There is a software instrument that does exactly this. You can adjust all parameters for each key. But it is an electric piano, not an acoustic. Check out for OTR-88. It is pretty good. It is not the same as Pianoteq Electric. They are both great, but they are also very different.

I like the Idea of a fully tweakable piano. I would read the whole manual, and try to understand every parameter in this IML

... I do like the idea of movable strike points.  It'll mean totally redesigning the piano though, because the acoustics completely changes.

My hope\guess\near certainty is that this ability is already well-within the scope of the instrument, since in its simplest form, it appears to be mainly a matter of "auto adjusting" the varying amplitudes of the partials according to the proportion of the string between the hammer strike point and the agraffe. In a way, a basic mod matrix sequence.

On the other hand, the exact curves of the varying amplitude changes given that ratio, and the exact degree to which the hammer position must or can change from string to string if the instrument is to have a unified sound, must get complex, particularly since everything will shift, probably non-linearly, with changes in velocity, unison detuning, and direct sound duration.

But again, PianoTeq is so far ahead of me that I'm almost sure that all of the math has already be done, though with many more parameters and considerations than I can imagine, and much greater economy and elegance.

The problem might be more a matter of simplifying it all so the user only sees the one slider that moves all of the hammers in a constant ratio (if a constant ratio is what's needed--that might not work), one slider for or list of "standard" or at least good-sounding relative ratios for the hammer positions across the strings (something like the list of tunings?) and the sliders\point adjusters for people willing or foolish enough to wade into manually changing the position of each hammer individually. Again, though, I'm far behind Modarrt. They're probably deciding on the color for the buttons while I'm sitting here imagining what they worked out two years ago...

Philippe, Niclas, and Julien: I considered sending this feature request, initially, as a private message. I'm not sure why I didn't--maybe I wasn't sure if it was reasonable, and wanted to know what others thought. Perhaps it isn't. In any case, the new version gives us so many possibilities and such good sound that it's probably selfish and self-indulgent of me to want more.

Beto-Music wrote:

Repetition effect is available since the initial tests of pianoteq.

Yes I've read it in the manual and now I've tried it with a fixed velo there I could hear it very decent. I still remeber it much more present when I've played a real piano. Maybe I need a much better Keyboard to feel it while playing?!

Would changing the damper setting help (Effects\Action\Damping duration)--slightly increasing the length of time the sound continues after the damper damps? At least on restrikes with pedal up?

I'd rather get features that go directly into making the model more real and tweakable as you would a plain piano first, and then head on into additional features.  I do like the idea of movable strike points.  It'll mean totally redesigning the piano though, because the acoustics completely changes.

Repetition effect is available since the initial tests of pianoteq.

Yes I've read it in the manual and now I've tried it with a fixed velo there I could hear it very decent. I still remeber it much more present when I've played a real piano. Maybe I need a much better Keyboard to feel it while playing?!

I'd have to argue that the builder does exactly that, but with an ear towards keeping the character of each note within a given range, so that they all combine to create the sound of the instrument.

Please understand that I'm not just wanting a new toy to play with--the hammer placement is a major part of the design in a piano, since it strongly affects the harmonic structure of each note. My impression is that if we want to be able to model the sound of just about any piano, the ability to shift the hammer position, eventually note by note, will help move in that direction. (I'd rather play, too, but more control over the sound is not a bad thing, and this feature wouldn't add an overwhelming number of new sliders, and could be ignored, like any other parameter, if the player didn't want to change the partial structure.)

What about striking the same key twice? When you hit the hammer on a allready swinging string? I can't hear this modelled now.( the hammer can touch the string with or against the "wave") this would mean that every string has to be watched in it's development and..... But I think hammer position would not be a too big deal for modartt.

I thought that repetition effect was one of the things that was modeled even in PTQ 2?

As far as placement of the hammers goes, I understood that the reason this was usually around 1/7th string length was to avoid over-development of the 7th harmonic?  Although it would be a nice feature to have, I don't think much would be gained for the end-user in having it.  Placing each hammer individually is rather like being able to alter the tone of every single pipe in a rank of organ pipes: it misses the point that the builder (of an organ, piano etc) didn't intend to build "character" into the tone of different notes and in fact much was and is done to achieve the exact opposite.  How much of the "nobody's perfect" factor is enough and how much is too much?

