Modartt user forum - How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-09-10T01:29:34Z

Luc Henrion wrote:

The virtual modeled organ already exists, and it doesn't sound bad.
http://www.virtualorgancompany.com/

A commercial company has been marketing something close to physical modelling in its digital organ range (not just small sample libraries) for several years now.

See http://www.pykett.org.uk/physical-model...patent.htm

https://viscountorgans.net/what-is-physis-technology/ - see the third video on the page for some demos of what their physical modelling system can do to the pipe voicing.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-09-09T22:49:00Z

Actually, I would put it more bluntly than Oldionus.

We don't want "another clavichord" in Pianoteq. We want a clavichord.

There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to reproduce the sound of the Neupert, if that's what people want to use. But the Neupert instrument is no more a "clavichord" than the iron-framed instruments that Pleyel invented and built for Landowska were "harpsichords".

The Neupert and the Pleyel are both basically "modern pianos with a modified action," which historically is putting the cart before the horse!!

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-09-09T22:40:37Z

Luc Henrion wrote:

While an organ needs just one (looped) sample for each note and each stop.

This is much to simplistic. Organs with that style of sampling or synthesis, sound completely "dead" compared with the real thing. With no disrespect to what appears to be a one-man operation (though the details are quite well hidden on the web site!) listen to the "virtual organ company" demos to hear how weedy and uninteresting that sounds compared with a real pipe organ. Maybe that sort of sound was "good enough" back in the 1960s or 70s, but not any more.

One obvious issue is that the initial transient speech of a pipe may take several seconds (literally) to become stable. Most notes are shorter than that, so as a minimum you need several different "release samples" to capture the ending transient of the notes. If you just fade out a note that is still "growing", the result sounds very wrong.

More subtly, the "transient" resonances of an organ pipe are very different from the spectrum of the steady tone - in fact the fundamental transient frequency can be a long way from the steady pitch of the pipe, and the different resonances are rarely in nice simple ratios like those of a piano string (ignoring the small amount of inharmonicity in the string, to keep the discussion simple). If you don't capture that correctly, you lose the most of the definition of the attack and release of each note, which quickly turns "articulation" into "a muddy sounding mess".

But the most important missing "secret sauce" is that the sound of the organ (like any wind instrument) depends on the stability of the wind supply throughout the duration of the note. No organ has a completely stable wind supply, which is hardly surprising when you consider that starting to play a single note at the bass end of a keyboard may consume more wind on its own than a 10-note chord of higher pitches!

The blowing system is designed with a lot of mechanical devices to try to compensate for this, but because of friction and the impossibility of "predicting the future" they don't work "perfectly". In fact, if there are several of them connected to the same part of the wind supply, they can start interacting with each other to set up small oscillations in the supply, until the organist happens to play a note that stops that happening. If you watch the behaviour of these gizmos with the outer case of the organ removed, the total visual effect is more like watching open-heart surgery in progress than looking at a "simple" mechanical device operating.

Physical modelling of an organ without going to that level of detail isn't going to give very good results - but then neither does recording an organ in any case. You can't fit the huge number of simultaneous independent sounds sources (pipes) being played - literally thousands, for big chords on full organ - into two stereo channels. The sound systems for large-scale electronic instruments have many more independent amplifiers and speakers - sometimes between 50 and 100, not just two!

Luc Henrion wrote:

If you want to model an organ, there should be one model for each stop. Not realistic, CPU wise, when adding samples upon each other is so easy.

Having spent several years "playing" with this technology as a hobby (and I think I know enough from my "day job" to do that seriously, and not just try to re-invent the wheel starting from zero) I completely disagree. You need a separate model for each pipe, not just for each stop, if you are going to make any progress capturing the interactions between the sounds from a few hundred or thousand pipes enclosed in a relatively small space.

In physical modelled pianos, it is those interactions that make the difference between the sound you get from Pianoteq, and a sample set which will inevitably sound like "88 different pianos, each playing a single note" - a very different thing.

Actually, this is becoming realistic, CPU-wise - many of the pipe models will be similar except they are working on different data, and they quite well suited to run on the GPU of a high-powered graphics card. Within a few years, the cost of a dedicated computer to run this sort of calculation will probably be less than $1000 - cheaper than the current top-quality organ sample sets today.

But I thing the take-home message from all this is quite clear: not only is physical modelling a pipe organ is more complex than modelling a keyboard instrument, but also very little of what really matters to get good results is common between the two models.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-09-09T03:33:08Z

This is lovely. I happened to have heard this played on a violin this morning, and noted that it was transcribed by Bach himself as the Sinfonia to Cantata No. 29, "Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir;" apparently there may have once existed an entire organ concerto of which this transcription, with solo organ (unusual in the cantatas) was the first movement.

