was invested, should have such an apparent flaw. And I understand even less why no one seems to have noticed it during the development stages.
(It’s not uncommon though: The WavesFactory Mercury and the SonicCouture Hammersmith are also plagued by severe playability issues of which I will never understand how these ever managed to pass through even the most rudimentary quality control. But they did.)

What I also found a bit annoying, is that the sustains of some notes (not all, but too many) appear to die away quite fast at the lowest velocities, almost sounding as if the piano is dampened at its lowest dynamic. (That isn’t the case of course, but it just sounds a bit as if it is.
I’m guessing the character of the Bechstein is partly the reason for this as it’s a piano which has very bright, pronounced, even edgy attacks. Even so, it does limit the possible playing styles somewhat, I find.

But again, if you use it in the right repertoire, it can be pretty sensational. Give this instrument a piece that manages to allow the piano to show itself from its best side, and you’re listening to a *very* good sound (not just timbrally but sonically as well).
Problem is: the range of repertoire that will bring out the best in this piano is rather small, I find. (I thought it a very unwise choice on the part of the developer, for example, to start their demo playlist with a Debussy piece, music which, to my ears, is completely at odds with the character of the instrument — not at odds with the Bechstein brand, but certainly with this particular sampled incarnation of it.)

I don’t regret buying it (well, maybe a bit), but try as I may, I just can’t declare this a good sampled piano. Not in its current version anyway. Maybe if they update it and take the opportunity to submit it to some rigorous pianoplayer testing before releasing it again, it might be a success (because all the raw material to make it so are definitely there), but until then: very difficult to recommend it, I fear.

(By the way: I haven’t run into any CPU overload problems or other technical issues. And that’s on an older Mac (early 2009 model, 2x.2,93 quad, 32gig RAM). So, from a technical point of view, this library works perfectly well, in my experience.)

_

Greg.