Once I get the mapping problems resolved, I want to see if I can get a similar sound in PianoTeq. A strange thing to do, really, since the multisamples are mainly 2 layers--the set is best for playing chords and hard leads. And very good for those purposes. When I was first trying to find a good piano sound, I loved it, so I feel almost obligated to see if I can replicate it now. Will post, but it's going to take some time.

And thanks again for working on the P-250. That's a great instrument--brassy in a good way. That's the advantage of subtractive, I guess. The necessarily hard bright strikes let us reach those hard strikes. (My 1994 Ensoniq KS-32 has great hard strikes I haven't found on any other keyboard. For whatever reasons, the software libraries don't seem to have these very hard strikes, and I miss them.)

But for me it was not useless. I learned a lot about how the parameters in Pianoteq affect the sound. And I also believe that people who are used to a sound of a digital piano would like to hear something similar in Pianoteq. It is easier for them to become familiar.

For those who want to hear the original P250 sound, I also rendered the first part of drjohn.mid (to be found in in the files section) with my P250 (P250_drjohn.mp3).

I think many controls can be hidden when you just need to control tone.  (As opposed to making an exaggerated piano)

About getting the exact sound of samples: I sometimes suspect that being able to control the ratio of velocity to each separate parameter would let us do more in that direction. Now, hitting a note hard seems to raise parameters like the sympathetic resonance and harp sound to the same amplitude. Might give us more control if we could vary the rate which each increases. A velocity window for each one, with maybe a button to click that opens and closes that window so the interface doesn't need to get much bigger.

The dumbest would be to take pt3, and to emulate the velocity splits of a sampler.  Now that'll be stupid.

It's back to pros and cons of sample vs physmod.  Samples can be produced to sound a very specific way, and many people seem to at least acknowledge that the more modern sample libs sound good, even if they play quite unoptimally.  And the physmod side is that it plays awesome, but sounds like a synth any which way you cut it.  That was pt2.  With pt3 it just seems like we're on the verge of entering the realm of sound control of sample libs, which allows pt3 to "emulate" the sampled (recorded) piano sound..  It's just the best of both worlds.  Ready to use sounds, with physmod playability.  It's not a step back at all I think. 

The business of the production of sample libs (and recording) has a much richer and extensive accumulation of knowhow and history that physmod pianos don't have yet.  Figuring out a way to create these well accepted tones form the recording realm through physmod is a very important and vital task I think.  And by this I mean as a transitional phase.  I think as more and more physmod pianos come out, the ears of musicians, all the way to the general public will adjust to the newer tonalities, and through a longer process, we will shift to a wider, richer palette.  But until then, there are still industry expectations that need to be met.  Piano sounds need to be able to sound and play a specific way.  Actually I think it's dictated by the recording industry rather than sample libs..

anyway, that's my take on it.  On a more personal note though, I just like tweaking the tones, and learning the piano sound inside out.  Some people may say it's tweaking the instrument too much, but I think it's like the ultimate ear training exercise.  You become very sensitive to the different palettes of color in playing.

At the same time, I can't help but be aware of the irony, here: PianoTeq overcomes the many limitations of sample libraries. So what do we do with it? We try to emulate samples...

The same thought crossed my mind too.

With Pianoteq, I finally don't have to put up with thin DP rompler sounds anymore.

It would help to have some sample recordings of the pianomodels that people are after... Could someone upload a range of notes and some chords played on the P120 or P250 to let people like me, who don't really know their sounds, listen to what 'we' would be looking for?

cheers
Hans

A failure scenario would be, the user having to come to the forums, having to learn about each of the pt3 controls, have people tell him that the Yamaha sound he is searching for is not as good as pt3, etc.., and generally just wasting a lot of time not making music, but stressing over the technology.

Whoa dude... steady.  Just another opinion and asking why.  Don't put text in my mouth.  This is a forum.  It's for ideas and opinions, yours and mine.  I respect yours.  All the sounds we come up with are valid and subjective and the reasons are all valid as well.  I was curious about your reasons -sorry if my playful humour was taken with malice.  Cheers.

You also have to acknowledge that although Yamaha DPs have a limited number of velocity layers, each of the samples themselves are recorded with meticulous detail, and has become what many expect a digital piano to sound.  So emulating the sort of sound isn't completely pointless, it actually makes the pt3 sound more generally acceptable.  You have to remember, lots of people stay away from pt3 JUST because the piano sound is not preferable.  You'll find many more people who would still prefer Ivory sound, or QLPiano, etc.  It's just about metrics.  So even if some people say pt3 is more rich or whatever, people could care less.  And if pt3 can emulate the sounds of the more popular vstis, it makes perfect sense to me to try.  It's ironic, but the sound of pianoteq has been the show stopper for many people since day 1.