Regarding the spectre of a 1000-page manual to describe all the functions of a future monster definition file, this is exactly the turn-off that awaits anyone wanting to produce a sample set for Hauptwerk.  Having learned it and done it (including complex MySQL macros) I would concur with the poster who recommended playing rather than tweaking!

If the choice is my "perfect" piano sound and learning 1 new sonata per quarter, versus "C3 player with a few tweaks" and learning 2 sonatas per quarter, I know what I'd choose.

Best//Neil

but... Well... something like a harp with hammers, maybe... (-:

Guys: This topic is getting stranger by the hour   It seems that PTQ might become a sort of a Frankenstein.... strange instruments... and even stranger settings.
It´s like the end of Terminator 2... a black road ahead with vew few lights....
Im still liking the PTQ koto!

Here's what the Conklin lecture (from Five Lectures on the Acoustics of the Piano) argues about the effect of changing the longitudinal position of the hammer:

"Moving the striking points of the hammers changes the tone quality primarily by rearranging the relative amplitude of the partials. If the hammer should strike the string at a nodal point, or near, where the string motion is small, then the amplitude of the corresponding partial will also be small." Thus the large effect on the "timbre" of each note.

A very important point. Well, let's not forget there are the eight sliders for the lower partials which can partway help, but of course the relative positions of the hammers are different for different notes.
To take it further, I would love the ability to determine the striking position by MIDI controller, but that would lead to an instrument that isn't a piano any longer but... Well... something like a harp with hammers, maybe... (-:

I'm not sure it would require much of an addition to the interface: A single slider that would move all of the strings in a constant ratio to a new setting. A set of ratios to choose from, since there are probably specific ratios that are preferred by specific makers. And then sliders for each string to make small adjustments, similar to the note by note amplitude control in the current version. (This may sound as if it's growing too large, but it's a reasonable addition, considering what PianoTeq can do now, and is planned to do.)

I'm not sure it would require a new algorithm on each string, exactly. (I dimly suspect that that Phillipe and company did the math on this long, long ago.) The effect of the major variable (the proportion of the string on each side of the hammer strike) on each partial is apparently mostly predictable, though nonlinear, according to the lecture. The other major variables would be the string thickness and length, but this last would be automatically adjusted to, yes, since it's the proportion of the string between the agraffe and the hammer that controls the change in partial amplitude, and the slider would control this proportion, and not the exact position of the hammer strike? It would take me weeks to do the math. Modartt probably did it on a napkin over lunch. (That's meant as a compliment.)

And we can already create the basic effect of the change--the amplitude of the partials--in the current model, though it's now universal for any change we make. One way of seeing this is just as a way to change what we can already change, but string by string, and with control over more partials, and with the changes grouped in given ratios. In other words, I don't think this would add anything to the cpu or memory load. It would change the calculations, but not add additional calculations.

I promise I'll only ask for seven or eight more parameters.

But maybe I'm wrong...

You make a good point.  The hammer position is very instrumental in determining the quality and timbre of the sound.

And because it can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, it would enable us to truly change pianos.

But I fear that for every hammer position, an entirely different algorithm would be required.

And then we'd need to vary the strike position across the 88 keys!!!

Gentlemen, let me introduce you to bloatware. LOL.

Glenn

In my defense: the position of the hammer strike varies from one piano builder to the next, and has a large effect on the sound of the instrument. So if the goal of PianoTeq is, in part, to let the user recreate the sound of just about any piano, or create our own instrument that could combine attributes of several different pianos...

Here's what the Conklin lecture (from Five Lectures on the Acoustics of the Piano) argues about the effect of changing the longitudinal position of the hammer:

"Moving the striking points of the hammers changes the tone quality primarily by rearranging the relative amplitude of the partials. If the hammer should strike the string at a nodal point, or near, where the string motion is small, then the amplitude of the corresponding partial will also be small." Thus the large effect on the "timbre" of each note.

Here's the link to the page in the Conklin lecture:

http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectur...hould.html 

Forgive me, Philippe and Niclas and Julien.