This is a long thread, and I have not read all of the responses; if this solution is mentioned elsewhere, then please accept my apology for repeating something already mentioned.

Please take a look at your "limiter" settings.  By chance, is your limiter cutting back too much, such that, it begins limiting the signal when the loudness is only f or ff --- which means that the harder you play, the harder it clamps down the sound?

I find that, by raising the onset of limiting to, say -4 db instead of -12db, and then increasing the "sharpness" control, such that when it does kick in (at much closer to the overload point), the limiter more severely works on these precariously high peaks.

Hopefully this might offer some insight to getting more "-issimo" out of your double- and triple fortes.

Cheers,

Joe  <jcfelice88keys>

not only do i alter the dynamic range to 65, but i also reduce string size to 201cm to mimic a steinway a grand model D. also, to get the greatest dynamic range out of my keyboard i set the touch response to the softest available.

i've just found with my CP33 that i can achieve full dynamic range by either
1. set the controller velocity curve to "soft" and move the left part of the Pianoteq velocity curve in to give more realistic access to the pp/ppp sounds
OR
2. set the controlle rvelocity curve to "hard" and move the right part of the Pianoteq velocity curve in to give more realistic access to the ff/fff sounds

I still love the C3 and M3, both for the default presets and how they sound with edits. I'm still exploring what they can do, and I don't think I'll exhaust their possibilities any time soon.

Try playing harder than ff and you'll quickly exhaust their possibilities.

Sorry to sound like such a cheerleader. (Let me find my pom-poms...)

If the midrange sounds off, have you tried using EQ along with moving the head slightly in the binaural versions? You can do a lot towards editing the midrange this way, while still keeping the bass and treble good.

(If the head is to the far right, moving it vertically emphasizes different frequencies and octaves, since the movement changes which reflections from the lid most directly strike the ears. If the head is near the center of the keyboard, moving it slightly to the left brings out more midrange and bass. I've read that some people don't like the degree to which small shifts in the head or mics create huge changes in the sound, but I for one like this arrangement--it give us wide variations in the sound. It may also reflect reality--a combination of the proximity effect on mics and the change to single thick strings in the bass may have a similar effect in recording a real piano.)

Regardless, what sounds off about the midrange on some particular presets? Can you describe the sound? Have you tried EQ to change the amplitude of middle freqs?

Which brings me to another suggestion I made during beta testing... they should offer presets for the harmonics. They'd know far better than 99% of us how to adjust the harmonics to achieve certain sounds. We could still make our own adjustments.

I've played with PT3 quite a bit now, and the only effect that I'm really missing in the standalone version is a compressor.  You can totally change the feel of a piano with one, and I really think it should be added.

It wouldn't need to be a particularly complex compressor - even the most basic by-the-numbers implementation would allow you to vastly change the feel of the recorded-type sounds.  People can of course use much more sophisticated compressors in their hosts, but having one in the standalone would vastly expand the sonic palette (and you could have some great presets for particular styles of piano recordings).

Update: to be clear, I think that deliberately compressed sounds (ie. not just reducing dynamic range but actual noticable compression effects) would actually enhance the solo experience too.  Others have done this, for example emulating the sound & mood of particular classic recordings.

If/when you try the FXP, you'll probably think that the overtones don't decay in a natural way, but I still think it's a usable sound. (for a hyper-metallic kind of sound, anyway)  With the soundboard opened up all the way like that, Q-factor doesn't seem to have any effect (which is understandable), so I adjusted impedance and direct-sound-duration.  I suspect that I should have experimented some more with the cutoff at a lower frequency.

Yes, I do feel like I'm reaching a point of diminishing returns regarding adjustments. 

Just btw, when I first tried Pianoteq, I couldn't imagine ever wanting more in a piano sound. I'd never heard a digital piano "sing" like that, and I thought "they've done it".  But now, I do want more detail, more fidelity.

I've just listened to another V-Piano demo which an owner posted  over at Harmony-Central.  During that demo, the sound ranged from sounding worse than my first electronic piano (a Roland EP30 which I presume used a bank of oscillators and filters), to sounding very, very good. Due to the bad part sounding as bad as it does, I think Pianoteq is in front, and that's pretty amazing considering Roland's resources.  Interesting times indeed.

Greg.

Two things I often find make an enormous difference in the sound are very small adjustments to the head or mics (often moving them to the left or up\down to let in more midrange and bass), and very small adjustments to the reverb, particularly for "close-up" perspectives, to get the first reflection to come in when I want. There's an old acoustic principle that says that if the first reflection appears before about ten milliseconds (I believe this is the correct number...), it will be perceived as part of the original sound. Playing around with just how small the room size is, and thus where that first reflection appears--before the unison detuning or at it or right after it, for example (which means editing both the Unison detuning and the Direct duration parameters in conjunction with the reverb room size--and how loud the reflection is when it arrives using the Mix parameter), can completely change what's heard as the timbre  of the note itself. Playing around with these parameters for a few seconds may get you closer to the sound that you want. (May, I say. May, may...)

But I'm interested in hearing what you're hearing. Are there specific notes at specific velocities in particular presets that have a sound that is off? Sorry if I seem like I'm trying to pin you down. That's not my intention at all. I'm just wondering if there is a cause to the sound that you hear and an adjustment that will make it closer to what you want.  Or we may be just getting into the realm of de gustibus non disputum...But try the reverb adjustments and see what you think.

(I haven't had the chance to try your fxp. I'm headed out of town in a few minutes, and it may be another day or two before I have the chance.)

Greg.

Greg.
p.s Hope I didn't blow your tweeters with my metallic preset.

It's possible that the *density* of these high frequencies isn't as high as I'm hearing in some of my piano samples, though. By that,  I mean that the piano samples almost have a "hiss" sound, due to the sheer amount of high frequency energy. In Pianoteq, I think I can hear those same high frequencies now, but they're sort of spaced out more in frequency, if that makes any sense.

Here's a very metallic (and still very expressive IMHO) C3 preset:
http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...c64b83c828

Greg.
p.s Jake - sorry - I see that you meant an *existing* canned preset - I was in a rush.

Greg.

Greg.
p.s Jake - still haven't tried your FXP.

IMHO *part* of the problem might also be one of frequency response. It simply sounds to me like Pianoteq isn't producing the very high frequencies that give a real piano the "shine", especially in the attacks.

As I've said before - I don't perceive this limitation in the CP80. I fell in love with the CP80 emulation immediately.

Greg.

Have suggested more than once that Pianoteq let us run the model at 96k  
I am intrigued to know what would happen with that extra octave of sound in there. (And yes, I know my cochlea can't hear it by itself - but I suspect it can hear the interactions it has with the octave underneath)