Which is highly unrealistic of course, nobody would actually play things consistently at velocity 127 all the time. Plus, timbral variations are a normal thing on the real piano as well...

I think the problem raised by djejpiano is legitimate, and doing a test at 127 was the only way to check if there were really any volume differences between the notes.

If you test a car at 300 km / h during 15 minutes to check if the car is not flying, it doesn't mean that you expect people to drive at that speed for 15 minutes.

There are really large volume differences on some instruments.

We did this test with only two proximity microphones, and we also deactivate reverb, delay, and anything that could skew the results.

We did the test in stereo and mono.

Doing the test at 127 doesn’t give the same results as at 30 or 70. Especially if it’s done with the ear.
Ear is sometimes misleading.

I forgot to mention that I also used a level meter to measure peaks accurately. In this way I was able to be certain that there were indeed too large volume differences between some notes, and thanks to this method, I knew exactly how many decibels I had to correct.
It was a really long work, and we were two people to do it on 3 or 4 instruments (D4, Grotrian, Bluethner and Streicher, if my memorie serves).

That said, when we finished the corrections, we thought it was enough to freeze the volume settings and apply them to all our presets.
It was an error that we found later, because if a note appears too high in a room X with a position of microphone X, this same note may also seem too low compared to others in a room Y with a microphone position Y. This is a very complex acoustic issue.

Finally, when a note seems too high, we simply lower its volume individually, without trying to make all the keyboard notes equal.

For the timbre, simply adjust the volume of the most resonant harmonics in the spectrum profile.

I hope this will help

I agree with jcfelice88keys and I confirm that all note velocity and attack problems can be fixed and adjusted with the Pro version. Especially with the parameters of volume, dynamics and spectrum profile.

A few years ago, I made a test by setting the velocity to 127 (listening at low volume so as not to damage my eardrums) to detect the volume variants on the full extent of the keyboard.

I will publish this test if it helps.

Thanks for stating this..you approached it like I did. I realize that no one plays all notes at 127 all the time, but I think a run through at 127, 70, and maybe 35 (velocity strength) across all notes would ease someone's mind if they tweaked it and felt good about the volume and timbre.

Yes, it's a very technical/scientific/systematic approach, but to me could be considered the last step of the 'calibration process' for the end user to feel they have a perfectly balanced piano, regardless of natural variations that might otherwise exist in a real piano.

These variations I hear (at least to me) don't feel like it's just 'natural variations' that a real piano would have, so I would be one of those people that would run the gamut of tests and tweak for a while.

A few years ago, I made a test by setting the velocity to 127 (listening at low volume so as not to damage my eardrums) to detect the volume variants on the full extent of the keyboard.

I will publish this test if it helps.

Hello Joe,

thanks for sharing your experience with Pianoteq - seems very similar.

<...>

[I too am not in the employ of Modartt in case it's a good idea to mention this. . .  <...> . . .  Hey!]

Hello again, Mr. Qexl,

Thank you for your complimentary remarks in this thread.

I make it a point to mention that I am not in the employ of Modartt, because my praise for Pianoteq (especially Pianoteq PRO) often borders on gushing over the product.  As you are well aware, the Internet is full of parties whose dubious missions are to "distort the truth" and over-sell its good qualities so as to support increased sales of Product X.  I am not one of those parties; all of my compliments about Modartt and Pianoteq PRO are true and as sincere as I am capable of expressing them.

If I were to have a problem with a certain aspect of any given product from any given vendor, I make it a point to discuss said problem with the vendor via private email, rather than complain about it in a public forum.  I am in continuous (and candid) email contact with Modartt and a few other vendors of other products should the need arise.

Cheers,

Joe

thanks for sharing your experience with Pianoteq - seems very similar.

Since 6.1 I've thrown out most of my prior tweaked (over tweaked) modelings. Defaults now sound considerably better out-of-box than anything I was trying to edit before. Most changes I make now are indeed considerably smaller in scope for the most part.

In general, a lot of things I leave stock, where before I might alter a dozen other things - in hindsight, it was more understandable back before version 5, but after years and esp. after the improvements in 6, these tweaks I used to do are just no longer "improving" anything and many upset the inherent beauty now.

Thinking of it that way, I suppose Standard seems quite an improved value proposition, than it used to be, because of that alone.

