Amen Ptah Ra wrote:

If you really have to have unlimited polyphony within the digital realm,  I suggest you look into the modeling technology incorporated inside Roland Corp. LX700 series digital pianos: Roland LX700 Series Digital Pianos.

If I thought there was a problem with polyphony, I'd get a Dexibell Vivo S9, not a Roland. Thankfully, I do not, because neither of them has a good enough action for my tastes.

If ever you want to use your present keyboard as a controller to Dexibell internal sounds, ThePianoMan may have a deal, currently, that peaks your interests  —whether or not you’ve a problem with the idea of unlimited polyphony.

https://youtu.be/sxMgPDQ7OBY

A buffer of 1024 would likely be waaay too much for our hardware specs for playing purposes - certainly fine for glitch free playback of Liszt MIDI though.

That said, definitely do still suggest trying out a click higher on buffer, perhaps from 512 up to 576 (bringing 12ms here)?

Would be interested if it solves that particular passage's difficulties. I can enjoy higher latency, between 10.7 to 15ms for some physical rhythmic playing but with Liszt?? Well, not so sure higher latency would be quite the golden bullet Hoping though, of course.

Yes indeed, the Steingraeber is such a extraordinary instrument. I like your description of a gold sound. I feel it's descriptive and understood in few words. Would love to play an acoustic one some day - and the Grotrian too, also much loved.

Wishing the best, happy Liszt-ing sandalholm!

Thanks for the thought re changing buffers etc. Not thought of that. 10.7 ms PT latency is fine for me, maybe the overall latency is not so different from acoustic grands. (Playing acoustics outweighs playing digitals by factor of more than 6:1)

my machine specs seem similar - when I'm not requiring less than 10ms latency (focused playing/recording) I will set the buffer to 1024. That allows a great deal more room to continue mixing tracks, adding plugins etc.

I find that no matter the Pianoteq piano/preset, complex Liszt is a great benchmark MIDI playback test

Then if I want to re-focus on recording a certain new track or whatever else, I'll set the buffer back to 512 for the lower latency. When done, back to 1024 to avoid Liszt type complexity from causing any pops and clicks.

Some day, I'll update hardware at home but hopefully, we can still enjoy the C. Bechstein DG without that for now.

Sincerely hope that is the key to your dilemma. Makes me to think you rule that piano out - but would make for a big if that solves it.

Sorry to all those at Modartt: it's the reason why I haven't added the Bechstein!

Amen Ptah Ra wrote:

If you really have to have unlimited polyphony within the digital realm,  I suggest you look into the modeling technology incorporated inside Roland Corp. LX700 series digital pianos: Roland LX700 Series Digital Pianos.

If I thought there was a problem with polyphony, I'd get a Dexibell Vivo S9, not a Roland. Thankfully, I do not, because neither of them has a good enough action for my tastes.

I don't see Pianoteq having a problem with polyphony but rather wanted to know if 256 was sufficient for an extreme scenario like a piano duet or super heavy bass tremolo stuff. Having given this more thought and with the forum input I now think the 128 polyphony 'area' is where polyphony seems to peak in most heavy pieces, but with a 256 setting for 'polyphonic headroom' (only term I can think of here). This though would leave me with a question, 'Is 128 polyphony (general peak playing area) with a 256 setting for headroom sufficient to give an 'infinite polyphonic feel'? The words 'infinite feel' might be better as 'unrestricted polyphonic feel' or something but I was trying to emphasise the point.

Although I am a Sci-Fi fan I believe the above to be more in the real world and actually this is how my PC and software are presently performing.

If you really have to have unlimited polyphony within the digital realm,  I suggest you look into the modeling technology incorporated inside Roland Corp. LX700 series digital pianos: Roland LX700 Series Digital Pianos.

If I thought there was a problem with polyphony, I'd get a Dexibell Vivo S9, not a Roland. Thankfully, I do not, because neither of them has a good enough action for my tastes.

Actually I imagine many people have long sold on their more modest real world grand pianos because it couldn't compete with Pianoteq which presents piano sound optimally.

I truly am at a lost for words.

While I anxiously await something in the form of a response from aWc, I want to put in a word or two about the view that somehow a glissando (by entries to this thread) has been deemed impracticable and unmusical if ever performed on a piano keyboard.  Supposedly, the longer and more complex, the more unmusical it is!

