How cool would it be for Modartt to have a web app of Pianoteq on their website that you could upload .mid's and have them rendered them into .wav's based off of Pianoteq settings.  Haha, well, now that I really think about what I just said, that would probably not be a very good idea.  Studios could just submit their .mid's and have to buy Pianoteq.

But there is nothing like playing it!

Take your time on this purchasing thing - there is nothing more regretful than a rushed decision.

Time spent researching (listening) is time well spent.  To this end, I am replying to your e-mail request (Rhapsody In Blue - in three parts is on its way to you as I write this).

This was rendered in real time using the C3 Binaural preset with some modifications:

String length = 2.90
Impedance = 1.25
Direct Sound = 0.50
Sympathetic Resonance = 3
Dynamics = 40
Headphones centered over the widest part of the soundboard, and vertically at a standing position (just under the lid).

I found the midi file on the internet - can send it if you wish.

There is a sample site (which I can't find now) that has a posted mp3 of Rhapsody In Blue.  The performer has done a good job IMO, but the sample rendering is a bit on the dreadful side (again IMO).

If you prefer classical music, like Beethoven or Chopin, let me know.

Glenn

I've seen and heard too many "knackered old uprights", and I simply refuse to play one.  One of the reasons I like Pianoteq is that it sounds and plays like a very well regulated, voiced, and tuned world class grand piano.  Given a choice between this and a clunker, if you don't mind, I'll pass on the clunker.

No argument there... if it is an "either this or that" situation.  But what some of us want is just the ability to dial in a smidge of knackerness upon occasion.  By all means, I'd like the concert pianists to have the main influence upon the Pianoteqnicians.  It's kind of funny.  Folks talk about the model constantly improving - but this inherently implies moving away from purity and toward (or again, the ability to dial it in) more of the random inconsistencies and vibrations which are part of nature and complex physical structures.  I know this is discussed ad nauseum, but it is at the crux of modeled instrument design and you don't want to get me started on the sad state of alfalfa sprouts....

I find playing pianoteq on the "binaural" output setting whilst wearing headphones is a MUCH more satisfying experience than playing it over loudspeakers -
with speakers, my brain always tells me the sound is not coming from a big wooden contraption in front of my head,
which in binaural mode, it begins to almost believe it

However I'm sure many of us are still longing for the "knackered old upright" piano model with much more creaky rattly wood and dull rubbish strings and dodgy hammers

Personally:

I agree with the Binaural setting - in fact I usually use it for recording a midi to wave - I want the piano to sound like the way I hear it when I'm playing.  As an aside to this, I've never liked the echo (severe reverb) that is produced in a large hard surfaced room - to me it muddles all the notes together (like an organ).

Another feature I like about PT is the clarity of sound - a feature more often found in higher end pianos.  I would define clarity as being able to hear individual notes when many are struck at the same time.

I've seen and heard too many "knackered old uprights", and I simply refuse to play one.

One of the reasons I like Pianoteq is that it sounds and plays like a very well regulated, voiced, and tuned world class grand piano.  Given a choice between this and a clunker, if you don't mind, I'll pass on the clunker.

Glenn

However I'm sure many of us are still longing for the "knackered old upright" piano model with much more creaky rattly wood and dull rubbish strings and dodgy hammers

....Pianoteq to me sounds like a soundboard fixed to a metal harp sitting on four poles in the middle of a room.  Like the perfect laboratory piano and perfect mechanics in every way. ...Why is it that we hold on to certain sounds so tightly that we cannot just accept dynamic sterile sound of the Pianoteq piano? ...Please don't anyone take offense to the fact that I consider the Pianoteq sound to be rather sterile.... It's like there is some kind of complexity that is missing.

It's the wood, the legs, the metal, the floor, the room, the subtle rattle of the entire action -even the bench.  I've actually grown to like my pedal squeak!

Couldn't agree more.  I will post some sound samples soon of some post processing ideas.  It definitely won't please everyone's palate, but all comments will be welcome -well, just don't talk about my ears...

I agree with EvilDragon, thinking it best to add the tube and tape saturation and other plugins later in the chain. Let those plugin developers focus on getting their sounds right, and Pianoteq focus on perfecting their piano. Which, by the way, I bought myself yesterday

Right, which is basically what happens when you run Pianoteq in a host and then run the Pianoteq outputs through plugins after the fact.