Always, people will like a certain piano or note altered here or there - but at least with Standard, someone with Pro can FXP it for you.

Even though it is true that I'm not using all of the Pro features quite as much as I used to, I'd still choose Studio again because all the models are improving so obviously that it's hard to express to someone who's just recently discovered Pianoteq - I don't see this stopping.

Regarding condition slider, I notice that I'm also using it less recently (just a fraction to the right seems enough mostly). With various tunings (scl files etc) sometimes it's refreshing to keep it more pristine.

Rather than spending as much time trying to create too many different piano models with a certain character to my own liking, I've been focusing more on a highly regulated piano as a goal (not synthetically perfect) - my older tweaks were often pushing too much out of tune plus introducing some now glaring oddities. In earlier versions, these might have resulted in a more "swimming" sound (charming for playing at the time but in hindsight less useful over a longer term esp. for recording other than modern styles) but most of this idea of changing a Pianoteq model to something more unique, I now replace that craving with a better DAW sound stage - some extra nice reverbs and the gated mic routine (tweaking this continues) which I can't describe simply. As much as I love tweaking for pianos with great character, the closeness to a label quality recorded sound of a grand in a quality sound stage is proving to be my current inspiration (for playback as well as player perspective). This would be outside of my range of possibilities in real world conditions, fine piano, fine stage, fine recording gear, fine studio and mastering etc., certainly - but highly doable in Pianoteq. There's nothing like being able to playthrough a set or a piece on a D and see if it's more enjoyable in some way on the B or Bluethner - the Grotrian is my current obsession for my sound stages - it really is quite a work of art IRL and in Pianoteq of course.

Love your description of your 33 band EQ Joe, and the phenomenon being similar in regards to Pianoteq and its endlessly modifiable sound features - very true and the way these things can get in the way of allowing us to just listen, play or record, by better balancing the law of diminishing returns in terms of much of the effort spent in this way.

I too would reshape EQ on my setups with some kind of certainty that a given album would require it - I think I only ever had a lesser EQ than yours but I'd be always adjusting for ideal "V" shapes matching the music My current digital home system gives a smaller selection of adequate EQs - no time lost but I do pine for some of the systems from the past.

[I too am not in the employ of Modartt in case it's a good idea to mention this. Although if such a thing were offered, there would have to be some big changes made around here, see - I mean, for a start, have you seen the state of my lunch room? - Just love the gear. I've paid a tidy sum of money to then go tell others how good it can be online for free. Hey!]

Having owned the Pro version for several years since its first release, may I relate to you my experience with this miraculous piece of software? (And before you ask, no I am NOT employed by Modartt.)

When I first acquired PRO, I was in those 23 editing windows almost every day, tweaking individual notes' characteristics and playability, and marveling at the results.  Actually, this love affair of daily parameter tweaking with PRO went on for more than a few years, and no, I would never regret owning Pianoteq PRO.  I used to manipulate the editing features to the point of keeping notes and screen freezes of various settings, so as to relate the change on the screen with the change in the sound/feel of a given instrument.

I am now to the point that I can go essentially to the very edit window that will do the most good, and make only minor adjustments to the sounds.  (Let me step back for a moment:  Whenever a new model is made available, such as Steinway B, Blüthner, revised Steinway D, Grotrian, Ruckers harpsichord, etc., I immediately go into the editing windows to discover what each new modeled instrument has to offer as regards to edit capability.

Having owned PRO for several years, I have settled down to using "mostly" the stock models, and usually go into the edit windows even BEFORE considering a look at the main screen windows!  Aside:  The one main-screen parameter that I use the most is the "condition slider."  Even then, a little slider movement goes a long way.  If the Condition Slider is moved too far to the right, then the piano turns into a novelty item (in my mind), and is not terribly useful for real performances.

* * * * * * * *

An Analogy with Multiband Equalizers in an Audiophile-Quality Stereo System:
Way back in 1985, I had acquired a 33-band, 1/3rd octave equalizer with separate adjustments for left- and right channels for my stereo system, and have used it continuously to this day, since that time.  During the first few years of using that piece of equipment on my stereo system, I was forever manipulating the 33 vertical sliders per channel.  As time went on,  I found that "less (manipulation of EQ sliders) is more" in terms of obtaining satisfactory sound.  I sincerely believe the same phenomenon is present with Pianoteq PRO:  The editing capability is always "there" should you need it.  Once acquired, you might find yourself leaving things alone after time, but that fantastic editing capability is there at one's fingertips should the need arise.

