What about a silver or a golden soundboard?  Guest a crazy curious about how would that sound...

About Kawai digital pianos (I think Gizmao referred to MP series)... MP5 is a REALLY decent DP for the money. Has very good controller features, a nice piano tone for a rompler... and it can be used to control PTQ anyways, and the keybed is a quality one. I see no problem with it

Of course you can use it as a controller, and that's on e strong point of the Kawai's with their wooden keyboard and quality action.

But over the years, many of those 'home' models (those veneered standing models by both Kawai and Yamaha) have invaded living rooms. By today's standards, the sound technology behind them is poor. And yet they have displaced many an upright piano (and thereby a considerable market share).

They have once been expensive and now they have become outdated. The resale value is poor as with any electronics. Yes they can be used to control PTQ (and that is a very good option), but per se, they are quickly outdated because of the non-existant upgrade policy of those manufacturers.

The main point here is this: the essence, i.e. the human 'eye' (or 'ear' in music), aesthetics, taste, craftmanship, remains while the tools change. I sense quite a bit resistance, especially among pianists, towards that obvious road map, but that road will be trodden sooner or later.

Yes, very well put.  The toolbox has certainly changed in the past few years alone!!

And I feel that with purists such as Mr. Sung totally behind this technology the resistance to it will wane as well.

About Kawai digital pianos (I think Gizmao referred to MP series)... MP5 is a REALLY decent DP for the money. Has very good controller features, a nice piano tone for a rompler... and it can be used to control PTQ anyways, and the keybed is a quality one. I see no problem with it

And don't even get me started on the fact that I no longer need a harpsichord.

Interestingly, I find the weakest part of PT the harpsichords. Maybe I should try to tweak a bit more, but compared to actual recordings (or good samples) they lack quite a bit of that 'air' and elegance. That has not changed all that much with the introduction of miking.

I do not really need much harpsichord in my work, but I would certainly use them more if they'd be a bit more open sounding. Anyone?

I agree with you about the music that stays. That was not the point anyway, and the actual music is relatively independent of the actual means, i.e. the instrument.

It may be a weak comparison, but nowadays 99% of all piano music is played on modern pianos. That means that e.g. the original pianos of Mozart's time have been replaced by something else (which is an offense to some purists, but it is done nevertheless). We even play Bach on fortepianos while most of his music was obviously devised on a cembalo / harpsichord.

It is hard to predict a timescale, admittedly. But look what has been achieved by PT in just about 3 years (since v1); the progress is downright impressive.

Of course the sound and detail of the most expensive grand pianos is still unsurpassed, but I maintain the claim that the 'cheap' part of the market will soon break away. That has already happened anyway to a certain extent with those Kawai home digital pianos which are really not comparable to PT. I never liked those, still many people bought them.

I'd say that the difference in a real space, provided we're dealing with top-notch instruments, is somewhat larger. I do not quite see PT there yet. But recording-wise, there are but few examples of which I would say they are sky-high above what can be done with the recent PT version. Maybe I am a bit enthusiastic at the moment. We shall see.

Other than that, there is quite clearly a nostalgic motive in many pianists and concert goers. You know, the 'magic' of a grand piano. Personally, I strongly oppose such sentiment; it has nothing to do with the music.

Unfortunately, it is true that many people are awe-inspired by a shiny grand piano enclosure even if it contains a outdated, crappy digital sound generator. But even that will not stop development of technology like PT. After all, it will be easier to maintain, cheaper, more reliable and more flexible. Put it into a cannibalized old grand and most people won't notice a big difference.

It's the way things go; look at the publishing business and the huge revolution that happened there with the advent of phototypesetting and later DTP.

I go quite a bit off topic here, but even painting has completely transcended to the digital domain with some artists. Have a look at furiae.com and you'll see what I mean. This woman is working entirely on a digital graphic tablet, something unthinkable just 10 years ago. Would you have guessed it's not 'real' painting? (She does paint, it's not photo compositing or something; watch her tutorials if you are sceptical.)

The main point here is this: the essence, i.e. the human 'eye' (or 'ear' in music), aesthetics, taste, craftmanship, remains while the tools change. I sense quite a bit resistance, especially among pianists, towards that obvious road map, but that road will be trodden sooner or later.

We're not dumping piano music, just mechanical dead freight. And that's a good thing since the tools get more affordable.

First off, I am quite pleased with myself for having started this thread; not because I said anything wise and wonderful (I didn't), but because I learned a lot today from some well thought out views.

Guillaume's post about the difference between impedance and direct sound duration really got things going.  This was very enlightening, and I can hardly wait to try these two out tonight.  I've been working on understanding the physics of the piano, and this discourse is quite valuable.

Then the post by maestro certainly cleared up a few things - the lack of sustain hadn't been covered too much, and his comments at least made me realize I shouldn't doubt my experience with pianos (started lessons in 1946).  Every time I set one of the C3 presets and played, my instinct told me the sustain wasn't quite right.  With a piano of short sustain, the pianists instinctive reaction is to use more pedal and hit harder.  It didn't work - and I tend to over pedal by nature.

As an aside:  when I was trying out grands in 1975, I was torn between a six foot Petrof and a Yamaha G2 - the Yamaha won because of the craftsmanship.  The Petrof had beautiful tone, and certainly had a beautiful sustain.  It could really sing (better than the Yamaha).  Oh well, the Yamaha is gone now.