Cellomangler,
Interesting what you were saying about the VHT Bass Amp simulator.  There are definitely a lot of options out there.  For what its worth here are some thoughts of mine, please hear me out because I have both critical thoughts and thoughts of praise:
Pianoteq to me sounds like a soundboard fixed to a metal harp sitting on four poles in the middle of a room.  Like the perfect laboratory piano and perfect mechanics in every way.  Pianoteq is what every piano manufacturer has ever dreamed of achieving during the invention and revolution of the piano.  If Pianoteq had been around during the time that Steinway & Sons were making a name for themselves, they would have thrown in the towel, and then perhaps the original Pianoteq version 1 would have been the sound that we all desire to achieve today rather than what we desire today being the Steinway.  Why is it that we hold on to certain sounds so tightly that we cannot just accept dynamic sterile sound of the Pianoteq piano?  What is warm? and what is sterile?  It all has to do with the emotions that are evoked from the sounds that we hear.  Please don't anyone take offense to the fact that I consider the Pianoteq sound to be rather sterile.  That is just my opinion based off of my emotional response to the sound that I hear.  And yes I do have a pair of studio monitors.  Now, moving on:
It's like there is some kind of complexity that is missing.  Like the difference between a sine wave and a flute.  Maybe by having individual control over every note will be distracting enough to keep your mind from picking out the simplicity of the model.  I am not saying that the model is simple by any means, but in light of the complexity of a real piano, the Pianoteq model is very simple.  I desire that Steinway sound, but within Pianoteq.  Because no matter how complicated sampling technologies become, sampling will never produce a living breathing instrument and for that matter neither will virtual modeling.  But aahh, virtual modeling is wonderful!  Thank you Modartt for listening and doing what you do!  You are doing it very well, but like I said before, I am a musician and I desire a particular sound.  I always do hope that the purpose of Modartt is to focus all of it's energies on making the most complete virtual piano.  Bells and whistles are great, but what I really selfishly desire is wonderful pianos.  Keep up the good work.

One important note:
I am here to learn from all of you, and I welcome your thoughts.  I place myself above no one, I only have opinions based off of my experiences.

I agree with EvilDragon, thinking it best to add the tube and tape saturation and other plugins later in the chain. Let those plugin developers focus on getting their sounds right, and Pianoteq focus on perfecting their piano. Which, by the way, I bought myself yesterday

1.  I agree - if that's what you want.  Personally, I like the sound as it is, and with the binaural/mic placement, can get a sound I'm quite satisfied with.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is very good, and I think better than anything else.

2.  Congratulations on the acquisition of Pianoteq - the better one understands the adjustments, the better it sounds.  I've been converting some midi files from the internet to wave for my daughter (she's a Chopin fan), and they sound very clear.  When I listen to sample demos from sample library sites, I cringe when I hear them.

It's my personal (and likely biased) perception that if one has played a grand piano extensively, and is attuned to the nuances that a grand piano produces, hearing samples render the same selection can be a dreadful experience.

Glenn

...What I really want though, is the sound you would get from a recording studio.  After all, that is the sound that we all hear on all the great music recordings that come out of studios.  It is that type of sound that I would like to see Modart work on next.  It is that type of sound that will cause the masses to buy Pianoteq without hesitation.  I have tried putting it inside of convolution reverbs such as Apple's "Spaces", but I still cannot seem to get it right.  I will continue to work with it whenever I have the time.  You know, I bet if I played Pianoteq though a pair of studio monitors on a wooden floor completely dry inside of a nice sounding room it would be pretty impressive.  But for live stage performance, who wants to go back to micing the piano again?  Ha, maybe we should!

What you want, I believe, is what I think I want, and that is an additional post process that adds "mic modeling" to the output.  So that you are not only adding reverb and early reflections but also clean tube saturation, tape saturation -any number of processes used in a recording studio to add meat to the sound before bits or tape.  There are audio plugins that offer this and, not being a purist, I've been trying things like a sans amp VHT bass amp simulator pedal -which I really want to actually apply via footpedal control on hard fortissimo.  But I believe this is the difference between Pianoteq and those studio recordings.  And we really don't want Pianoteq to be processed like that initially, but if some of that were available as a post process within Pianoteq, we probably could take advantage of it.  But it's so subjective and I wouldn't want to derail Modartt's main objective.

tbrim,

I think the per-note adjustments will make a big difference.  In a real piano, the hammer hardness and voicing are not consistent across all keys.

couldn't agree more.  And it's not the "imperfection" stuff, a lot of it is by design.

You make it sound as if the models in Pianoteq are already complex enough to bring any typical computer to it's knees, and that the models have been simplified for our use.

This is, essentially, true.

The model is so complicated that it cannot be fully computed in real time (on a PC anyway) -- I guess the number of coupled resonance could run into thousands, the time-dependent behaviour of each has to be worked out. So there are presets, which embody a chosen set of constants for some of the variables of the mathematical model. That way, parts of the intermediate computation can be fast-forwarded. In the future, as computing power on your desk or lap increases, so fewer parts of the model need rely on preset features, and the organic quality of the sound will increase.

You make it sound as if the models in Pianoteq are already complex enough to bring any typical computer to it's knees, and that the models have been simplified for our use.

On a side note, I wonder if it is possible that the Pro version will allow us to decide between different levels of complexity in the models which would allow people with not so capable computers to use the simple models, and those of us who have capable computers to really start utilizing the many idle processes on our multiple core cpu's.  Boy wouldn't that be nice.

Does anyone in this forum have opinions or fxp's on what they think is a Yamaha, and what they think is a Steinway?