Cheers,

Joe

P.S.  Although I read the Pianoteq Forum daily, I usually do not respond to a Stage owner's complaint that such-and-such a note is too loud or too bright or too strident, etc.  Why not?  That's because I know exactly how to make a correcting adjustment in PRO!  I have even gone so far as to notify Mr. Guillaume via email how to make a "one- or two note tweak", and suggest that such a tweak become part of the next update for a given model.

*Sorry djejpiano and others reading.* Trying to be helpful but overlooked this since day one it seems.

That pains me, I should have checked - I did precisely remember that we can click through to download "the demo" from the Pro version's details page "/pianoteq_pro" - perhaps that's why I recollect thinking I had demo'd the Pro version. That link only sends the user to the generic "/try" page.

I'll go add an edit note to my above comments. Also will shamelessly attempt to apply self effacing humour to my error, in a transparently pathetic attempt to playfully humiliate myself to recover at least some self esteem as I edge towards the door (and maybe a few chuckles and some "Hrmmph"-ing) and try to fix the situation by giving way too much thought to the situation at hand and then type it out as I go and posting for all to gloss over. Further to this, I would add that I must certainly be an idiot but just can't ever quite seem to confirm, maybe because.. idiocy (Aaand I would've gotteded a way with that to, if it wasn't four those metaling Duonning Kroogsters insects! Shakes fist - rattle rattle).

I quickly bought Pianoteq after just a little tweaking of the demo for an hour here and there, some years ago now - immediately saw the value of Pro - if I had my time again, I would have just got Studio first because there's nothing like being able to have at my disposal the entire collection of instruments without having to choose a few pianos) - but always recollect the demo containing Pro features - whereas it must have just been Standard? - unless there used to be a Pro demo?

Maybe Standard contains enough to get to terms with in a demo - any more detail and people would keep breaking their sound doing complex things which will obviously sound horrible unless you know a little more about exactly what you're doing with this or that Pro setting?

Whatever the reason for not demoing Pro features, maybe it does require a re-think?

Maybe a Pro demo "button" built into the Stage or just Standard demos which either does:

a)
Shows Pro version's controls only - with a popout "You would be able to do more with Pro".

or

b)
Near full demo, limits to a single ver. 5 piano model (K2?), unlocks only a triad for "note-by-note" editing (you can at least try such features on a chord - making a demo not worth using for anything more purposeful without purchase, as is standard practice), other petty annoyances (see Peter Cooke as the Devil in the original 60's film "Bedazzled" for ideas about which things to make annoying) to make it impossible to use (except by the most pointy headed) without supporting with a purchase (yeah, I'm going to say again it's worth the purchase!) and other typical demo limits such as no save options for these tweaks etc?

Perhaps at least a percentage of potential Pro purchasers would see the value of spending more for Pro this way, rather than leaving it for a later update but never making the choice without the example given.

Maybe it would be worthwhile making a clearer note on the Pro page, *before the click*, that the demo is not available for Pro? [Rather than smaller text seen only after clicking "Download trial version" which states "Download a free trial of Pianoteq 6 Standard or Stage".

It does kind of feel like the potential purchaser is put on a text book hunt-and-peck marketing strategy at this point. Certainly not saying that's intentional [Like this delightful advert: Get your hot tamales! Hot tamales! Get 'em here ya chump! Click now already! Don't miss out! Running out sale now on! Everything must go!] but I can see how it can seem unfriendly (as per a minor tactical marketing effrontery) to a potential sophisticated purchaser, stuck between Standard and Pro - whereas everything about Pianoteq is ridiculously positive by comparison to this slightly obscure kind of situation.

I can see how the current demo offerings might kind of obstruct a genuinely reasonable sense of value associated with Pro version and infer that the real value remains in the Stage price point and those secret Pro controls should just be in Stage already, along with a price drop of 90% moving to a cheaper-seeming subscription model etc. (Woah, cool, now ONLY available for infurioGadget 54.0 code name Short Horn - Fat Fingers Edition Basic!) and down that road with more and more modern consumers hitting forums with the idea that everything should be free since you can get things for free if you ask endlessly (whilst simultaneously being utterly ignorant of available freeware and open source anything).