But I digress. I merely wish to register (again) my wish that there be another clavichord. An unfretted, sixty-one key 18th century one, or one like this, or, better, both. The Neupert isn't terrible, but it's a 20th century instrument that doesn't really sound like an authentic historical clavichord.

musichascolors wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WuVVE2t-Vk
This sounds so beautiful. Having this in Pianoteq would be amazing.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-05-16T15:43:24Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WuVVE2t-Vk

This sounds so beautiful. Having this in Pianoteq would be amazing.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-05-10T16:24:16Z

_DJ_ wrote:

other clavichord models would of course be most welcome!
but i still like the Neupert...
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...BWV926.mp3
Johann Sebastian Bach,
Præludium in d,
Clavier-Büchlein vor Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, Nr. 4,
BWV 926.
1779 Neupert clavichord, a¹ = 415 Hz, Lehman II (2005),
Schellingwoude IR.
(n.b. this is captured at a fairly high volume thanks to the close mic setup i used, so you'll probably want to adjust accordingly to bring it more in line with what your ears tell you a clavichord should sound like volume-wise... )

Would you mind uploading your preset? Sounds great!

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-05-05T21:27:18Z

Luc Henrion wrote:

The virtual modeled organ already exists, and it doesn't sound bad.
http://www.virtualorgancompany.com/
But sure, it's limited, not to be compared (yet?) with sampled organs.

just a cautionary note here that, ... [snip]

update: I finally (nearly two weeks later) heard back from Maarten with both the download link and a most courteous unsolicited refund for my pain, so all is well with the site and the instruments.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-27T12:10:25Z

sounds great!

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T19:36:16Z

My perspective on harpsichord vs piano sound is from the player's view: it may be different from the listener's perspective and thus from the recording engineer's position. Having played/owned grands and harpsichords my subjective view of loudness from the player's perspective is that I get far more volume from the piano. Certainly the harpsichord has a penetrating sound: when I was "playing in" David Rubio harpsichords before shipment the sound seemed to go straight through stone walls. Yes, each register has an almost flat dynamic, but for me, the delicacy of the upper 8' should indeed be delicate, as compared with the lower 8' or the 2 8's together. I suspect the subjective experience of relative loudness can differ considerably from what the waveform shows.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T15:32:01Z

Some harpsichords have a very high sound level, almost as high as a grand piano played fortissimo ! You'd be amazed - I was last year with one instrument particularly, but I agree it's not the majority of them. But the spectral balance is very different, of course, and more important, the dynamics are much more narrow, hence a sensation of "permanently loud".
About the level on the CD, it's a very difficult matter... Let's say that I put a maximum loudness of, say, -10 or -15 dBFS, what will happen if broadcasted on radio? My CD will go to the trash, pure and simple! They want a constant level, be it a symphonic orchestra or a solo acoustic guitar, or whatever. Besides, if you put a lower level on a CD, you also loose some definition - don't forget that a CD is "only" 16 bit: by lowering the level to - 12 dBFS, you get in fact a 14 bit resolution recording ! Not good...
I have no solution, I just explain a very common problem... the only thing I can tell you is that on those instruments with a low level, I never, never use any compression ! I do on some big orchestra recordings, I confess...
This being said, any decent hifi equipment should perform just fine at very low levels, otherwise, well... maybe it's called lo-fi ! ;-)

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T12:25:30Z

On the subject of recording, my pet gripe is that commercial recordings of harpsichords tend to be at too high a level and as for clavichords, to get anywhere near the actual level of a live instrument, amplifier volume has to be turned down so much that, with non-super fi eqpt, the LR balance starts to go and the amp is operating well below its optimum setting. Even with harpsichords, it's disconcerting to follow a full concert grand sound with a harpsichord that sounds at least as large.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T09:45:19Z

Sure, Hauptwerk has a lot more to offer and I think that, for organs, sampling is still the way to go. Consider the 2 main differences between piano and organ, namely a "static" (after a while) sound for organ instead of a continuously evolving sound for a piano, and of course the "static" level of the organ against the enormous dynamic range of a piano. As you know, sampled pianos need tons of samples to be barely playable. While an organ needs just one (looped) sample for each note and each stop. Night and day. But where there is always only one "model" for a piano note, if you want to model an organ, there should be one model for each stop. Not realistic, CPU wise, when adding samples upon each other is so easy.
Now, there is, of course, a lot more than this in sampling organs: for example, playing low notes on some instruments gives less level for each stop and sometimes can even lead to detuning the instrument! I just experienced this a few weeks ago while recording ancient organs... Here, some modeling could come into play. But just as an "added bonus"!

Again, clavichord is completely another story: think of it as a "mix" of the harpsichord and the piano complexity, with the added problem of a polyphonic aftertouch!
And a very, very low level... At the same place where I was recording organs, there was also a clavichord and while trying to record it, we had to fight against the noise of a bee flying in the room !!! Trust me, it was almost as audible as the instrument !!!

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T07:36:45Z

OK Luc. Sounds like pictures to exe image sequence s/w. I've been waiting for a Mac version for years and keep an old Windows laptop built like a tank to run it, with all the required file transfers, remembering how to persuade Windows to work etc etc. The old laptop still is available as a back up for Pianoteq if the Macbook died, so it has a potential use. Looks as though I will continue to use Hauptwerk for some time for my Sweelinck etc.

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-26T06:30:59Z

To be honest, don't hold your breath for this one: it doesn't seem to be in constant progress since years... contrary to Pianoteq!

Re: How about another, more historically authentic clavichord?

2017-04-25T16:23:17Z

Thank you Luc for that info on modelled organs. Price for each similar to Pianoteq instruments. Hopefully they will bring out a version for Mac OSX sometime.