I like to say, snobbery and real music appreciation ain’t ever gonna be bed fellows  —no matter how much you protest.

Music from Little Richard and rockabilly artists is music indeed whether or not you’re too high strung to enjoy it.  They’ve performed a glissando or two and have made a living from them!  Although, Pianoteq polyphony is polyphony limited.

I’m sticking by my initial post to this thread, my own assertion.

And, I’m doing so irrespective of the number of times aWc or anybody else tries either to badger or intimidate a poster from any syllable of his conviction!

you also wrote: "My posts are self explanatory, as I do post those as I like!"

...whatever that means...One problem is that I DON'T find your posts self explanatory. I am probably not smart enough. And I like Little Richard just fine. I have no intention of starting a flame war with you, even if you called me a snob and "high strung". I should know better and just skip over

Did a test on Pianoteq using 1 microphone (mono mode) and wasn't surprised that the polyphony would be the same as in a recording (stereo= 2 mics) but was surprised that NO mics still has the same polyphony (but no sound obviously).

The polyphony is based on the piano model (main note and any sympathetic resonances that have been modelled within the limitations of an average home computer's CPU capabilities in real-time) not the external microphone models.  Hence it is unsurprising that the computer continues to model the piano if you have not told it not to do so.
At least that's my layman's understanding.

I speak only for myself, but when I count up the number of "notes" in a measure (of the literature that *I* play) the number is quite small.
I don't play many 1/64th notes, 1/32nd., or even 1/16th.notes for that matter.
Then if I look across a few bars ....there really aren't many that I want still sounding at the same time - i.e. I lift the pedal if I want it to sound at all "musical".

{Forgotten quote about the importance of the space BETWEEN the notes }

I take it as a given that an implicit goal of Pianoteq is to emulate wooden pianos and PART of that emulation includes some of the limitations (often described as "character") of those pianos.  Again , a Soundboard is a board.

If I wanted a mere MIDI mill I would be looking for one, it would be something very different to Pianoteq.

===================
Beware spec wars.
A lot of things digital follow Moore's Law and that leads marketeers to boast another power of two every couple of years.
Many times that "improvement" is meaningless.
It seems no small coincidence that polyphony is often spec'd as some power of two.

dapperdave, though some kind of intellectual rapport is a happening amongst the relatively math savvy at Piano World, right now I see myself as sort of busy.

You know much possibly is up for discussions at just this thread alone.

People need some clarification at this public forum  —with myself included!

As I see it, mathematician developers seek to imbue er ordain a bunch of silicon connected to wires, plastic, rubber, and metals with human emotions and characteristics pessimistic and optimistic, two characteristic of human beings  —and usually reserved for such, people!

Possibly, you’ll enlighten any left in the dark about the application of the terms Pessimistic and Optimistic from MODARTT  —but how they pertain to software, specifically.

I have read the manual: 

You might want to take a look at the discussion pertaining to polyphony (Roland and Pianoteq in particular) at http://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads....19/1.html. It goes on for, at the time of this posting, 3 pages. From a technical perspective, "limitless" is not possible, nor even particularly meaningful. "Infinity" (implicit in the term "limitless") is a concept that may have meaning only in the realm of mathematics. As to whether Pianoteq is indeed limited to 256 voice polyphony, that may or may not be true. The Pianoteq folks may well have set the limit in the GUI to 256 based upon that being an amount likely to cover most piano music playing. It clearly would not be adequate to cover the many layers that can be assembled with a DAW. The models Pianoteq uses may not have such a polyphony limit. The fact that the polyphony may be set to a very low number in Pianoteq lends credence to the notion that the major concern with polyphony from their perspective pertained to such issues as latency, directly tied in to computer capabilities.

I like to say, snobbery and real music appreciation ain’t ever gonna be bed fellows  —no matter how much you protest.

Music from Little Richard and rockabilly artists is music indeed whether or not you’re too high strung to enjoy it.  They’ve performed a glissando or two and have made a living from them!  Although, Pianoteq polyphony is polyphony limited.

I’m sticking by my initial post to this thread, my own assertion.

And, I’m doing so irrespective of the number of times aWc or anybody else tries either to badger or intimidate a poster from any syllable of his conviction!