I wonder how many Standard users think they are using Pro because they clicked through from the demo page - confused by their confirmation of purchase email which says "Standard" - putting it down to just a simple mistake - but leaving there - never getting the features they would otherwise be glad to pay for? One edge case per hundred is still a fair percentage of extra income for Modartt.

Whatever better helps to allow more informed purchase decisions for those who would require Pro features, would seem preferable to me.

Someone walking into a piano showroom, asking for a certain type of piano cannot be passed over because "sales" has a perception that this person looks like they don't have the purchasing power. Many wealthy people dress for comfort and don't look rich - fear looking rich - so you can't just say "Here's an entry level model - cheaper if you purchase at the same time as the schools do, come back in then". Rather - "OK, we understand you're looking for something more.. what are your requirements?". Even if you can only point to things like "This goes to 11" - at least, you estimate your every customer is important enough to be worthy of the highest set of features - rather than by osmosis, inform the market that your lowest offering is the best value. Pro's value is way higher IMO than entry levels but at appropriate costs - as far as I can estimate.

You can't reproduce that welcoming confident feeling from being limited to a Standard demo I suppose.

It's clear to me now [Doh!] why so many ask "Is Pro worth it?" and "Can I edit this detail in Standard or do I need Pro?". I mistakenly thought they only wanted to pay Standard - BUT wanted a Pro feature set. Or they're too lazy to demo the Pro version (doesn't exist!).

Maybe prices need a re-jig to make more sales overall? Just following these worms as they escape the can..

My hope is that more keep joining us with the Pro version - because, of course, there's so much more to do within it and I can see how some/many Stage and Standard owners might think "I am tired of reading about all these things you can only do with Pro". Stage and Standard are great value but, just like Pavarotti said once in a delightful interview when asked about why people remain always fascinated by the full force of his and other great male tenor voices, "It's like a Ferarri when the pedal is pushed to the floor - exciting!" [flashes the crazy eyes and smiles] - and Pianoteq Pro is like that for me - there's no point at which I feel let down by the tools at hand and it gets ridiculously quicly stronger with each release.

If users can demo the Pro version, maybe a lot more Standard or Stage users would find that it's worth their dollars for the upgrade.. "How did I go for so long missing out on the ability to do this in Pianoteq?" etc.

In most cases, yes, you'll need Pro if you want to do something deeper to the sound/individual notes - but yeah, maybe a demo of this would help discerning buyers kind of stuck in this mode of uncertainty.

Yes I believe you can adjust the lid in Standard, it's in with the mics. (kick me if wrong!)

Check here if not sure what's in Stage, Standard and Pro:

Pianoteq versions comparison table.

Some tweaking is available to Standard but not Note-per-note edit.

Standard lists as having Microphone settings - so this should be there:

Click the microphone icon near the centre of the Pianoteq interface just below/right of where it says "OUTPUT".

That takes you to the microphone edit section - the lid adjustments are in the main box on the right side - just hover over the arrows, click and move up or down. BTW, the mics are also as simple to edit, and you can also input exact numbers etc.

Having said that - I think you really do owe it to yourself to Demo the Pro version - attempt the note-by-note changes you seek, from the top of the thread, to find out how much more you can do in Pro.

I own Studio, which is Pro plus all instruments - worth saving up for if money is in the way. Like others are doing often, you can still buy Stage or Standard versions then upgrade later - no extra cost doing that but always check support beforehand to find out if that's changed.

There are very few software offerings this easy to buy, install, update and use, has a great user base on the forum etc. Worth it.

If you settle on Standard, this is worth knowing [as per page at link above]:

"Presets built with PIANOTEQ PRO can be loaded in PIANOTEQ Standard without limitation".

I have an inkling you'd be most happy with Pro but Standard is definitely more pliable than Stage.

If you jump in, djejpiano, I am sure you'll find that the water's pretty damn fine!

[edited to add last para, spelling, link]:

Yes Meper, loving the way Pianoteq instances are so well behaved in DAWs - multi tracked instances can create some formidable creative possibilities. There some recent posts on the forum about this kind of thing - would love to maybe continue this other thread (link) with DAW tips and FXP and so on? I kind of began that one for exactly this kind of thing. Cheers!

Thanks for the reply!
I'm sure that the pro version 'might' fill my needs, but I don't think that it's available for a demo download. I can only see PT standard for demo purposes.....copy and pasted from the PT homepage.....

