From the technical point of view, if the recording made for C. Bechsteins was goode enough for pianoteq demands to analyze sound to modeling process, plus the real piano measurements, it must be no problem.
But most people probably can't split it, and may believe pianoteq version can only be closer to the already digital version made in 2016, forgetting about the ability to create the countless nuances and ressonances interaction of a real grand piano.
EvilDragon wrote:It is probably not even the same Bechstein D282 piano that was used for Kontakt library that was used as a reference for the Pianoteq model.
Hm, but the new PTQ instrument is called "C. Bechstein Digital Grand" and NOT "C. Bechstein D 282" or so
The text here:
https://www.pianoteq.com/bechstein
is not perfectly clear, but it refers to: "captured by the acclaimed Teldex Recording studio in Berlin"
so it actually should be a modelling based on the Digital Grand Samples, not - directly - based on any acoustic D282
aWc wrote:Can you elaborate about how the Pianoteq version "feels more responsive"? Do you mean velocity response?
Hm, hard to describe. Of course the velocity curve is of utmost importance,
i've been adjusting it a lot, both in Kontakt as in Pianoteq until the instruments "feels"
about the same as my acoustic piano.
But still Pianoteq "feels" a bit more "real" in terms of responsiveness,
especially when using the pedal. I can't explain that better.....It may also have to do with the immense hardware requirements of the Bechstein samples,
they are 30 GB or so of data.... and they bring even a fast computer soon to it's limits,
when selecting a full preset. There are some slightely crippled presets, that work more flawlessly,
however, still in terms of depth of sound somewhat ahead of PTQ.
To better describe your impression, would it be possible to do in the heading "file others" an upload of an mp3 file containing a short excerpt played with each of the 2 pianos (naturally trying to highlight the best, with this same extract, the qualities of each of the two virtual instruments?) (by specifying also the preset used and the possible transformations, as well as the shape of the curve of velocity)
]]>Can you elaborate about how the Pianoteq version "feels more responsive"? Do you mean velocity response?
Hm, hard to describe. Of course the velocity curve is of utmost importance,
i've been adjusting it a lot, both in Kontakt as in Pianoteq until the instruments "feels"
about the same as my acoustic piano.
But still Pianoteq "feels" a bit more "real" in terms of responsiveness,
especially when using the pedal. I can't explain that better.....
It may also have to do with the immense hardware requirements of the Bechstein samples,
they are 30 GB or so of data.... and they bring even a fast computer soon to it's limits,
when selecting a full preset. There are some slightely crippled presets, that work more flawlessly,
however, still in terms of depth of sound somewhat ahead of PTQ.
If you have the Pro version, you can deepen the sound by setting:
Voicing:
Set slider number [8] to [0.01] or [0.02] etc.
Ah, thanks, very interesting, I will try that now!
And that's why I asked for a preset that can be compared out of the box to the Bechstein Kontakt ones
]]>I just made a quick comparison between the original and the new Pianoteq 6.4 implementation.
IMHO there still is a huge difference, especially in terms of richness, color and depth of tone in favor of the original.
While Pianoteq, of course, feels much more responsive.
Can you elaborate about how the Pianoteq version "feels more responsive"? Do you mean velocity response?
]]>You cannot expect identical sounding model to Kontakt patches. Microphone positions are very likely very differently set up between the two - and microphones themselves would be different, too. It is probably not even the same Bechstein D282 piano that was used for Kontakt library that was used as a reference for the Pianoteq model. There are way too many differring factors that it's not an apples to apples comparison. Nor it could ever be.
It is the very same.
And both versions are exquisitely unique. Simply wonderful playing both.
I just rechecked through my high end hifi rack, with an excellent DAC, a very good valve headphone amp and a Sennheiser HD 700:
no change, the original sampled Bechstein still way ahead the PTQ one, the latter sounding thin and over-brilliant in direct comparison
ok, the latter can be changed by EQ, however, I cannot image how to "deepen" the PTQ tone by any settings
If you have the Pro version, you can deepen the sound by setting:
Voicing:
Set slider number [8] to [0.01] or [0.02] etc.
Design:
Impedance: [0.95] etc.
Output: Action:
Damper Position: [1/10.0] or [1/11.0] etc.
Damping Duration: [1.20] or [1.30] etc.
It is probably not even the same Bechstein D282 piano that was used for Kontakt library that was used as a reference for the Pianoteq model.
Hm, but the new PTQ instrument is called "C. Bechstein Digital Grand" and NOT "C. Bechstein D 282" or so
The text here:
https://www.pianoteq.com/bechstein
is not perfectly clear, but it refers to: "captured by the acclaimed Teldex Recording studio in Berlin"
so it actually should be a modelling based on the Digital Grand Samples, not - directly - based on any acoustic D282
So I guess it's imported, as always, to adapt the PTQ sound to the soundsystem used, EQ, velocity etc.
Hm, I have a RME Fireface UCX USB audio interface and a Sennheiser HD599 headphones,
so I guess that's not too bad in terms of sound, I don't think it's merely EQ.
And the velocity I have already adjusted in Kontakt that it feels almost the same as in Pianoteq