On Gizmao's predictions, I partially agree.  Physical modeling will probably replace the standard digital piano system, and it will definitely replace samples, and I strongly suspect that many of the cheap acoustics (both upright and grand) will yield somewhat to PT and company.  Concert grands are a different matter - as are concert pianists - there is far too much tradition to change in ten years - fifty or 100 maybe.  I'm still listening to and enjoying Chopin's music and he's been dead for almost 160 years, yet the tradition lives on.

Being retired and living in smaller quarters where sound can be an issue, I'm faced with never having an acoustic piano again - fortunately Pianoteq came to my rescue.  And by knowing more about the physics of the piano, and how Pianoteq emulates the piano's sound, I can hopefully improve my handling of PT.

Keep posting and throwing ideas out - that' how we move forward.

Glenn

Yes, it sounds ridiculous to compare a $300 software to a 50k (or so) grand piano.

But IMO we are amazingly close to the point where it can be used as a serious alternative, even in demanding situations. I am not a 'spoilt' concert pianist and thus often have to deal with less than perfect situations (including some where there plainly is no piano at the venue). I can say that in 99% of real world situations there is nothing out there that can compete with PTQ. Even less so now that v3 is here.

My prediction is that in 10 years from now (and likely earlier) acoustic pianos will become obsolete. That has happened to typesetting, photo processing, sound recording and many other applications. The piano is more complex than many other things, but we will get there.

I figure that the sustain issue can relatively easily be adressed by reprogramming the basic model so it won't be much of an issue in the future (v2 already had a much stronger sustain, almost a bit too strong at times).

Maybe in 2 years you will add even a underwater sound simulation.  :-)

I have been a concert pianist since the age of 10 and yes, the C3 does in fact die much to abruptly.  However, I can say from having so much piano experience of different pianos, brands and sizes that some pianos just have terrible sustain.

I have played many Steinways that literally died almost seconds after I hit the note.  I would slam one and it would die seconds later.  On an incredibly regulated piano with no damage to the harp, strings or sound board (and perhaps a white spruce sound board) the sound will not die after being struck.  In fact, it will "bloom" and grow momentarily after the strike and then begin to softly resonate and decay over a long period of time.  So much so that it seems to live on forever (this is what my acoustic piano does).

Crap pianos will do the opposite.  They will clunk, and then die.  You actually can open the lid of a piano and put your head inside near the harp.  Strike a note and listen to what really happens.  If the piano is great, it will bloom and the sound will almost mushroom to a more full sound right after the striking period and then maintain a strong resonance and then decay slowly.  On a crappy piano you will not hear this bloom at all.  It will be loudest and most profound at the moment of striking the key, not after.

With that said, yes the C3 dies to fast.  I have a concert grand (Petrof) in my home that is in the same room as my Pianoteq rig.  I play the Pianoteq rig and the control etc is amazing.  By far the best I have ever used by any vendor.  However, the moment I get up from a session and go to the concert grand, there is an immediate and huge transition into another place.  The sound is definitely more detailed (some here call PTQ to soft in areas lacking brightness etc or fading to soon).  That is extremely evident when you A/B side by side with a well maintained piano used in concert halls.  My Petrof sings and sings when being played.  The sustain on the notes are far superior to what the C3 is accomplishing at the standard preset.  (note I said standard preset).

Now I am very new with this application so it is time to begin to see if I can tweak it and get the same results I get from my piano because bar none, the playability of this software is just untouchable by other vendors.  The sound is good too.  It's just not quite on par with the best true acoustic pianos yet.  That doesn't mean it can't be though.  I am very pleased we are able to modify the sound so much with this application because it makes getting that particular sound very much doable.  With the right ears and knowledge.

Then I stop and think to myself, how can I be comparing software that cost me 300.00, to my priceless and perfectly maintained concert instrument.  Fact is, it does compare.  It isn't quite there yet, but when you look at the price tag differences, and the endless potential of this application, it's impossible to not say to yourself "my god, one day I will be able to sit here and record from a Steinway, Bechstein, Petrof and Bosendorfer in the same afternoon with perfect acoustical results".

And don't even get me started on the fact that I no longer need a harpsichord.

Maestro2be

I imagine pianos that was refurbished, and replaced just section of the damaged soundboard, changingmsome wood strips. It could have the replaced wood different fromj the original wood, and so have a different impedance in this location.

How would pianoteq emulate a refusbished grand piano like that?  Is that possible to virtually recreate such soundboard with different impedance in a sertain location?

In the current version no, but the future pro version (the exact name is not decided yet) will allow to adjust the impedance note by note, which is exactly what you are asking for!

How would pianoteq emulate a refusbished grand piano like that?  Is that possible to virtually recreate such soundboard with different impedance in a sertain location?

The impedance slider acts directly on the soundboard by making it more or less stiff, and the decay of both direct sound and remanent sound are modified (the decay is faster at low impedance). On a real piano, the impedance is controlled by the persons who build the soundboard.

The dss does not change the properties of the soundboard, it does not change the decay of direct sound and remanent sound, it only makes the remanent sound appear sooner or later. A remanent sound appearing later (thus a long dss) corresponds to hammers with a regular shape (good parallelism to the strings) and can be more or less controlled by the tuning: this is because the remanent sound is mainly produced by the strings vibrating out of phase. And vice versa. On a real piano, this parameter is controlled by the tuner who works on the shape of the hammers and the tuning.

If you want longer notes you can (and/or):
- increase the impedance,
- decrease the direct sound duration,

Thanks for the additional information.

Which would be preferable - increasing impedance or decreasing dss?

And what other effects do these two options incur?

Glenn