Download a free trial of Pianoteq 6 Standard or Stage

So what I currently have is standard..

Check here if not sure what's in Stage, Standard and Pro:

Pianoteq versions comparison table.

Some tweaking is available to Standard but not Note-per-note edit.

Standard lists as having Microphone settings - so this should be there:

Click the microphone icon near the centre of the Pianoteq interface just below/right of where it says "OUTPUT".

That takes you to the microphone edit section - the lid adjustments are in the main box on the right side - just hover over the arrows, click and move up or down. BTW, the mics are also as simple to edit, and you can also input exact numbers etc.

Edit

Whoops, there is no Pro demo version at this time

Having said that - I think you really do owe it to yourself to Demo the Pro version - attempt the note-by-note changes you seek, from the top of the thread, to find out how much more you can do in Pro.

End edit

I own Studio, which is Pro plus all instruments - worth saving up for if money is in the way. Like others are doing often, you can still buy Stage or Standard versions then upgrade later - no extra cost doing that but always check support beforehand to find out if that's changed.

There are very few software offerings this easy to buy, install, update and use, has a great user base on the forum etc. Worth it.

If you settle on Standard, this is worth knowing [as per page at link above]:

"Presets built with PIANOTEQ PRO can be loaded in PIANOTEQ Standard without limitation".

I have an inkling you'd be most happy with Pro but Standard is definitely more pliable than Stage.

If you jump in, djejpiano, I am sure you'll find that the water's pretty damn fine!

[edited to add last para, spelling, link, removed ref to Pro demo which doesn't exist!!]:

Yes Meper, loving the way Pianoteq instances are so well behaved in DAWs - multi tracked instances can create some formidable creative possibilities. There some recent posts on the forum about this kind of thing - would love to maybe continue this other thread (link) with DAW tips and FXP and so on? I kind of began that one for exactly this kind of thing. Cheers!

Hi all,

I am pleased you guys are having this discussion here. I have been working for years (no exaggeration) on velocity consistency and can relate fully with this thread. May I suggest that you try lid position 0.76 and bring all variances in the note for note screen to level. I could post an .fxp and/or mp3
if anyone is interested I use the aforementioned settings with a velocity curve filter in version 2 of Cantabile VST Host.

Warmest Regards,

Chris

Hi Chris

Are these settings for the pro version? I've poked around and can't find lid position or a variance in note for note setting (I'm using PT standard/trial, because I haven't committed to the purchase yet)...

thanks

I'm also following this thread with great interest. I greatly appreciate reading all the responses so far :-)

In my quest for a "perfect" player perspective using Pianoteq in combination with a furniture digital piano and extra studio monitors I've also noticed some irregularities. Most of them seem to boil down to phase cancellations which I have learned is impossible to get rid of completely when stereo miking a grand piano.

After trying hundreds (no exaggeration...) of presets of different models/mic setups I haven't managed to create or find "the one preset to rule them all". All seem to have at least a few notes that sound off (most often it's a stereo imaging issue where a note would sound as if its from the wrong direction).

So, I've begun experimenting with running multiple Pianoteq instances to try and correct the notes that deviate. I do this by adding two Pianoteq instances to my VST host (Cantabile) and pan the first hard left and the other hard right. Both instances must start from the same preset. From there I try to identify troublesome notes as I play and then "fix" them by adjusting the left/right note volume and/or adjust the left/right balance of note frequencies. It takes a lot of time to do these adjustments and since I don't have an acoustic piano at home it's obviously harder to judge how close the feeling/sound is. I do however believe that my current setup is the closest I've ever been to having it sound as a real acoustic grand piano being played in my living room.

Has anyone else been experimenting with running multiple Pianoteq instances?
I can ofcourse upload a set of FXP's if anyone is interested in trying it out (please say yes, I'd love some feedback :-)).

Sigasa: I'm very interested in trying your FXP's - I haven't experimented anything with lid position yet.

Best regards,
Martin

I am pleased you guys are having this discussion here. I have been working for years (no exaggeration) on velocity consistency and can relate fully with this thread. May I suggest that you try lid position 0.76 and bring all variances in the note for note screen to level. I could post an .fxp and/or mp3
if anyone is interested I use the aforementioned settings with a velocity curve filter in version 2 of Cantabile VST Host.

Warmest Regards,

Chris