Modartt user forum - Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (beansoaker) — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:09:00 +0000

Thanks for the fantastic update! The microphone set-up feature is something I'd always hoped for, but never thought a company would bother to do. At first I had the "muddy" impression another user had, but then I realized that I could get what I wanted by moving the microphones around. The C3 feels more expressive than the C2. More power and at the same time more subtlety.
I appreciate that you've made this major update available for free.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (Beto-Music) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:17:12 +0000

It's like Clint Eastwood, old but still making good works !
So why not cal it C3- Eastwood ? ;-)

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (Jake Johnson) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:38:33 +0000

1+ for this Worn-out model. Does it have a different partial structure--are the amplitudes of the partials different from those in the standard instrument?

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (Gizmao) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:08:46 +0000

I too do like the 'worn-in' The irregularities in the model make virtual piano playing yet more believable.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (Cellomangler) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:59:02 +0000

I think "Worn Out" is a bad name for it. I'd rather call it "Worn In"...
Perfect instruments don't sound good, period. I don't want my guitar to sound like 6 pure sine waves. The old analogue synths are so much more in demand because of the smooth distortion inherent in their filters and oscillators. Being a bit worn-in myself, though, I do wish my back was a bit closer to perfect pitch...

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (dhalfen) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:46:07 +0000

I must admit that I, too, am _very_ fond of the "worn out" setting. In fact, I've created all of my variants thus far from that setting.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (EvilDragon) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:41:30 +0000

Now that's just prejudice!

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (skip) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:26:04 +0000

I've been avoiding Wornout out of sheer stubborness - I refuse to accept that I could prefer a worn out Steinway over one in good condition.

Greg.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (downrazor11) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:46:44 +0000

skip wrote:

UPDATE: If you're wondering, YES, I do prefer the C3 Wornout preset to the other C3 presets.
Greg.

this preset (worn-out) has provided me with the most cathartic artificial piano-playing experience, very close to the intimacy i feel through a real piano. and much more substantial than the unemotive sample library pianos.

i am very greatful to be able to finally have that depth available to me in a split-second record-ready environment.

outstanding!!

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (skip) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:32:33 +0000

Got some HD-595's again. All I can say is that the overall impression when I compare them to the 570's, without examining with a microscope, is that they are quite similar. I'm sure many will laugh at this but that's what I think. Both sound very good. I can hear differences between the two but I'd need some time to work out what those differences are. I'm certainly not going to toss the 570's.

Greg.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (Glenn NK) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:14:22 +0000

skip wrote:

I am documenting my problems here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/bass-c...ce-246669/
My posts start at #12.
Greg.

Very interesting - I see you have a pair of HD 570's. I bought a pair a few years ago when I mistakenly thought I had blown out my HD340's.

After using the HD340's for about ten years, I was quite disappointed in the 570 set (they cost a fair bit more than the 340's, and that was at a discount audio store). The 570's seem too "bassy", and definitely are not as good in the high treble. I certainly wouldn't describe the sound as "crisp" - muddy would be more accurate.

I have a pair of Yamaha MSP5 powered bi-amp monitors, and I can't tell the difference between these and the 340's when mixing or listening. The 570's are used for watching/listening to wmv's.

Glenn

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (BazC) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:52:09 +0000

Thanks Skip.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (skip) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:06:10 +0000

I am documenting my problems here:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f4/bass-c...ce-246669/

My posts start at #12.

Greg.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (BazC) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:20:13 +0000

skip wrote:

I'm having *serious* problems with my new hardware and I'm right back where I started...

What kind of problems? I was considering getting a pair of 595s myself because of the rave reviews I've read (currently using Sennheiser 212Pros, cheaper closed phones) maybe they're not such a good idea? I also heard someone on another forum say they blew a pair of 555 (cheaper but still good version of the 595) with too much bass (like you might get from a piano?) which makes me question the quality a little.

Re: Pianoteq 3.0 First Impressions

null@example.com (skip) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:13:50 +0000

I wrote:

I now have headphones with a more natural response - Sennheiser HD595's, along with a good quality dedicated headphone amp. (Music Fidelity V-Can - nothing esoteric but I think it should be very good) This should be somewhat closer to a "reference" standard than my previous HD570's run off my hi-fi amp's headphone output. I do not think I would have made any comment at all about excessive bass in the C3 instrument if I had started off with this setup.

I'm having *serious* problems with my new hardware and I'm right back where I started, on my old HD570's run through my hi-fi's headphone output - I now have to withdraw all of the above because I don't trust *any* of the equipment I purchased yet.

Greg.