I mean, the successful scenario in my head is, let's say a guy gigs with a p250, cp300 or any yamaha board.  He wants to use pt3.  He swaps it, and adjusts to the emulated p250 in 30 minutes.  Success.  It keeps pt3 and its complexity completely hidden from the user, and therefor it has saved him a lot of time, and allowed the user to play more music.

A failure scenario would be, the user having to come to the forums, having to learn about each of the pt3 controls, have people tell him that the Yamaha sound he is searching for is not as good as pt3, etc.., and generally just wasting a lot of time not making music, but stressing over the technology.

...I do want to attempt to recreate some sounds from sample sets....At the same time, I can't help but be aware of the irony, here: PianoTeq overcomes the many limitations of sample libraries. So what do we do with it? We try to emulate samples...

I think your heading toward the deep end.  Let's get back on the red pill and make music.  Hey, I'm a geek, too, but I know FPE that sometimes the soup is ready.  Though I'm obviously not a piano connoisseur, I don't really approach the model tweaking experience by trying to emulate something else, but rather by making something that sounds good and inspiring to me.  It doesn't have to sound so much like a particular piano or even an existing piano -I just want it to be as organic and woody and tactile as necessary for my noise making.  I guess I just don't understand why one would want to emulate an older digital sampled piano, other than for the mental exercise -which, is OK... but don't let it steal time from your music.  Now I gotta get back to the FXP settings for that TX81Z piano...

At the same time, I can't help but be aware of the irony, here: PianoTeq overcomes the many limitations of sample libraries. So what do we do with it? We try to emulate samples...

A break down of P250 Grand Piano 1 sound and related PT3 controls:
P250GP1 sound is pretty clear combination of fundamental + metalic overtones.  So, for each range of keys, if you get the fundamental tone to sound similar, and adjust the amount of metalic content on PT3, it starts to sound similar.

I used mic positioning to change the fundamental tone and imaging to be very clear and very close.  The mic placement also changes the tonality quite a bit obviously, but even with that I couldn't fake it since the basic limitation here is that the base piano is different.  The metalic content can be fine tuned with the hammer hardness.  Initially I tried fiddling with the EQ, but since P250GP1's metalic tone sounds different for different ranges, one EQ setting wouldn't solve it all.  The better solution was to lower the first fundamental in the harmonics mixer which made the sound a lot more lighter, and somewhat closer to P250GP1.

The biggest problem is that P250GP1 sounds quite different depending on the key range.  The bass range is very boomy and heavy, with the metalic content having a very resonant, nasal sound.  The mid high (c3-c5) section is quite mellow in comparison, but bursts with metallic content on the strongest layer.  The higher keys seem to sound pretty much consistent with PT3, so I didn't really spent to much time on it.

For this problem I had to give up, and just concentrate on making sure the piano as a whole reacted similar the P250GP1, relating directly to the hammer hardness settings, and how the scaled up with velocity.  An interesting thing I found was that P250 has more dynamic range than PT3's default setting, which in my opinion makes it sound more fake, but as soon as I increased the dynamic range a bit, it started to feel a lot similar to the way p250 reacted.

Another thing that makes the P250GP1 sound is the strong attack, which comes more from the string.  I thought it was the hammer sample, but listening carefully, it turns out P250GP1's hammer sample isn't too loud.  It's there, but not responsible for the initial "knocking" sort of sound.

This dense "substance" in attack was controlled by direct sound, and impedance.  The direct sound needs to go to the left, to give it a strong fundamental.  And then I slightly lowered the impedance, and lowered the filter cutoff, raised the Q slightly to have the fundamental die out a little quicker than the usual PT3 settings.

The end result.. well, I wouldn't say it's sonically close at all.  But it does "play" in a similar fashion. 

This experiment did yield some very important knowledge.  The big problem for me with many of the PT3 pianos was the weak fundamental around the c3-c4 range, and to bring out the fundamentals was all about the mic positioning.  Particularly the third mic way at the back, gave more body to both the high and lower registers.  So it was mainly tweaking the back mic, and the treble zone mic, to get a strong fundamental.  It's still a little more boomy than I'd like it to be, but a lot better now.

Also, another problem was the metalic overtone on the c3-c4 range, which was easily removed by lowering the hammer hardness a bit.  It did muck up the overall sound, but it took the metalic tone out in medium velocity range.

So anyway, check it out, let me know what you think.  I'm also doing a more non p250 orientated one coming up soon.

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...phones.fxp

Files:
C3 P250 Mic.fxp
M3 P250 Mic.fxp